SC gives Centre three months to decide on plea for ‘judicial vista’

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday gave the Centre three months to examine suggestions for creating a judicial vista after consulting the top court’s registry on the problems presently ailing lawyers and judges.

The court was hearing a petition filed by advocate Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad seeking a judicial vista to provide for sufficient office space for judges, lawyers, Supreme Court registry and facilities for litigants. Stating that this idea must be given a thought by the Centre, a bench of justices Vineet Saran and JK Maheshwari posted the matter for next hearing on July 20.

Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing on behalf of the Centre, informed the bench that he was aware of the problems of space in the top court and will take up the issue with the government. The court had on Monday asked the Centre to indicate its stand on this issue as it observed that just like Central Vista, having a judicial vista was logical. “Such decisions cannot be immediately taken. I am in touch with the government and am aware the problems we have to suffer in the corridors of the court. The experience is horrible,” Mehta said.

“The SG has appeared and made a statement that the problems as pointed out in the petition will be looked into by the Centre in consultation with the Registry of the Supreme Court,” the bench said. Senior advocate V Giri, appearing for the Supreme Court, said he will file an affidavit in response to the petition. The bench asked Giri to coordinate with Mehta and apprise him of the various problems that need to be resolved.

The petition pointed out that the infrastructure available at the Supreme Court was “disproportionate to the growth of the court” in terms of the number of judges, the registry, the bar, and the volume of cases.

“The present Supreme Court building was built in 1958 and now we are in 2022. If the Central Vista can be constructed in five years, even this project can be executed,” Prasad said.

The bench then said, “The government should take a call. We are glad this petition has been filed, although we do not know if it can happen in five years. The government can plan for it. But this has to be given a thought for the future.”

THE PLEA POINTED OUT THAT THE INFRASTRUCTURE AVAILABLE AT TOP COURT WAS NOT PROPORTIONATE WITH THE GROWTH OF THE COURT