SUBHASIS CHAKRAVORTY Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A very difficult and complex question has been raised in this public interest litigation as to whether the Subordinate Judiciary in the entire State of Meghalaya should be separated from the Executive by an appropriate writ or direction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) The petitioner is a practising Advocate of Shillong and is a Member of the Shillong Bar Association. He is also the Secretary of the said Bar Association. He has filed this writ petition in the interest of general public of the State of Meghalaya. He has stated in the writ petition that in the State of Meghalaya, the Subordinate Judiciary has not been separated from the Executive, and administration of justice has been entrusted to the Deputy Commissioners and their Assistants except in 3 Wards of Shillong, namely, General Ward, Police Bazar Ward and European Ward popularly referred to as Normal Shillong. In the area referred to as Normal Shillong, Judicial Officers who are trained Law Graduates and who have been appointed on the recommendations of the High Court carry on administration of justice and the High Court has control over these Judicial Officers. But in the rest of Meghalaya, the High Court has no control over the Deputy Commissioners and their Assistants carrying on administration of justice. The Deputy Commissioners and their Assistants administering justice in rest of the State of Meghalaya are appointed by the State Government and they carry on administration of justice in accordance with the Rules for Administration of Justice made by the Governor. As a result, while the people of Normal Shillong get the benefit of independent Judiciary, people in the rest of the State of Meghalaya do not enjoy such benefit of independent judiciary. It is further alleged in the writ petition that the Deputy Commissioners and their Assistants to whom administration of justice has been entrusted in the rest of the State of Meghalaya are primarily engaged with other duties relating to law and order and administration and judicial work is not given priority causing immense suffering to the litigant public. The petitioner has, therefore, prayed for a writ or direction on the respondents for separating the Subordinate Judiciary in the State of Meghalaya from the Executive in the areas in which it has not been separated.

(3.) Considering the importance of the issue raised in this public interest litigation, this Court impleaded the Union of India as a party and further directed that copy of the writ petition be served on the Advocate General of all the seven States of the North-Eastern Region by order dated 20.8.1997 so that the Court can hear the counsel for the Union of India and the Advocate General of all the seven States on the issue of separation of Subordinate Judiciary. Thereafter, pursuant to the said order, copies of the writ petition were served on the Union of India and the Advocate General of all the seven States, and the matter was heard.