BRIJ MOHAN LAL versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] 3 S.C.R. 103 · Decided: 31-03-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA, S.H. KAPADIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

BRIJ MOHAN LAL 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
MARCH 31, 2005 
[S.B. SINHA AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
B 
Administration of Justice : 
Fast Track Courts Scheme-Recommended by XI Finance Commission-
Continuation of-Joint conference of Chief Ministers and Chief Justices C 
resolving that scheme be continued for a period of 5 years beyond 3 I. 3. 2005-
Held, all accused are entitled to speedy justice in terms of Article 2 I of the 
Constitution-Speedy justice is an obligation of the State-Administration of 
justice is a State subject-Maintenance of Fast Track Courts has to be looked 
after by the States-They cannot disown their responsibility of providing speedy D 
justice by pleading financial crunch-At the same time Union of India and the 
States are expected to treat this as a joint-venture, particularly in providing 
funds to the States-Since the Court has repeatedly been assured that the 
scheme would continue, Union of India is directed to continue the Scheme for 
a period of one month pending hearing and disposal of the writ petition-The E 
unspent amount lying with the Central Government would not lapse on 
31.3.2005-Meanwhile Union of India and the States would furnish the 
information as mentioned in the order-Constitution of India-Article 21-
Fast Track Courts-Continuation of 
All India Judges' Association and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. , F 
(2002) 4 sec 247, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Transferred Case 
(C) No. 22 of 200 l. 
WITH 
T.C. (C) No. 23/2001, S.L.P. (C) Nos. 7870, 10645/2001 and W.P. (C) 
No. 140 of 2005. 
G.E. Vahanwati, Solicitor General, A. Sharan, Additional, Solicitor 
103 
G 
H 
104 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2005] 3 S.C.R. 
A General, Rajiv Dutta, Chander Shekhar Ashri, S. Ravi Shankar, R.Yamunah 
Nachiar, Ms. Sunita Sharma, D.S. Mehra, Ms. Varuna Bhandari Gugnani, P. 
Parmeswaran, P.S. Narasimha, Ananga Bhattacharya, Vijay Kumar, Vishwajit 
Singh , Ashok Bhan, Ms. Sunita. Sharma, Ms. Anil Katiyar, Tara Chandra 
Sharma, Ms. Neelam Sharma, Tarun Sharma, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Shomila 
B Bakshi, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Mrs. Sadhna Sandhu, Ashok K. Srivastava 
Saurabh Trivedi, Janaranjan Das, Swetakeatu Mishra, Ms. Moushumi Gahlot, 
Ms. Smrutirekha Mohant)i, Amit Pawan, Amit Kumar, Subramonium Prasad, 
Gopalakrishnan, Abhay Kumar, Rahul Jay Kishor Singh, Kh. Nobin Singh, 
V.G. Pragasam, Gopal Singh, Rituraj Biswas, R.K. Rathore, Addi. Advocate 
General for State of Punjab, A.K. Sinha, Manjit Singh, Radha Shyam Jena, 
C Dileep Tandon, Rani P. Mehrotra, Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Addi. Advocte 
general, for State of Uttranchal, K.K. Srivastava, S.K. Agnihotari, Rohit K .. 
Singh, Amit Mishra, Ms. Suprana Srivastava, Ms. Deepti Singh, Rajesh 
Srivastava, Ms. A. Subhashini, Aruneshwar Gupta, Addi. Advocate General 
for State of Rajasthan, Naveen Kumar, Ms. Shivangi, U. Hazaika, Satya 
D Mitra, Ms. Sumita Hazarika, Ms. Krishana Sarma, V.K. Sidharthan, Atul 
Kumar, A. Mariarputham, Ms. Aruna Mathur, Ramesh Babu M.R., B.B. Singh, 
Ashok Mathur, Ranjan Mukherjee, Altaf H. Naiyak, AG, for J&K Anis 
Suhrawardy, Ms. Shamamma Anis, Sanjay R. Hegde, Anil K. Mishra, A. 
Rohen Singh, Anil Srivastava, Mrs. D. Bharthi Reddy, B. Vikas, Ms. Sneha 
Bhaskaran, K. Ram Kumar, B. Sridhar, J.S. Attri, Addi. Advocate General 
E for State of H.P., Ms. Supama Srivastava, Rahul Srivastava, Rajesh Srivastava, 
Ms. Deepti Singh, Mrs. Rachna Gupta, Prashant Bhushan, V.N. Raghpathy, 
Javed Mahmud Rao, Annam, D.N. Rao, T.V. Ratnam B.S. Banthia, Mrs. 
V.D. Khanna, Raj Kumar Mehta, M.N. Sharma, Mrs. Revathy Raghavan, J.P. 
Dhanda and Mukesh K. Giri, Advs. with them for the appearing parties. 
F 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
The Fast Track Courts Scheme was recommended by the Xlth Finance 
Commission for setting up 1734 Courts to dispose of long pending cases, 
particularly on the criminal side in the subordinate judiciary. In that regard, 
G Rs. 502.90 crores was allocated. The allocations recommended by the Xlth 
Finance Commission covered the period 2000-01 to 2004-05. 
By affidavit dated 8th July, 2004 filed on behalf of Union of India, this 
Court was informed that the matter of continuation of the above Scheme 
beyond five years has been taken up with Xllth Finance Commission. By the 
H said affidavit, this Court was further informed that the Law Ministry had 
BRIJ MOHAN LAL v. U.0.1. 
105 
written a letter on 17.4.2003 to the Chairperson of the Xllth Finance A 
Commission to favourably cons
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.