IN RE: ZILA ADHIVAKTA SANGH ALLAHABAD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CONTROL , administration and separation of the district judiciary is a constitutional obligation of the High Courts.

(2.) IN the recent past, there has been spurt of incidents resulting in the obstruction and derailment of work both in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and in the District Courts across the State. These incidents have a direct impact on the functioning of the judiciary and the ability of the institution to efficiently discharge its constitutional obligation of rendering justice to litigants. Apart from the dislocation of work in the District Courts and in the High Court, a series of incidents has come to light where the security of the District Courts has been seriously compromised. Courts across the State are visited each day by thousands of lawyers, litigants and by the members of the public. Officials of the State come to Court in the discharge of their official duties. The safety of all these stakeholders and of the staff and judges of the Court are of paramount concern. In view of the supervening circumstances and having due regard to the gravity of the situation in the state in the past several months, we have considered it appropriate to take recourse to the suo motu jurisdiction of this Court in the public interest so that the entire matter can be considered in a holistic perspective and appropriate directions can be issued.

(3.) AT the outset, it would be necessary to advert to the decision of the Supreme Court in Ex -Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India and another : AIR 2003 SC 739, decided on 17 December 2002. The law which has been laid down by the Supreme Court is summarized in the following extract from the decision: