Chief Justice of India A.S. Anand revived fading hopes when at his felicitation by the Bar Council of India, he pointed out the urgent need for financially caring for the district judiciary.Even before his words can take effect comes the case of the Haryana judicial service in which the Haryana government since 1992 has been successfully defying the state high court. The case of state of Haryana vs Ved Pal Gupta, now before the Supreme Court, is a test case.

The Chief Justice of India pointed out the European ratio of judges to population. That is exactly the issue raised by the Haryana high court in terms of a mathematical calculation of the workload on the district judiciary and the need for more judges. On November 13, 1991 at the instance of the All India Judges Associa-tion, the Supreme Court tried to give a new deal to the district judiciary for ensuring grassroots justice. That deal has not been implemented till today by most of the states.

But Haryana takes the cake because on January 21, 1992, the registrar of the high court wrote to the chief secretary about the urgent need to create immediately 327 additional posts of subjudges-cum-judicial magistrates to handle the pending civiland criminal files. The letter pointed out that the Chief Justice and the judges of the court had recommended this on the basis that a judicial officer is supposed to dispose of in eleven working months 1540 units a year according to the prescribed disposal of 140 units per month and 420 units as his constant pending file. The total pending file in terms of units as on October 1, 1991, was about 12 lakh and the anticipated institution of cases in 1991 on the basis of 1990 figures was about 8.34 lakh. This summed up to 20.24 lakh units. The financial implication was about Rs 10.63 crore.

The matter was pushed from the level of chief secretary to home secretary who met the registrar to register his reservations about the demand. On November 17, 1992, the high court desperately sought 50 posts at once. The ruling politicians and IAS managers responded with 15 temporary posts for 1993 and 1994. True to form, the expenditure was to be met from what ruling politicians voted for the civil and sessions courts andfrom the non-plan expenditure for the subordinate judiciary. This brings to the test the Chief Justice of India's suggestion that the judiciary be part of the planned expenditure only.

On August 24, 1993 when several states sought a review of the All India Judges decision of November 13, 1991, the Supreme Court clarified that judicial service could not be compared to the executive. It was comparable only to the political and legislative wings since the subordinate courts discharged sovereign function. On September 20, 1993, when judicial officers of Haryana filed petitions before the high court, the Haryana government was directed to consider the demands raised and decide these by March 31, 1994.

On receiving no response two judges of the district judiciary Ved Pal Gupta and Neelima Shingla filed petitions asking for elementary facilities like telephones in offices and homes, more posts, compensatory leave for being made to work seven days a week, transport and accommodation. The state advocate generaladmitted that tehsildars, much junior to the judicial officers, have telephones. His only defence was lack of money for the judiciary.

The petitioners pointed out the transport and other facilities to which the executive wing was provided when judicial officers were made to walk to their courts. The high court directed the creation of 327 posts and that no judicial officer should at least get lesser facilities than the executive officer.

Instead of complying, the state government has appealed against this to the apex court on the ground that the strength of the judiciary in a district and the money to be spent on it are its exclusive domain in which there can be no judicial interference. It's the ruling politician plus bureaucracy vs the judiciary.