MP High Court: Adequate Judicial Infrastructure Is A Constitutional Duty, Not Executive Largesse
Madhya Pradesh High Court directs the state to explain years-long delay in funding a new District Court building at Anuppur, holding that judicial infrastructure is a constitutional obligation under Article 21, not a matter of executive discretion.
Judiciary Cannot Be Treated Like Any Government Department, Says MP High Court on Anuppur Court Building Delay
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has pulled up the state government over the prolonged delay in sanctioning funds for a new District Court building at Anuppur, warning that lack of adequate courtroom infrastructure cannot be brushed aside as a routine budgetary issue and must be treated as a constitutional obligation owed to citizens.
A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal was hearing a public interest litigation filed by Basudev Chatterjee, an advocate and Sanyojak of Jila Vikas Manch, Anuppur, seeking directions for construction of a new District Court building with 14 court rooms in the tribal-dominated district. Anuppur was declared a separate civil district in 2009 but has continued to function out of an old rented building that the petitioner said lacks adequate space, causing considerable inconvenience to advocates, litigants and the public.
The petition noted that the High Court had, as far back as 3 February 2021, written to the Law and Legislature Department seeking prompt financial sanction for the proposed building. The District Bar Association, Anuppur, followed up with representations in 2021 and 2024, but the state repeatedly cited lack of budgetary allocation for the delay.
On the last date of hearing, the Bench had directed the Principal Secretary of Finance and the Secretary of the Law Department to appear and explain why adequate budget was not being released for the court building, employees' quarters and residential accommodation for judicial officers. In compliance, Manish Rastogi, ACS Finance, and Mukesh Kumar, Secretary Law, appeared before the court.
The Advocate General, Prashant Singh, appearing with Deputy Advocate General Swapnil Ganguly, informed the bench that an Evaluation Committee had, on 17 July 2026, recommended sanctioning Rs 45,87,72,036 as per the new Schedule of Rates, but financial constraints could delay disbursal. He assured the court he would personally look into the matter and try to resolve the issue at the earliest.
Rastogi told the court that the Law Department's budget for the year had already been exhausted on two major projects: construction of 60 court rooms at the High Court building in Jabalpur and the MP Judicial Officers Academy, and that a proposal for enhanced allocation would need to be moved for 2027-28.
Unconvinced, the bench observed that the judiciary "cannot be treated as a government department" when it comes to providing infrastructure, holding that the administration of justice is a sovereign function and that adequate judicial infrastructure is "not a matter of executive discretion or administrative largesse, but a constitutional duty owed to citizens to ensure access to justice under Article 21." Citing the Supreme Court's rulings in the All India Judges' Association case, the bench noted that financial constraints cannot be pleaded by the executive to deny proper infrastructure to the judiciary.
The Bench also flagged an acute shortage of courtrooms in the Bhopal district court complex, where no land is available for expansion, and directed the state to consider allotment of additional land nearby. It observed that the shortage of court rooms across Bhopal, Jabalpur and Indore was contributing directly to case pendency, with under-trial prisoners left languishing in jail as criminal cases could not be taken up for want of space.
Recording that a Finance Committee meeting held on 10 August 2026 had examined fund allocation without addressing the court's specific concerns, the bench directed the High Court Registrar, Yugal Raghuwanshi, to share a list of pending infrastructure projects with amicus curiae Kailash Chandra Ghildiyal, Senior Advocate, and Anshuman Singh, Advocate, who are assisting the court. The petitioner was represented by advocates Anubhav Singhal and Deepak Kumar Pandey, while Advocate Karnik Singh also appeared as amicus.
Calling the lack of judicial infrastructure "a serious matter" directly affecting the public at large, the court asked the Advocate General to apprise the Chief Minister and return with a concrete solution. The matter has been listed next on 30 September 2026.
Case Title: Basudev Chatterjee v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Date of Order: August 12, 2026
Bench: Acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal