Case Study of Judicial Appointments in India
Judicial Appointments For Fast Track Courts
2002 Under Article 139 - A of the Constitution of India 06.05.2002
Brij Mohan Lal Vs. Union of India and Other s With T.C. (C) No. 23 / 2001. SLP (C) No. 7870.10645 of 2001 and T.P. (C) No. 407 - 410 of 2001
Case Summary
A case relating to the establishment and functioning of Fast Track Courts, which came into existence for the speedy disposal of long pending Sessions cases. The Eleventh Finance Commission allocated Rs.502.90 crores under the Constitution of India, for the purpose of setting up of 1734 Courts in various States of the country to deal with longstanding cases.
The conflict arose on the matter of appointment of judges to these Fast Track Courts. While allocation of funds made by the Finance Commission stipulated time bound utilization within a period of five years, the onus of establishing and operationalizing this process fell upon the various State Governments. The directives of the Finance Commission suggested that the States could consider re-employment of retired judges for limited period, for the disposal of pending cases. The Fast track Courts were to be ad hoc ie they would not be a permanent addition to the number of Courts within a particular State. The petitioner[] challenged the Scheme known as the Fast Track Courts Scheme on the ground that there was no constitutional sanction for employment of retired judges and effective guidelines were not in operation. Also brought to fore was the fact that infrastructural facilities were not available to make the Fast Track Scheme a reality, with several such deficiencies being pointed out. The appellant made a plea that instead of retired officers, eligible members of the Bar should be considered for appointment.
While the Union of India stated that there was no mandatory requirement for appointment of retired Sessions/Additional Sessions Judges or other officers for the newly created posts , with it allowing for possible ad hoc promotion
2002 Under Article 139 - A of the Constitution of India 06.05.2002
Brij Mohan Lal Vs. Union of India and Other s With T.C. (C) No. 23 / 2001. SLP (C) No. 7870.10645 of 2001 and T.P. (C) No. 407 - 410 of 2001
Case Summary
A case relating to the establishment and functioning of Fast Track Courts, which came into existence for the speedy disposal of long pending Sessions cases. The Eleventh Finance Commission allocated Rs.502.90 crores under the Constitution of India, for the purpose of setting up of 1734 Courts in various States of the country to deal with longstanding cases.
The conflict arose on the matter of appointment of judges to these Fast Track Courts. While allocation of funds made by the Finance Commission stipulated time bound utilization within a period of five years, the onus of establishing and operationalizing this process fell upon the various State Governments. The directives of the Finance Commission suggested that the States could consider re-employment of retired judges for limited period, for the disposal of pending cases. The Fast track Courts were to be ad hoc ie they would not be a permanent addition to the number of Courts within a particular State. The petitioner[] challenged the Scheme known as the Fast Track Courts Scheme on the ground that there was no constitutional sanction for employment of retired judges and effective guidelines were not in operation. Also brought to fore was the fact that infrastructural facilities were not available to make the Fast Track Scheme a reality, with several such deficiencies being pointed out. The appellant made a plea that instead of retired officers, eligible members of the Bar should be considered for appointment.
While the Union of India stated that there was no mandatory requirement for appointment of retired Sessions/Additional Sessions Judges or other officers for the newly created posts , with it allowing for possible ad hoc promotion