'Show Us Any Single Judicial Complex Constructed' : Supreme Court Slams Punjab Govt For Poor Investment On Judicial Infrastructure

The Supreme Court on Friday (November 14) refused to entertain the Punjab government's challenge to the High Court order, which directed that its guest houses currently occupied by the Deputy Commissioner (DC) and Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) in Malerkotla, be vacated and allotted to the District Judge for official and residential use.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi asked the petitioners to show their bonafide before the High Court and allowed them to make a prayer for extension of time on Monday.

During the hearing, Justice Kant expressed strong displeasure at the fact that the State government has not spent anything in the last 15 years towards judicial infrastructure. "What is wrong with the High Court order? How much have you spent on judicial infrastructure?", questioned the judge.

State Advocate General Maninderjit Singh Bedi defended that all demands that were raised by the High Court were complied. However, Justice Kant retorted, "Show us a single project in State of Punjab regarding construction of a new judicial complex or infrastructure you have completed".

Subsequently, the judge questioned as to when Malerkotla was declared a district. "In 2021", replied the Advocate General, while adding that it was notified by the High Court in 2024.

Later, Senior Advocate Dr AM Singhvi appeared for petitioners and contended "this is not a fair comment by the High Court, with great respect". Disagreeing, Justice Kant said, "it's absolutely fair comment. You don't know what is happening in Punjab. We are struggling hard. They don't even allocate a site for construction of judicial courtrooms. They have enough money to spend on so many other things! If we order an enquiry, they will realize it. Our officers, poor fellows, they live in old houses."

"This order is [in terrorem]. Give a better house, your police officer will get back his house," added Justice Bagchi.

Displeased with the state government, Justice Kant further remarked, "What was the business to declare a revenue district only for political appeasement? When they know infrastructure is not created. Everytime you have a fair idea that you require a house for your SSP...but you don't require a house for a Sessions Judge?"

When Singhvi pointed out that 5 judicial residences, as per Building Committee record, exist and are occupied, the judge exclaimed, "why don't you give those to your officers? You give your Deputy Commissioner and SSP those houses. Then they will realize!"

Subsequently, Singhvi submitted that steps to do the needful are underway and only time is required. In response, Justice Kant said that the petitioners may show their bonafide before the High Court. "You ask them that a single judicial court complex they have constructed in State of Punjab from the last 15 years?" the judge again posed to Singhvi.

Adding to the above, Justice Bagchi noted that construction of judicial complexes/residences is under centrally-sponsored schemes and the difficulty is faced not only in Punjab, but rather across many other states. "Matching grant from the state is not coming and because of that schemes are stalled", the judge said.

"If we order an enquiry in Punjab, they would already have consumed this grant for any other purpose. That 60% central grant has also not been spent!" commented Justice Kant.

At this point, Justice Bagchi opined that there should now be minimum budgetary allocation for the judiciary. "Time has perhaps come for the prescription of a minimum budgetary allocation in the state and central budgets for judiciary. It's not even 1% of the GDP", the judge observed.

Ultimately, dismissing the case as withdrawn, the bench allowed the petitioners to approach the High Court on Monday for modification of its order, alongwith a status report and proposal.

Case Title: STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. Versus DISTRICT BAR ASSOCIATION MALERKOTLA, SLP(C) No. 32888/2025