# DELHI BAR ASSOCIATION 't" v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

- **Citation:** [2008] 8 S.C.R. 898
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2008-05-15
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/delhi-bar-association-t-v-union-of-india-ors-24782
- **Pages:** 43

## Headnote

·- 12ooara-s--:-c.R-:-a9a
A
DELHI BAR ASSOCIATION
't"
l
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 437 of 2000}
E?
MAY 15, 2008
· [B.N. AGRAWAL, P.P. NAOLEKAR AND D.K. JAIN,JJ.]
Punjab Courts Act, 1918; S.19/Government of National
-4~
Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991; S.41 and Notification dated
c June 28,2000 issued by Lt. Government of Delhi:
Notification issued by Lt. Governor of National Capital
\""
o;:~
Territory of Delhi dividing Delhi into nine Civil Districts - Chailenge to - Held: Need of Bifurcation of Delhi into nine civil
.. districts has been stressed and very succinctly dealt with in
D the order of Supreme Court dated May 1,2000passed in WP©
No. 74111989 - The Court while giving such direction neither
r
exceeded its jurisdiction nor encroached upon the essentially
executive legislative function of authorities - Before taking
policy decision, Delhi Government consulted, all the authoriE ties, thus the policy decision so taken was not arbitrary/without jurisdicpon - In terms of Article 239AA of the Constitution,
the Legislative Assembly of NCT of Delhi empowered to make
. laws for whole/part of the Territory with certain exception - Administration of justice and Constitution of Courts as provided
'(
F
under Entry 11A of Concurrent List falls under the jurisdiction
'
.of the Legislative Assembly -Notification in question issued
'by Lt. Governer in exercise of powers conferred uls.19(1) of
1918 Act dividing Delhi into nine civil districts - It neither defines, enlarge, alters amends or diminishes the jurisdiction of
G courts - It falls under the discretionary powers of the Lt. Governor uls.41of1991Act-1918 Act being the Central legisla-
~
. tion will have the primacy over the legislation made by the
,,.
Delhi Assembly - Thus, S. 19 of 1918 Act shall prevail on the
subject C'ind the Notification issued thereunder shall not be
H
898
/
DELHI BAR ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF
899
INDIA & ORS.
invalidated merely because the subject a/so falls within the A
Concurrent list, hence, valid - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article 239A(3)(a}, 239AA and Entry 11 of Concurrent List to
Schedule II of the Constitution.
Constitution of India, 1950 -Article 239AA -Capital Territory of Delhi and administrative power of Lt. Governor -
8
Change of nomenclature of Union Territory of Delhi to National Capital Territory of Delhi - Discussed.
Words & Phrases:
State Government - Definition of - Discussed in the conC
text of s. 5(a) of the West Bengal General Clauses Act, 1899
and General Clauses Act, 1894.
Extension of application of a Provincial Act to a territory
by legislature, Effect of - Held: It would be deemed to be an D
enactment of such legislature - Constitution oflndia, 1950 -
Article 246(4).
Petitioner, the Delhi Bar Association filed the instant
petition challenging creation of nine civil districts in Delhi
in terms of the Notification dated June 28, 2000 issued by E
Lt. Governor of Government of National Capital Territory
of Delhi in exercise of powers conferred on him u/subsection(1) of 5.19 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918. The
Petitioner prayed for setting aside the impugned Notification to prohibit the respondents from bifurcating Delhi
F
into nine districts. The Notfication was issued by the
Lt.Governor in pursuance of direction of this Court dated
May 1,2006 in another Writ Petition(Civil) No. 7 41/1989 filed
by the Delhi Judicial Service Association(Regd.) against
Union of India and Others.
G
Appellant contended that that there was no specific
explicit administrative decision to divide Delhi into nine
judicial districts in order to create nine separate courts in
the Union Territory of Delhi and that at no point of time
there was a consensual decision taken by the Chief JusH
900
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008) 8 S.C.R.
A tice of Delhi High Court and the Lt. Governor of Delhi
agreeing to have nine judicial districts; that the subject of
correspondence between the Registrar, High Court of
Delhi and the Secretary, Governmen

## Text

_Characters 0–39,101 of 87,055. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39101 for what follows._

·- 12ooara-s--:-c.R-:-a9a
A
DELHI BAR ASSOCIATION
't"
l
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 437 of 2000}
E?
MAY 15, 2008
· [B.N. AGRAWAL, P.P. NAOLEKAR AND D.K. JAIN,JJ.]
Punjab Courts Act, 1918; S.19/Government of National
-4~
Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991; S.41 and Notification dated
c June 28,2000 issued by Lt. Government of Delhi:
Notification issued by Lt. Governor of National Capital
\""
o;:~
Territory of Delhi dividing Delhi into nine Civil Districts - Chailenge to - Held: Need of Bifurcation of Delhi into nine civil
.. districts has been stressed and very succinctly dealt with in
D the order of Supreme Court dated May 1,2000passed in WP©
No. 74111989 - The Court while giving such direction neither
r
exceeded its jurisdiction nor encroached upon the essentially
executive legislative function of authorities - Before taking
policy decision, Delhi Government consulted, all the authoriE ties, thus the policy decision so taken was not arbitrary/without jurisdicpon - In terms of Article 239AA of the Constitution,
the Legislative Assembly of NCT of Delhi empowered to make
. laws for whole/part of the Territory with certain exception - Administration of justice and Constitution of Courts as provided
'(
F
under Entry 11A of Concurrent List falls under the jurisdiction
'
.of the Legislative Assembly -Notification in question issued
'by Lt. Governer in exercise of powers conferred uls.19(1) of
1918 Act dividing Delhi into nine civil districts - It neither defines, enlarge, alters amends or diminishes the jurisdiction of
G courts - It falls under the discretionary powers of the Lt. Governor uls.41of1991Act-1918 Act being the Central legisla-
~
. tion will have the primacy over the legislation made by the
,,.
Delhi Assembly - Thus, S. 19 of 1918 Act shall prevail on the
subject C'ind the Notification issued thereunder shall not be
H
898
/
DELHI BAR ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF
899
INDIA & ORS.
invalidated merely because the subject a/so falls within the A
Concurrent list, hence, valid - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article 239A(3)(a}, 239AA and Entry 11 of Concurrent List to
Schedule II of the Constitution.
Constitution of India, 1950 -Article 239AA -Capital Territory of Delhi and administrative power of Lt. Governor -
8
Change of nomenclature of Union Territory of Delhi to National Capital Territory of Delhi - Discussed.
Words & Phrases:
State Government - Definition of - Discussed in the conC
text of s. 5(a) of the West Bengal General Clauses Act, 1899
and General Clauses Act, 1894.
Extension of application of a Provincial Act to a territory
by legislature, Effect of - Held: It would be deemed to be an D
enactment of such legislature - Constitution oflndia, 1950 -
Article 246(4).
Petitioner, the Delhi Bar Association filed the instant
petition challenging creation of nine civil districts in Delhi
in terms of the Notification dated June 28, 2000 issued by E
Lt. Governor of Government of National Capital Territory
of Delhi in exercise of powers conferred on him u/subsection(1) of 5.19 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918. The
Petitioner prayed for setting aside the impugned Notification to prohibit the respondents from bifurcating Delhi
F
into nine districts. The Notfication was issued by the
Lt.Governor in pursuance of direction of this Court dated
May 1,2006 in another Writ Petition(Civil) No. 7 41/1989 filed
by the Delhi Judicial Service Association(Regd.) against
Union of India and Others.
G
Appellant contended that that there was no specific
explicit administrative decision to divide Delhi into nine
judicial districts in order to create nine separate courts in
the Union Territory of Delhi and that at no point of time
there was a consensual decision taken by the Chief JusH
900
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008) 8 S.C.R.
A tice of Delhi High Court and the Lt. Governor of Delhi
agreeing to have nine judicial districts; that the subject of
correspondence between the Registrar, High Court of
Delhi and the Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi was
in fact in favour of division of Delhi into five judicial dis8 tricts and it is not clear as to when and how this figure of
five was converted into a figure of nine in the absence of
consensual decision either by the High Court or by the
-1
Government of NCT; that before arriving at such a decision, the authorities concerned were required to apply
c their mind to certain salient features before creation of
judicial districts; and that in thE' absence of executive or
administrative order to bifurcate Delhi into nine judicial
districts, this Court by its order dated 1.5.2000 erroneously
directed the High Court of Delhi peremptorily to convene
0 a meeting and fix a time schedule for bifurcation of Delhi
into nine judicial districts.
,.
It was submitted on behalf of the Delhi High Court
that the decision taken by the authorities to create nine
districts and issuance of the notification in connection
E thereof has been arrived at after due consideration of all
relevant aspects;
On behalf of NCT of Delhi, it was submitted that the
decision taken for bifurcation of Delhi into nine districts
was a policy decision after elaborate consultation beF tween the Chief Secretary, the Law Minister and the Chief
Justice of Delhi High Court; that the Government is the
best judge to determine the choice of and to formulate
policy; that the policy matters are best left for the executive/legislatures as normally it is in their domain; that the
G court would not interfere and strike down a policy matter
which is beneficial to the public at large; that the policy
decision which is in public interest for the consumers of
justice, who are paramount recipients of justice delivery
system, cannot be faulted with on the basis of some irH regularities and normally the policy decisions taken by
)
DELHI BAR ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF
901
INDIA& ORS.
the authorities after due deliberation and taking into conA
sideration all relevant aspects would not be subject to
judicial review; that the matters of Government policy are
best left to the Government to decide; and that the policy
decision taken is the result of prolonged threadbare discussion and application of mind to the rele~ant aspects B
and is not open to challenge.
Dismissing the petition, the Court
HELD: 1.1. The Government of India, the High Court
and the Delhi Government were considering the reorga- c
nization of courts since 1979. Vide communication dated
26.3.1982, the Government of India conveyed its agreement to divide Delhi into separate districts. The High Court
throughout has been insisting on the division of Delhi into
separate judicial districts. By communication dated 0
31.1.1991 from the then Union Law Minister to the then
Chief Justice, his attention wc.s drawn to the views expressed by the Lt. Governor that Delhi be divided into
separate judicial districts. On 6.7.1993, the Government
of India sought the views of the Chief Secretary, Delhi
Government on the division of Delhi into nine judicial disE
tricts. Before the decision was taken, various details in
this regard were considered at different times. The Delhi
Government has been consistently insisting on the division of Delhi into nine judicial districts. In a meeting between the Chief Justice and the Lt. Governor held on
F
31.08.1999, in principle it was agreed to divide Delhi into
nine judicial districts. A Committee was constituted to, inter alia, work out the modalities and study and advise on
the notifications that may be required to be issued and
the amendments that may be required in any Act and in G
any existing notifications. The Committee submitted its
report on 03.04.2000. The entire matter was placed before
the Full Court in its meeting held on 26.4.2000 and the
Full Court after considering the relevant aspects and the
report of the Committee dated 03.04.2000 approved the H
902
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 8 S.C.R.
A bifurcation of Delhi into nine judicial districts and directed
necessary follow-up action to be taken as recommended
by the Committee. The need of bifurcation has been
stressed upon and very succinctly dealt with in the order
of this Court dated 01.05.2000 passed in WP(C) No. 741
B of 1989 in the matter of Delhi Judicial Service (Regd.) v.
Union of India and Others,. It is apparent that before the
decision was taken, all authorities for arriving at the policy
1
decision were consulted ar:d thus it cannot be said that
the policy decision taken by the Government was arbiC trary or without consideration of the relevant material.
[Paras 36 and 37] [922-F-H; 923-A-D; 924-F-G]
D
Delhi Judicial Service Association (Regd.) v. Union of
India through the Secretary and Others, (2000) 9 SCC 562)
relied on.
1.2. The policy decision taken by the Government cannot be faulted with unless it suffers from unreasonableness, arbitrariness or unfairness or it is beyond the legislative powers of the State or is beyond the constit..itional
limits~ In the present case, not only the policy decision
E taken by the NCT of Delhi is founded on prolonged and
in-depth deliberation between the NCT of Delhi, the Lt.
Governor and the Delhi High Court which is directly concerned with the division of Delhi into judicial districts, but
is also a result of directions issued by this Court by its
F order dated 01.05.2000. [Para 39) [927-8-C)
State of Maharashtra and Another v. Lok Shikshan
Sanstha ah(J Others, (1971) 2 SCC 410; M.P Oil Extraction
and Another v. State of M.P and Others, (1997) 7 sec 592,
G Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. v. Delhi Administration and Others,
(2001) 3 SCC 635 and Dhampur Sugar (Kashipur) Ltd. v. State
of Uttaranchal and Others, (2007) 8 sec 418 - relied on.
1.3 This Court by giving directions by its order dated
01.05.2000, did not exceed its jurisdiction and did not enH croach upon the essentially executive or legislative tune-
DELHI BAR ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF
INDIA & ORS.
tion of different authorities. [Para 41] [928-G]
903
A
All India Judges' Association v. Union of lnd~a and Others, (1992) 1 SCC 119, All India Judges' Association and Others v. Union of India and Others (1993) 4 sec 288 All India
Judges' Association and Others v. Union of India and Others,
(2002) 4 sec 247 - relied on.
B
2.1 By virtue of Section 5a of the Bengal General
Clauses Act, 1899, the definition of 'State Government',
that is applicable to the State of Delhi, is the definition
under the General Clauses Act, 1897. [Para - 42] [929-A- c
C]
2.2 Delhi is a Union Territory and after introduction
of Article 239AA in the Constitution, the Union Territory of
Delhi is called the National Capital Territory of Delhi. Every Union Territory is administered by the President actD
ing to such extent as it thinks fit through an Administrator
to be appointed by him. The Lt. Governor has been appointed a$ an Admi.nistrator to administer the National
Capital Territory of Delhi. Under this Article, it has been
provided that there shall be a Legislative.Assembly for E
the National Capital Territory. After the introduction of this
Article, the National Capital Territory of Delhi has been
administered by the President through the Administrator
appointed under Article 239 of the Constitution. Thus, the
Lt. Governor is the Administrator for the National Capital
F
Territory of Delhi and shall be representing and authorized to act for and on behalf of the National Capital Territory of Delhi. After the introduction of this Article, the Bengal General Clauses Act, 1899 would not have any application as the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 has been made apG
plicable to the National Capital Territory of Delhi. Thus,
the State in Section 19 of the Punjab Courts Act shall be
read as the National Capital Territory of Delhi which is represented and administered by the Lt. Governor who has
been empowered to issue a notification on behalf of the H
904
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 8 S.C.R.
l"
A National Capital Territory of Delhi to divide the territory
under his administration into civil districts. The Lt. Governor of lilelhi being the representative of the National
Capital Territory of Delhi was competent to divide the territory of Delhi under his administration into civil districts.
8
[Para 45] [931-E-H; 932-A-B]
2.3 From the introduction of Article 239AA in the Con-
~
stitution, the Legislative Assembly of ttie National Capital Ter-
""
ritory has authority to make laws in regard to the Entries in
the State List or in the Concurrent List except Entries 1, 2
c and 18 and the matters enumerated in Entries 64, 65 and 66
so far as they relate tn the said Entries. Under clause (4) of
Article 239AA, there shall be a Council of Ministers with the
Chief Minister at the head who shall aid and advise the Lieutenant Governor to exercise his functions in relation to matD ters which fall within the ambit of the Legislative Assembly
,.
to make laws except the functions whkh are required to be
undertaken under any law by the Lt. Governor exercising
•
his own discretion. [Para 46) [933-G-H; 934-A-D]
E
2.4. Administration of justice and constitution of
courts is provided under Entry 11A of the Concurrent List
and this is a matter also under the jurisdiction of the Legislative Assembly upon which the Assembly is competent
to make laws. [Para 47] [934-D-E]
v
F
3.1. A plain reading of the impugned notification
makes it absolutely clear that the import of the notification is to divide the National Capital Territory of Delhi into
nine civil districts. The notification neither defines, enlarges, alters, amends or diminishes the jurisdiction of the
G courts which are in existence nor has impinged upon the
-<I
existing courts' territory or pecuniary jurisdiction. The
iii
notification simply divides Delhi into nine civil districts.
Therefore, the notification merely deals with and is confined to geographical division of the district boundaries
H and nowhere deals with jurisdiction of the courts or de-
DELHI BAR ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF
905
INDIA & ORS.
fines the courts' jurisdiction territorially or pecuniarily. The A
impugned notification covers the subject, namely, division
of the territory of U. T. of Delhi under its administration into
civil districts. The impugned notification does not cover
the subject under Entry 11A of the Concurrent List,
namely, administration of justice, constitution and orgaB
nization of all courts except the Supreme Court and the
High Court. The powers exercised by the Lt. Governor
are referable to Section 19 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918.
The impugned notification would fall under the discretionary powers of the Lt. Governor un.der Section 41 of the C
Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991.
[Para 50] [936-E-H; 937-A-C]
The State of Bombay vs.
Narottamdas Jethabhai and
Another, AIR 1951 SC 69 - relied on.
3.2 The enforcement of the Government of National D
Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991 from 01.02.1992 does
not hinder the continuing application of the Punjab Courts
Act, 1918 to Delhi. The Notification issued on 28.6.2000
itself mentions that 1918 Act is being extended to the National Capital Territory of Delhi and none of the parties to
E
the present petition have denied this position. The 1918
Act has been extended to the National Capital Territory of
Delhi and there is no notification, order or legislation
-Y
brought to notice of this Court whereby application of
the 1918 Act to the National Capital Territory of Delhi has
F
been repealed or curtailed. Therefore, in the absence of
any provision in the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act or in the absence of any other notification, order or legislation, 1918 Act, has continuous application to Delhi along with the laws made by the Delhi LegG
'" islative Assembly. [Para 51] [937-E-G]
3.3 The territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court
includes the territory of U.T. of Delhi. All original, appellate
and other jurisdictions which had been exercised in regard
H
906
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 8 S.C.R.
'f
A to this territory by the High Court of Punjab shall be exercised by the High Court of Delhi. The 1918 Act, though only
extended to Delhi, has the status of a central legislation
directly en~cted for Delhi. When a provincial Act or an Act
which may be treated as a provincial Act was extended to
B the territory by a legislature, it would be deemed to be the
enactment of such legislature. [Para 51] [937-H; 938-A-B]
Mithan Lal etc. vs. State of Delhi; AIR 1958 SC 682 -
~
relied on.
c
3.4 It is, clear that after the extension of 1918 Act, to
•
the U.T. of Delhi, it b.)comes a Central Act or an Act of Par- .
liament as it is made by virtue of powers of Parliament to
legislate for the U.T. of Delhi by virtue of clause (4) of Article 246 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the 1918 •
Act assumes the position of central legislation enacted
I
D specifically for Delhi and is the law operative in the NCT of
~
Delhi. Hemce, the notification issued by the Lt. Governor
• Iunder Section 19 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 has been
authorized by a central legislation. Further, any legislation
E passed by the State Legislative Assembly is always subordinate to the laws of Parliament. [Para 51] [938-C-E]
3.5 From the constitutional provisions u/Article 239AA
3(b)& c, it is clear that in the NCT of Delhi the laws made
'(
by the Delhi Legislative Assembly are always subordinate
F to the laws of Parliament whether prior or post in time.
[Para 51] [939-A]
New Delhi Municipal Council v. State of Punjab and 0thers, (1997) 7 sec 339 - relied on.
G
3.6 The power to legislate to the Legislative Assem-
~
bly of Delhi shall not supersede the powers of Parliament
.,,
to make laws with respect to any matter for Union Territory or any part thereof. If any provision made by the Legislative Assembly with respect to any matter is repugnant
H to any provision of a law made by Parliament with respect
DELHI BAR ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF
907
INDIA & ORS.
'Y
to that matter, whether passed before or after the law made A
by the Legislative Assembly, or of an earlier law, other than
a law made by the Legislative Assembly, then, in either
case the law made by Parliament or such earlier law shall
prevail and the law made by the Legislative Assembly
shall, to the extent of repugnancy, be void. The 1918 Act, B
being the central legislation, will have the primacy over
any legislation made by the Delhi Legislative Assembly
on the subject and even if the Delhi Legislative Assembly
has a power to make law on the subject which is covered
under the impugned Notification, Section 19 of the, 1918 c
Act shall prevail on the subject and a Notification issued
thereunder shall not be invalidated merely because the
subject matter also falls within the Concurrent List. Hence,
the Notification issued by the Lt. Governor dividing Delhi
into nine civil districts was valid. [Paras - 52 & 53] [940-B-F] D
....
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civi!) No.
437 of 2000
(Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India)
WITH
E
:
W.P. (C) Nos. 451 of 2000, 741 of 1989 and Transferred
Case (C) No. 38 of 1996
f' ~ "
A. Sharan, A.S.G., P.H. Parekh, Arun Jaitely, Ranjit Kumar,
P.P. Rao, Anis Suhrawardy, E.R. Kumar, Ved Prakash Sharma,
F
R.N. Vats, Ajay Kumar Jha, Mary Mitzy, Arjun Garg, Nitin Thukral,
Kush Chuturvedi, Pallavi Srivastava, Shamama Anis, Syed
Mehdi Lmam, Chandra Prakash Pandey, Kamal Gupta, Jana
Kalyan Das, Tara Chandra Sharma, Kishan Datta, Neelam
Sharma, Rajeev Sharma, Amit Anand Tiwari, Vikas Sharma, G
,.
Rekha Pandey, D.S. Mahra, P. Parmeswaran, Shreekant N.
Terdal (for Anil katiyar), D.N. Goburdhan, Pinky Anand, Geeta ;
Luthra, A Mariarputham, Arun Mathur (for M/sArputham, Aruna
& Co.), Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, Subhash C. Gulati, Jagdeep Vats,
N.S. Gahlot, Raj Singh Rana, Pramod Nagar, S.R. Raghav, R.K.
H
908
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 8 S.C.R.
'f'
A Jain, Mahesh Chand Sharma, Jai Singh Kunwar, A. Subhashini,
Nanita Sharma, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Vijay Panjwani, V:S.
Sharya, M/s Sharya & Co. Vikas Mehta and B.B. Singh for the
Appearing Parties.
B
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
P.P. NAOLEKAR, J. 1. The Delhi High Court was constituted in 1966 . .Even after the constitution of the Delhi High Court,
the region of Delhi had only one district civil court and one session court. Over the years, with growth in the population of the
c city, the amount of litigation has seen a constant upward spiral.
The very high volume of litigation both on the civil side and on
the criminal side has led to a huge backlog of cases and great
delays in dispensation of justice, putting the common man and
the layman-litigant to great inconvenience.
D
2. This rather dismal state of affairs in the Delhi courts has
not gone unnoticed and at various stages, suggestions and requests have been made to the Union Government for division
otJhe region of Delhi into smaller judicial districts with civil and
criminal courts in each district to handle the volume of litigation,
E to help reduce the backlog of cases and to dispense justice
with greater efficacy. The steps taken in this direction will be
discussed in greater detail in the latter section of facts.
3. There have been a few petitions on the question of back-
'(
F
log of cases and delay in dispensation of justice. The case
filed by the Delhi Judicial Service Association [WP(C) No.741
of 1989], among others, prayed this Court to direct the Delhi
Government for creating additional posts in the Delhi Judicial
Service. This Court, while passing orders in that matter, directed
the Delhi High Court to form a Committee under its aegis, which
G would look: into the feasibility of division of Delhi into smaller
-4
judicial districts. On the basis of the report prepared by the Committee, this Court passed an order on 01.05.2000 directing the
Delhi Government to take concrete steps towards the creation of
judicial districts and further directed the Delhi High Court to apH point two of its Judges to oversee the process of implementation.
DELHI BAR ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF
909
INDIA & ORS. [P.P. NAOLEKAR, J.]
"J
4. In pursuance of this order, the Delhi Government, through
A
the Lt. Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, issued a notification in the Official Gazette dated 28.06.2000
under the provisions of Section 19 of the Punjab Courts Act,
1918 as extended to the region of Delhi.
5. The instant WP(C) No.437 of 2000 has been filed by
B
the Delhi Bar Association, claiming to be the largest associa-
~
tion of its nature in the country, questionihg the propriety of such·
notification and issuance thereof by the Lt. Governor without it
being deliberated upon by the Legislative Assembly of Delhi,
and thereby questioning the validity of its operation.
c
6. The facts and the chronology of events leading up to the
first WP(C) No. 741 of 1989 (Delhi Judicial Service Associa- .
tion vs. Union of India & Ors.) and the facts leading up to the
second Writ Petition in WP(C) No. 437 of 2000 are as follows. D
7. WP(C) No.741of1989 was filed by the Delhi Judicial
Service Association praying the court to issue a mandamus
directing the Government to increase the number of available
posts in Delhi Higher Judicial Service and Delhi Judicial Service, to stre'amline the process of filling up of any vacancies. in
E
the posts and to conduct the whole process with greater transparency. While hearing the petition, a number of orders were ·
passed by this.Court at various instances on matters relating to
"I
creation of posts and criterion for promotion.
~
8. During the pendency of the petitions, there were delibF
erations at various levels between the Delhi High Court, the Union
Government and the Delhi Administration regarding the possibility of division of Delhi into smaller judicial districts and the
constitution of courts in these districts. Since there was a connection between the question of division of Delhi into smaller G
~
)-
judicial districts and the issues that were being heard in WP(C)
......
No.741 of 1989, the Delhi High Court, which was one of the
respondents in the petition, considered it fit to file an additional
affiqavit on its behalf bringing to light the deliberation on division of Delhi into smaller judicial districts. The chronology of H
910
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 8 S.C.R.
\
A events leading up to the additional affidavit being filed is enuT'
merated below.
9. There had been attempts towards the division of Delhi
info smaller constituent judicial districts. Characteristics of such
B
an expectation are contained in the letter dated 21.05.1979 sent
by the then Chief Justice of Delhi High Court to the Union Law
Minister requesting some official action towards the division of
Delhi into five judicial districts. The letter says that historically
1
Delhi has been one civil district for the purposes of Civil work
c
and one sessions division for criminal work as once upon a
time Delhi was the district of Punjab. Even after Delhi became
a Union Territory, it continued to be so till the High Court was
constituted in 1966. Initially there used to be only one District &
Sessions Judge with one or two Additional and a few Sub
Judges. With increase in the population of Delhi and conseD quent litigation, there has been a tremendous increase in the
number of judicial officers dealing with civil and criminal cases.
Administratively as well as judicially, one District & Sessions
Judge cannot effectively control such large number of judicial
officers. Therefore, it was suggested that in view of the enorE mous amount of litigation pending in Delhi, the Union Territory
·~
should be divided into five districts on the analogy of its division
into five areas for police administration. Just as there is Superintendent of Police for each police district, there should.be District & Sessions Judge for each civil district and sessions diviy
F sion. This should be called Central, East, West, North and South.
' 'H
The benefits of such re-organisation were said to be obvious.
"
First, it will bring courts nearer to the place where the litigants
reside or the cause of action arises. Secondly, it will allow the
Bar of these five areas to locate themselves near the courts.
G Thirdly, it will redress the great injustice that is caused to the
Delhi Judicial Service and the Delhi Higher Judicial Service by
"'
~
denying them the normal higher judicial posts which would have
'"r·'
been available if they are divided into several districts in the
State.
H
10. Vide letter dated 26.03.1982, the Union Government
lrJ
:lJ,
DELHI BAR ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF
911
INDIA & ORS. [P.P. NAOLEKAR, J.]
intimated the High Court of Delhi and the Delhi Administration
A
of its agreement to the possibility of dividing Delhi into five judicial districts for the purposes of effective administration of justice. In pursuance of this communique, the then Chief Justice of
Delhi High Court constituted a Committee to look into the modalities for implementation of such a scheme. This move toB
wards division of Delhi into five judicial districts and the possi-
~
bility of streamlining of the judicial set-up in the Delhi region
was put on the back- burner when the Union Law Minister intimated the Delhi High Court vide his letter dated 05.10.1984
that the Government of India was not in favour of division of Delhi c
into judicial districts.
11. A few years later, the Delhi High Court reiterating the
importance of the move to divide Delhi into smaller judicial districts, sent a letter dated 09.04.1990 through Registrar addressed to the Government of India conveying the desire of the
D
then Chief Justice and the Judges of the High Court to impress
upon that the decision of the Government of India conveyed vide
letter dated 26.03.1982 in respect of division of Delhi into five
districts may be implemented at the earliest as recommended
by the Delhi High Court vide its letter dated 21.05.1979.
E
12. On 07.05.1990, the Union Law Minister intimated the
Delhi High Court of the decision of the Union Government not to
~
go ahead with any move towards bifurcation of Delhi into any
~
smaller judicial districts due to protest and prolonged agitation
by lawyers. However, the letter also informed the High Court
F
that it may after consultation with the Bar Council of Delhi and
various Bar Associations that have a stake in the matter, send
a proposal for division of Delhi into smaller districts, if necessary, to the Government for reconsidering their decision.
13. By communication dated 31.01.1991 from the then
G
~
Union Law Minister to the then Chief Justice, his attention was
drawn to the views expressed by the Lt. Governor that Delhi be
divided into separate judicial districts.
14. On 12.04.1991, the Delhi High Court informed the Union
H
912
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008) 8 S.C.R.
A
Law Minister, after a Full Court meeting on 06.04.1991 .. that
they were of the opinion that no further consultation with the Bar
· Associations was necessary and reiterated their stance on the
division of Delhi into five judicial districts and recomme.nded
that the same be done at the earliest possible time as it has
B
already been recommended by the High Court vide letters
dated 21.05.~979 and 09.04.1990.
15. In the meantime, the Government of India sent a letter
dated 17.10.1991 wherein it was suggested that effective decentralization of the courts could be done through creating inc dependent courts in various parts of Delhi without actually constituting separate districts. The High Court conveyed to the
Union government its opinion on the new proposal i.e., such
' dispersion of courts is an untenable proposition and.reiterated
its earlier requests for division into judicial districts.
D
16. When the Government repeated the proposal; the then
Chief Justice of Delhi High Court .;ent a letter to the Lt. Governor dated 07.12.1992 enclosing therewith the resolutions
passed by the Full Court dated 31.03.1990, 06.04.1991,
25.01.1992, 28.03.1992 and 02.12.1992 regarding the division
E ·of. Delhi into five separate judicial districts. In the letter, it was
reiterated that theOelhi High Court has consistently been of the
view that the Union Territory of Delhi should b.e divided into five
separate judicial districts and insisted on issuance of the notification for dividing Delhi into five separate judicial districts at
F the very earliest and if possible by 31.12.1992. !twas mentioned in the letter that the High Court is keen to expedite the
decentralization process of courts in Delhi.
17. Vide letter dated 06.07.1993, the Union Government
G sought views of the Delhi Administration on division of Delhi
into nine districts along the lines of already existing police head-
...c_
quarters and revenue district divisions. The samP. was forwarded to the Delhi High Court by the Delhi Administration.
18. On 19.07.1993, the Delhi Bar Association went on
H strike against the division of Delhi, and the Full Court again
,.
DELHI BAR ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF
913
INDIA & ORS. [P.P. NAOLEKAR, J.]
•
'r
considered the matter and it was decided to constitute a ComA
mittee consisting of Chief Justice with four Judges of the High
Court to look into the problem and examine the matter in depth
as a whole.
19. Vide letter dated 07.12.1993, the Union Minister of
B
Law enquired if the High Court of Delhi was amenable to empowering Additional District Judges to discharge the functions
of District Judges in their respective areas. Shortly thereafter
on 21.02. 1994, the Union Minister of State for Law requested
for the views of the Delhi High Court on the modalities for implementing the decision to bifurcate Delhi into five district courts c
and other related matters. In response to all these letters, no
opinions were offered as the matter was sub judice in WP(C)
No. 766 of 1994 filed by some lawyers seeking a mandamus
for creation of the five judicial districts.
20. On 26.02.1999, the first meeting of the Committee conD
stituted to work on the modalities for the creation of nine judicial
districts was held under the chairmanship of the Chief Secretary of the National Capital Territory of Delhi. The Committee
noted that while appreciating the urgency of establishment of
E
nine judicial districts, the Chief Secretary desired that before
the proposal is implemented in its right perspective, the Registrar, High Court of Delhi and the District & Sessions Judge, Delhi
should also facilitate the Government while affording their valu-
~
able views so far as the involvement of legal implications in the
>
proposal especially with regard to the amendment of relevant
F
laws, rules and regulations, etc. along with necessary details
for minimum staff which would be required to augment the new
judicial set-up in the National Capital Territory of Delhi. It was
noted that the District & Sessions Judge and the Registrar, High
Court of Delhi had expressed some of their views in this regard G
~
and assured the Committee to furnish the details at the earliest.
21. On 23.04. 1999, again a meeting of the Committee was
held under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary in pursuance
of the order dated 13.4.1999 of the High Court of Delhi in WP(C)
H
.. -
914
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 8 S.C.R.
y
i
'
A
No. 4386 of 1998 (lhdian Council of Indian Aid and Advice vs.
.
Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.). It was decided that the
proposed nine judicial districts should be located as follows:
SI.No.
Area
District Courts
No. of Courts
B
1.
Karkardooma
East & North East Two
2.
Rohini
North West
One
3.
Tis Hazari
North and Central Two
4.
Saket
South
One
c
5.
Raja Garden
West
One
6.
Dwarka
South West
One
~·
7.
Patiala House New Delhi
One
D
22. On 31.08.1999, a meeting was held at Raj Niwas be- ·
tween the Chief Justice of Delhi High Court and the Lt. Governor of NCT of Delhi. The relevant portion of the Minutes of the
meeting read as under:
E
"First of all, the issues relating to the division of Delhi into
5 Judicial Districts was briefly discussed in the meeting.
It was pointed out by the Chief Secretary that the Hon'ble
High Court of Delhi in the recent past, had reiterated the
earlier view of establishing only 5 Judicial Districts, while
"'
F
the Govt. of NCT of Delhi had been of the opinion that nine
-\I
Judicial Districts may be established in consonance with
\
the nine Police/Revenue Districts already functioning in
the city: It was observed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice
that as a long term planning, the High Court was also in
agreement in principle for establishment of nine Judicial
G
Districts, but to start with, it would be preferred that five
Judicial Districts be established and, in the meanwhile,
-.(
"
expeditious efforts be made for the procurement of lands
and constructing court buildings in different parts of the
city towards the ultimate aim of nine Judicial Districts .... ".
H
DELHI BAR ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF
915
INDIA & ORS. [P.P. NAOLEKAR, J.)
"r
The Minutes further noted that a Committee headed by A
the Law Secretary would look into the aspect of various amendments which may be required in different enactments in this regard and that an exercise had earlier been undertaken by the
High Court for the purpose of consideration of bifurcation of
districts and consequential amendments along with draft notifi8
cations were prepared. It was decided that the draft notifica-
-'c
tions and the report prepared earlier to consider the bifurcation
would also be considered by the Committee and the recommendations of the Committee shall be forwarded to the High
Court within a period of 10-15 days.
c
23. The Committee submitted its report on 03.04.2000
regarding division of Delhi into separate judicial districts. The
Committee recommended that the best course for the immediate creation of nine judicial districts in the National Capital Territory of Delhi would be to request the Lt. Governor of Delhi to D
~
inifoilly divide the National Capital Territory of Delhi into nine
civil districts in terms of Section 19 of the Punjab Courts Act,
1918 and only thereafter to initiate the process for separate
sessions divisions.
24. On 20.04.2000, this Court while hearing WP(C) No.741
E
of 1989 (Delhi Judicial Service Association (Regd.) vs. Union
of India & Ors.) called for the above report dated 03.04.2000 of
the Committee and after perusing the same passed the follow,
"l
ing directions:
F
"Report as to the division of Delhi into separate judicial
Districts dated 3.4.2000 has been given to the Acting
Chier Justice, Delhi High Court. This report is prepared
by a Committee of officers of various ranks both under the
High Court and of the Government of NCT of Delhi.
G
)
Two copies of this report are being given to Mr. Goburdhan.
He may pass over this report to the Lt. Governor and
Chief Secretary and other officers concerned after making
necessary copies.
H
916
A
B .
c
D
SUPREME. COURT REPORTS
.
'
[2008] 8 S.C.R.
Court buildings are to come up at Rohini, Saket and
Y
Dwarka. ML Goburdhan has filed status report regarding
financ_es and construction of buildings there.
We direct that a meeting be held by the Acting Chief
· Justice, Delhi High Court, which shall be attended by the
· Chief Secretary, Secretary (Law, Justice & Legal Affairs),
Divisional Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Revenue), Chief
Enginee~(Civil), PWD, all of the Government of NCT of
,1.
Delhi and also by the Additional Secretary, Department of
Justice in the Ministry of Law, Justice & Company Affairs.
All these officers shall meet the Acting Chief Justice of the
Delhi High Court in the High Court premises on or before
26.4.2000, when all aspects of the matter shall be
discussed. A report be submitted to the Court by the
Regist.rar .of the Delhi High Court as well as by Mr.
Goburdhan, learned counsel appearing for NCT of Delhi.
Cou.nselfor the parties shall intimate the respective officers
+
. with regarcj to t~e meeting with the Acting Chief Justice of
E
F
the Delhi High Court. Registrar ofthe Delhi High Court
shall also intimate the date and time to all the officers.
Report submitted to this court shall indicate the Division
of Courts, time schedule and when the vacancies are to
· be filled up.
These directions are issued peremptorily and there shall
be no excuse for not convening the meeting. List the
'r
matter on 28.4.2000. Report shall be submitted by the
counsel for the High Court and by counsel for the NCT of
Delhi and they shall be assisted by the officers so as to
answer all the queries."
G
25. Pursuant to the directions issued by the Court, the Acting Chief Justice of Delhi High Court fixed a meeting of the Full
""
Court on 26.04.2000 to consider the matter. The Full Court on
26.04.2000 held its meeting and delved U!)On the agenda item
H
: "To consider the matter regarding division of Delhi into separate judicial districts. - Report of the Committee dated
DELHI BAR ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF
917
INDIA & ORS. [P.P. NAOLEKAR, J.]
03.04.2000" and resolved that "Report of the Committee dated A
03.04.2000 regarding division of Delhi into separate judicial
districts, adopted. Necessary follow up action be taken."
26.