COURTS –

INFRASTRUCTURE,
PERSONNEL
( A PROJECT OF LAW AND COURT MANAGEMENT)

BA.LLB(H), Xth Semester,Section A

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to thank my Clinical teacher Dr.Ghulam Yazdani for being a

guiding force throughout the course of this submission and being instrumental
in the successful completion of this project report without which my efforts
would have been in vain.

I am thankful to the Librarians, Faculty of Law, Jamia Millia Islamia for

helping me in collecting the relevant material for my project report.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks to my friends and family for their
constant review and honest remarks.

2
 INTRODUCTION

Almost every other day we see newspaper reports lamenting about the mounting
arrears of court cases and how cases take five, ten or even fifteen years to be
decided at each level! And, the judges are blamed for this. The judges do not
speak to the press, nor should they, but the truth is that one of the most
important factors contributing to the mounting arrears is the lack of an adequate
number of judges and the requisite infrastructure. Both of which, are in the
hands of the executive. But, to be fair to the executive, the judiciary has also not
made it known to them as to what are the needs for an efficient judicial system.
There may have been sporadic efforts from some High Courts in effectively
spelling out the requirements of the judiciary but, there has not been a
comprehensive, scientific or well-planned initiative on the part of the judiciary
to set out, in detail, the vision of each court and how it has to be achieved. It is
for this reason that it has become imperative that each High Court lays out a
court development plan for itself and for its subordinate courts.

The court development plan should comprise of three components – a short

term (or annual plan); a medium term plan (or a five-year plan); and a long term
plan (ten-year plan). It is also necessary that the annual plans telescope into the
five-year plan which, in turn, rolls into the ten-year plan. For the preparation of
any plan there must an objective, a vision. Thus, for a five-year plan we must
look ahead five-years and see where we want our court system to be. The
objective of the judiciary is to dispense justice particularly from the litigants’
point of view, which necessarily means both timely justice and quality justice.
The concerns of the judiciary are – how to deliver justice in the shortest possible
time and how to provide easy access to justice for all and particularly the poor
and the disadvantaged.

3
So, each High Court must examine its present position and set a goal for itself to
be achieved in five years. It must have a snapshot of the present and a vision of
where it wants to be five years hence. Once the High Courts are clear of their
objectives and about the objectives of their subordinate courts, the process of
planning ensues, followed by execution of the plans.

This would be clear from an example. Let us assume that a High Court has a
pendency of 2500 criminal cases which are to be heard by Division Benches.
Let us further assume that its five year objective is to reduce the pendency to
1000 such cases. The question then arises – how is this to be done? One obvious
answer is – increase the number of Division Benches hearing criminal matters.
If the number of benches is increased by pulling out judges from another
jurisdiction then it would adversely affect that jurisdiction. Therefore, the only
plausible solution would be to ask for more judges. The High Court would then
have to submit a proposal to the government for increasing the sanctioned
strength of judges for that High Court. This would also mean that the
infrastructure would have to be revamped to house another Division Bench.
Which would imply the need of another courtroom, two more chambers for the
judges, more secretarial staff, more computers, more residences etc.,.

A planned approach would enable us to spell out the needs of an efficient

judicial system in detail and it would then be easy for the concerned
governments to make the financial arrangements for providing the necessary
infrastructure. Coupled with this is the need to adopt a professional and
scientific methodology for preparing the annual budgets of the high courts and
the district courts.
The first step for each court is to prepare a vision statement for a period of ten
years. This statement should set out the targets that each court would need to

4
achieve in ten years. Obviously, the targets would comprise of objective and
measurable goals as well as goals which are not directly or easily quantifiable.
The measurable goals would include things such as the reduction of arrears,
diminution in the time-lines of cases and ratio of cases per judge. Goals which
are difficult to measure would include intangibles such as quality of
judgements, litigant satisfaction and ease of access to justice.

Once a court is able to set targets for itself on the above parameters, it has an
immediate focus. The court as a whole knows where it stands today as against
its ten-year objective. It then needs to work out a methodology for achieving the
targets. The ten-year plan should be divided into two phases of five years each.
And, the five year plans are to be sub-divided into five annual plans. At the end
of each year a review of the achievements as against the annual plan must be
done so as to bring about a course-correction if necessary.

The plans would, obviously, require things to be done internally by the

judiciary as also things to be done by the state governments and other agencies.
Once the objectives are clearly defined and the methodology for achieving them
are spelt out, it would be very difficult for both the judiciary and the executive
from wriggling out of their responsibilities: be it in the timely appointment of
judges by the judiciary or the provision of requisite infrastructure by the
executive.

Each High Court should constitute a committee of judges to prepare the court
development plans. The committee should, by and large, include judges who
have had around five years’ experience as judges and who have at least another
five years or so till retirement. This is so because they would be sufficiently
experienced and would also have a long-term approach to the future. Under the
supervision of the high court, similar committees of judicial officers should be
5
constituted for the district courts as well. Such committees may also include
representatives of the concerned government. 11. The committee of judges
should be free to engage the services of professionals such a architects,
engineers, management consultants, accountants, IT professionals and security
experts while drawing up the plans and reviewing the working of the plans. The
committee should also take the view of the lawyers and members of the public.
Furthermore, the expenditure for the preparation of the court development plans
should be under a separate head under the ‘Administrative Expenses’ of the
respective High Court.

6
 COURTS INFRASTRUCTURE
Supreme Court of India in the matter of, “All India Judges Association v.
Union of India” took up Interlocutory Application No. 279 of 2010 and has
passed various directions, from time to time, to monitor development of
infrastructure in Subordinate Judiciary.

Formats- B and D adopted in the above matter for compilation of information

regarding infrastructure of Courts and Residential Quarters have been updated
by the Information and Statistics Secretariat of Supreme Court of India for the
perusal of the Hon’ble Court.

It is clear that due to positive response of States and Union Territories to

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in All India Judges Matter, in a period of just
two years, lot of progress has taken place on the front of infrastructure. Funds
released for Court Buildings and Residential Quarters are to the extent of
Rs.2,851.31 crores which is a good initiative.

The Central Government has been releasing amounts under the Central
Sponsored Scheme to the State Governments for development of infrastructure.
Figures-3 and 4 above indicate that progress has been made but still more is
required to be done for providing sufficient infrastructure. There is need for
greater allocation of funds for planning, creation, development and maintenance
of judicial infrastructure. To achieve best results, High Courts will have to put
in place strict monitoring systems, if required, even setting up Infrastructure
Bench. Infrastructure does not merely include buildings but also includes
furnishing and facilities which include computers and libraries. If independence
of Judiciary has to be ensured, sufficient resources are required to be made
available at its disposal for proper discharge of obligations.

7
Judicial independence cannot be interpreted only as a right to decide a matter
without interference. If the institution of Judiciary is not independent resource-
wise and/or in relation to funds, from the interference of the Executive, judicial
independence will become redundant and inconsequential. Executive cannot be
allowed to interfere in the administration of Justice by holding back funds for
development of judicial infrastructure and expansion of Courts and declining
right to appoint sufficient staff, etc. The concept of independence of judiciary
further conceives that Judges cannot be allowed to be overburdened by
continuous pressure of deciding large number cases at the cost of quality of
adjudication.

Entry 11A was introduced in the Concurrent List of Schedule 7 of the

Constitution of India in 1977 vide 42nd Amendment Act of 1976. By this
Amendment, subject of “Administration of Justice; constitution and
organization of all Courts, except Supreme Court and High Courts” was brought
in the Concurrent List of the Constitution. It has become 26 incumbent on the
Central Government to make sufficient and appropriate provisions in Budget,
keeping in view the Central Laws so as to share the burden of States. As far as
possible, the sharing between Centre and the State should be in the ratio of 50-
50 %. Policies may have to be framed in such a way that Centre and State do
not play blame-game against each other at the cost of administration of justice.

Judiciary needs to be separately dealt with in the Plans by the Planning

Commission and separate allocation is necessary by the Planning Commission
and the Finance Commission. Experience shows that States have been making
negligible provision in the Budgets to the third pillar of democracy, i.e.,
Judiciary.

For the development of judicial infrastructure, time has come when States
should provide requisite resources to the Judiciary without cutting/rejecting the

8
demands made by it so that it is able to smoothly discharge its judicial
functions. Legislature enacts new legislations and increases the workload of
Judiciary and, on the other hand, Executive holds back funds and facilities as
required for administration of Justice which tantamounts to interference in the
administration of justice. One Branch of the Constitution should not ideally
decline the needs of another parallel Branch thereby creating difficulties in
discharge of its constitutional responsibilities.

The Government may not enact new Laws without assessing the judicial impact
and without assessing the number of new cases the new Legislation would
generate. Enactment of new Laws results in floodgates of new cases generated
by new Legislations and refusal of resources towards litigation generated by
such new Legislations may not be in the interest of the country. In case the State
does not provide necessary support of sufficient and fully furnished
infrastructure and trained and sufficient personnel by way of Judges/Judicial
Officers and Staff, the blame on the judiciary would be misplaced on account of
pending number of cases in courts.

There is need for proper and sufficient infrastructure for efficient Record
Management/proper management of case files including complete digitization
of case records.

Standard Plans for Court Buildings and Residential Quarters for Judicial
Officers are necessary. Infrastructure does not merely mean building but
includes provisions for furnishings and facilities which need to be fixed.

It is bounden duty of the Central Government and State Governments to make

adequate provisions for sufficient and furnished infrastructure for High Courts
as well as Subordinate Courts. 1

1
http://www.sci.nic.in/ncmspap.pdf

9
 The primary responsibility of infrastructure development for the
subordinate judiciary rests with the State Governments. The Central
Government augments the resources of the State Governments by releasing
financial assistance under a centrally sponsored scheme for the development of
judicial infrastructure. The scheme has been in place since 1993-94, and was
revised in 2011. It covers the construction of court buildings and residential
accommodation of judicial officers. As of March, 2015, the Central
Government had released an amount of Rs. 3,131 crore to the State
Governments and UT administrations under the revised funding pattern from
2011-2015. This represents a significant increase over the sum of Rs. 1,245
crore that was provided by the Central Government in the initial phase of the
scheme from 1993-2011. During the last financial year (2014-15), an amount of
Rs. 933 crore was released to the States. As per the information collected from
the High Courts, as of June, 2014, there were 15,419 court halls / court rooms
available for district and subordinate courts. In addition to these, 1003 court
rooms were available in rented premises. Comparing these figures against the
working strength of about 15,634 judges as on 31st December, 2014 reported by
these High Courts, it is noted that adequate infrastructure is available for the
current judicial manpower. Further, there are about 2,251 additional court
rooms under construction in States and UTs to take care of immediate increase
in the working strength of judges in district and subordinate courts on account
of filling up of vacancies. The data however shows that the number of
residential units presently available for judges is below the current working
strength of judges. This issue is being remedied through the construction of
additional residential units. Provision of adequate judicial infrastructure is
closely connected with the need for proper budgetary planning for the judiciary.
In the Chief Justices’ Conference held in April, 2013 it was decided that Vision
Statements and Court Development Plans should be drawn up for all High
Courts and District Courts, covering matters relating to infrastructure,

10
computerization, human resource development, setting measurable performance
standards, performance parameters, enhancing user friendliness of the judicial
system, etc. A communication in this regard was also sent by the Minister of
Law and Justice to the Chief Justices of High Courts in July, 2013. Following
this, several High Courts have formulated their Vision Statements and Court
Development Plans, which were also submitted to the 14th Finance
Commission. Department of Justice had submitted a comprehensive proposal to
the 14th Finance Commission which inter-alia provided for setting up of
additional courts in districts with high pendency of cases, resdesigning existing
court complexes to make them more litigant friendly, enhancing access to
justice and capacity building of judicial manpower. The Finance Commission
noted that proposal amounting to Rs. 9,749 crore has been arrived at after an
extensive consultation process with the State Governments and merits
favourable consideration. The Finance Commission has endorsed the proposal
and urged the State Governments to use the additional fiscal space provided by
them in the tax devolution to meet the requirement of additional infrastructure
and manpower for judiciary. During the Joint Conference of the Chief Ministers
of the States and the Chief Justices of the High Courts held on April 5, 2015, it
was resolved that the Chief Justices and the Chief Ministers shall institute a
mechanism for regular interaction among themselves to resolve issues,
particularly those relating to infrastructure and manpower needs and facilities
for the Judiciary.

11
Fo HC judges to monitor projects on
ructure

Amid concerns over delays in implementing projects to improve court

infrastructure, the Centre has decided to give high court judges an upper hand in
monitoring the flow of funds for such activity, an area which at present is the
domain of the state bureaucracy.
At a conference of chief justices held here in April, it was noted that there is a
“deficit” between the need for and the availability of infrastructure, particularly
in the district judiciary. The chief justices of the high courts had also flagged the
issue of “delays in the completion of projects”.

The conference, chaired by Chief Justice of India T S Thakur, had resolved to

constitute a committee of three judges in all the high courts of which the state
Chief Secretary and secretaries of the departments of Finance, Public Works
and Law be co-opted as members to closely monitor the timely completion of
projects.

The proposed committee, it was also resolved, would facilitate a proper

coordination between the officials at the district level and the decision-making
authorities of the state government.Then, Law Minister D V Sadananda Gowda
has asked state chief ministers to restructure the committee “in order to ensure
that the proposals for requirement of funds are submitted in time and allocated
funds are utilised.”
“…it has been proposed to restructure the committee presently working under
the chairmanship of the chief secretary of the state.“The restructured committee
will have three judges of the high court (with the senior-most judge in the
chair), with officers from the concerned departments of the state government as
members to ensure that the funds are properly utilised and also to closely

12
monitor the timely completion of project,” Gowda said in his letter written
earlier this month.

COURT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

 The first step for each court is to prepare a vision statement for a period
of ten years. This statement should set out the targets that each court
would need to achieve in ten years. Obviously, the targets would
comprise of objective and measurable goals as well as goals which are
not directly or easily quantifiable. The measurable goals would include
things such as the reduction of arrears, diminution in the time-lines of
cases and ratio of cases per judge. Goals which are difficult to measure
would include intangibles such as quality of judgements, litigant
satisfaction and ease of access to justice.

 Once a court is able to set targets for itself on the above parameters, it has
an immediate focus. The court as a whole knows where it stands today as
against its ten-year objective. It then needs to work out a methodology for
achieving the targets. The ten-year plan should be divided into two phases
of five years each. And, the five year plans are to be sub-divided into five
annual plans. At the end of each year a review of the achievements as
against the annual plan must be done so as to bring about a course-
correction if necessary.

 The plans would, obviously, require things to be done internally by the

judiciary as also things to be done by the state governments and other
agencies. Once the objectives are clearly defined and the methodology for
achieving them are spelt out, it would be very difficult for both the
judiciary and the executive from wriggling out of their responsibilities: be
13
 it in the timely appointment of judges by the judiciary or the provision of
requisite infrastructure by the executive.

 Each High Court should constitute a committee of judges to prepare the

court development plans. The committee should, by and large, include
judges who have had around five years’ experience as judges and who
have at least another five years or so till retirement. This is so because
they would be sufficiently experienced and would also have a long-term
approach to the future. Under the supervision of the high court, similar
committees of judicial officers should be constituted for the district courts
as well. Such committees may also include representatives of the
concerned government.

 The committee of judges should be free to engage the services of

professionals such a architects, engineers, management consultants,
accountants, IT professionals and security experts while drawing up the
plans and reviewing the working of the plans. The committee should also
take the view of the lawyers and members of the public. Furthermore, the
expenditure for the preparation of the court development plans should be
under a separate head under the ‘Administrative Expenses’ of the
respective High Court.

STANDARD COURT ROOMS

 As a part of the court development plan, each high court would be

required to set out the minimum standards for courtrooms both at the high
court level as well as for courtrooms and complexes for the district and
taluka courts.

14
 At present most of the High Courts do not have any standards for either
courtrooms of the High Courts or of the district courts. However, some of
the High Courts which have indicated that they have some standards in
place are (1) High Court of Uttarkhand1 ; (2) High Court of Gujarat2 ; (3)
High Court of Bihar3 ; (4) Calcutta High Court4 ; (5) Gauhati High
Court5 ; and (6) High Court of Kerala6 . But, the standards are not
exhaustive and do not deal with specifics.
 This report endeavours to present a framework for establishing minimum
standards for a Court Complex. The standards deal both with space
requirements and the facilities needed in a modern efficient court
complex. These standards are expected to serve as a basis for designing a
standard Court Complex and can be suitably modified to suit specific site
conditions, availability of funds, time constraints and other local
conditions. Even a modular or phased approach may be adopted.
 The fundamental guiding factors in the design of a court complex would
include:-
i) To provide optimum working conditions leading to increased
efficiency of judicial officers and the administrative staff;
ii) ii) To provide easy access to justice to all and particularly to the
underprivileged, persons with disability, women and senior
citizens;
iii) iii) To instil public trust in the judicial process;
iv) iv) To provide for the safety and security of judges, administrative
staff, litigants, witnesses and under-trial prisoners;
 Keeping this in mind, the primary requirements of a self-sufficient court
complex are outlined below:-
1. The infrastructure design must conform to international standards; 2.
2. It must cater to the needs of all concerned;

15
 3. 3. The design must be universal and with inherent flexibility to meet
the local needs and conditions;
4. The court complex must be user-friendly, for lawyers, litigants,
general public, witnesses and the police officials;
5. It must have proper signage and notice boards in readable formats and
languages at appropriate places;
6. It must be barrier free to cater to the needs of the persons with
disability, senior citizens and infirm persons;
7. The court complex must be self-sufficient in terms of power backup
and other essential services like security and surveillance;
8. The buildings have to be fully IT enabled so as to permit
incorporation of the latest technology geared to enhance the efficiency
of the judicial system.
9. The court complex must be easily accessible by advocates and
litigants and there should be provision for public transport nearby.

The Court Complex essentially ought to consist of the following major

components.

1. COURT BUILDING
• Court rooms
• Judges’ chambers
• Litigants’ waiting area
• Administrative offices
• Support facilities

2. SPACE FOR LAWYERS

• Bar rooms for ladies and

16
 • Consultation rooms & cubicles
• Library
• Support facilities

3. FACILITY CENTRE consisting of other common facilities for functioning

of complex not directly related to courts

4. UTILITY BLOCK for housing the utility services like AC plant, electrical
sub-station, DG sets, STP, repair workshop, storage etc.

5. JUDICIAL LOCK-UPS

5. ADEQUATE PARKING facilities for judges, lawyers, litigants and other

visitors.

THE JUDGE’S CHAMBER

 A Judge’s Chamber must be attached with every courtroom and it must

have an independent entry. A judges’ corridor on every floor serving the
judges’ chambers has to be planned to ensure that the general public do
not have unauthorized access to the judges’ chambers.

 A judge’s chamber should be approximately 15 - 20 Sq. mts. in area and

should have an attached toilet and a dressing lobby with a wall mirror and
adequate lighting and space/wardrobe for hanging coats etc.
 Each judge’s chamber should have an attached office room of
approximately 15 - 20 sq. mts size for the stenographer and staff. The

17
 office room should have provision for communication and computer
facilities.

 There may be a situation when the court may be required to function in

two shifts. In such a situation, it may be necessary to have two chambers
for judges in respect of each court room with supporting office space.
Provision for the same in some of court complexes may have to be made
accordingly.

18
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AT GROUND LEVEL
ENRTY POINTS

A very important aspect in planning of movement of various user groups of the

court complex is their segregation at entry points and within the complex.
Segregated and secured movement for judges, lawyers and litigants has to be
fully assured and is described as under:
• All entry points have to be fully secured by adequate security personals with
all state of art surveillance and access control equipment.
• Proper security arrangement and space/provision for keeping personal
belongings of all security staff need to be provided at all entry points.

FOR JUDGES

Separate and dedicated alighting points for the judges’ vehicles has to be
provided.
 From this entry point the judges should be able to reach their chambers
on various floors through lifts and stairs.
 This entry should not be used by any unauthorized person at any time.
 The entry point and the route must be provided with closed circuit TV
surveillance.
 There should be provision for baggage scanning of all personnel carrying
baggage/hand bags/briefcases etc.

19
FOR ADVOCATES

 A dedicated entry in the Court Block separated from the general public
entry will ensure lawyers’ timely presence in courts.
 There should be a separate core of stairs and lifts connecting all court
floors.

FOR LITIGANTS /GENERAL PUBLIC

 Litigants and the visiting public should enter the court complex through
an access control and surveillance system dedicated for the purpose.
 For the visitors coming in their own vehicles the car parking lots have to
be separated from the main court block and visitors are expected to
walk down to the dedicated visitors entry.
 A multi-gated entry system would need more security deployment and
unnecessary repetition of many essential services/provisions.
 Provision for covered entry for all weather movement may however be
in order and can be so planned.
 The entry points should have baggage scanners/ metal detectors etc.

ADMINISTRATIVE WING

20
Adequate floor area has to be provided for court administration as a support
facility and this is all the more important in larger court complexes of about 30
courtrooms and above. The administrative wing could even be housed in a
separate block connected to the court block or on designated floors of the court
block itself. It has to be served by a separate staff entry from ground level and
with dedicated lifts and stairs, complete with a time office and access control
system in place. The administrative wing would house, inter alia, the
administrative branch, accounts branch, care-taking (house-keeping) office,
computer cell and server room, copying agency, nazarat branch, vigilance and
security offices.

PROSECUTION WING

Prosecution is a major component of the Criminal Justice System. It has been a

long-standing complaint of the prosecution branch all over the country that
adequate space and office facilities are not provided to them in the court
building and this hampers their efficiency. The prosecutors certainly require a
comfortable office space where they can confer with the police, other
investigating agencies and complainants. They also need adequate space for
studying the case files, drafting applications, preparing arguments and to
undertake necessary legal research. A court cannot function without effective
support from prosecution agency. Therefore, it is suggested that courts should
have a dedicated space for the prosecution agency.

Such space would ideally provide for the following:

 Separate cubicles for the Public Prosecutors and Assistant Public

Prosecuters (at least on double sharing basis, if individual cubical for
each Prosecutor is not possible)

21
  Secretarial assistance attached with each PP/ APP
 Requisite library including electronic library
 Computers with printers and internet connectivity
 Secure Lock-Up For Prisoners Attending Court Hearing

SECURE LOCK-UP FOR PRISONARS ATTENDING COURT HEARINGS

In recent times, this requirement, in the court complexes has acquired greater
importance as the number of under-trial prisoners being brought on a daily basis
to court from jail has increased significantly. A separate lock-up building or a
wing of the court building with barricaded enclosure for jail vans and the police
vehicles has to be provided within the complex. The lock-up must have separate
guarded entry/exit points through which the under-trials can be escorted to the
relevant courtrooms. The design of the passage must be such that during this
movement there is no contact between the under-trials and the general public
except at the court floor and within the court rooms.

While designing the lock-ups, the following points need to be kept in mind:
• Separate lock-up rooms for male and female prisoners will have to be
provided, each accommodating not more than 15 to 20 prisoners at a time.
Separate lock-up rooms would also have to be provided for under-trials charged
with serious offences (including those with criminal histories) and under-trials
charged with petty offences.
• A built-in toilet cubicle should be provided with every lock-up room
• Light fittings and other fixtures in the lock-up room must be concealed and
must be so fitted that it is not possible to remove, damage or break them so as to
avoid infliction of any injury to fellow prisoners or to themselves

22
• For security reasons the entire lock-up room must be under CCTV
surveillance. The security personal should be able to watch the whole area of
the room.
• All windows, openings, ventilators need to have strong steel grills
• The lock-up rooms should be fully ventilated and need to have forced
ventilation instead of ceiling fans for security reasons. Air cooling can also be
provided through this forced ventilation during the summer months.

UTILITY BLOCK & OTHER UTILITIES

For larger court complexes a Utility Block should be constructed to house

various support services for the court block. Such support services may include
• Central air-conditioning plant (where necessary)
• Electric sub-station
• DG sets and related panel structures
• Repair workshop
• Maintenance engineers’ office
• Toilets
Besides these essential services, a few other services/ amenities that ought to be
provided are:
• A Bank branch
• A post office
• A medical centre with provision of an ambulance van
• Police booth of local police station with adequate strength and size
• Space for
 Oath Commissioners
 Notaries Public
 Typists
 Photocopying

23
 Probation officers
 Protection officers
 Stamp vendors
 Other governmental agencies
• Parking for Vehicles (Vans/Cars/two-wheelers..)
• Adequate parking stalls distinctly identified with separate entry and exit points
for the following users:
 Judges
 Advocates
 Litigants and visiting public
 Jail vans and police vehicles

LAND AND BUILDING AREA REQUIRED

For a 40-court complex, the requisite plot size would be approximately 9.00
acres. The covered area of the court block envisaged is
(a) Basement: 8814 Sqm;
(b) Ground Floor: 7263 Sqm;
(c) Upper Floors: 26452 Sqm.
However, there must also be provision for future expansion.

SMALLER MODULES OF COURTS

Two different models have been developed. Model-A has been developed
keeping in view all the basic requirements discussed and identified in the main
report for a larger Court Complex. This module has only one courtroom to
begin and has all the necessary support facilities at one floor level. As the need
grows, the module can be gradually extended to four floors which will offer 4
court rooms with all extended support facilities. Other out-door facilities have
been indicated in the layout plan and the facility can conveniently be

24
accommodated in an area of about 2.00 to 2.5 acres. Model-B has 6 courtrooms
per floor and floor wise expansion will lead to a fully developed 24-court
complex to suite the requirements. Six courts are grouped in such a manner that
all the requirements of a modern court complex as outlined above are available.
The land area requirement would be about 5.0 to 6.0 acres.

IT INFRASTRUCTURE FOR
COMPUTERIZATION AND E-COURTS

The Court Development Plans would have to set out the road map to
computerization and setting up of e-courts. This is an imperative as the world is
moving away from paper documents towards digital documents. Traditionally,
all court work, judicial and administrative, was paper-based. Paper has served
the judicial system well – in terms of documenting and preserving, pleadings,
evidence and orders/judgments.
But, a paper-based system has many problems:- • First of all, it means cutting
down more trees and is, therefore, not eco-friendly.
• Secondly, it requires more and more storage space10 which, in turn, translates,
into the requirement of more buildings.
• Thirdly, paper necessarily involves care and maintenance for its preservation
and places a heavy demand on human resources: a lot of time and energy is
spent on the management of paper files – for filing, retrieval and preservation. •
Fourthly, and very importantly, all this means that the paper-system eats into
time and, ultimately, efficiency. All these contribute to the growing spectre of
arrears.

25
THREE STEPS TO GO DIGITAL

The court development plans would also have to envision and set target dates
for digitisation of case files.
First of all, the old records would have to digitised and archived using a
Document Management Software. The digitisation would ideally have to be
outsourced to suitable professional agencies.
Secondly, the pending and new cases would have to be digitised.
The third and final stage would be to introduce e-filing. Once that is achieved,
the need for digitisation of records would end. Thus, it is in the interest of the
judiciary and the state governments to attain the third stage at the earliest. This
would free a lot of financial resources which were hitherto required for
digitisation as once e-filing becomes the order of the day the case files would
already be in digital form when they are presented for filing by the advocates or
by the parties themselves.

Therefore, the object of the first five-year court development plan must be to
complete the move to E-courts (i.e. truly paperless courts). This should be true
for all district courts and High Courts.

26
PERSONNEL
Staff of the Registries of various Courts is an important element of Justice
Delivery System which gets ignored most of the times. Proper care is not taken
to ensure appointment of properly qualified staff. Their working and living
conditions are deplorable. Service careers are not clear. Large number of
matters are shouldered by few staff members. Most of the States have only
clerical staff recruitment who rise to become Clerks-of-Courts, Nazir or
Registrar. Between Judicial Officers and such clerical staff, there is no Officer
level recruitment of officials.

Minimum number of staff in a given Court is fixed by Government Circulars

unmindful of the number of matters in that Court. Most of the times, one Bench
Clerk, one Assistant Bench Clerk, one Stenographer and two Peons, are
provided to Judicial Officers of Joint Courts. Same staff is required to deal with
files whether they are 800 or 8000 files. Increase in Court files does not result in
increase in number of staff. Principal District Judges have not been delegated
with powers to create posts of additional Assistant Bench Clerks even where the
overall average pendency has been very high. At many places, identification of
ideal number of matters per Court has not been done.

27
Policy is required to be made regarding ideal number of files to be handled by
court staff for different Courts at different levels and, if the number of average
matters increases, provision for additional staff be made. An outer limit may
have to be fixed for cases where number of files increases double than the ideal
number, how the same should be dealt with and what will be the responsibility
of the State in such 35 matters. State cannot keep legislating new provisions and
laws and crowd cases in Courts and then decline to give more infrastructure and
staff. Recruitment Policy, Standard Staffing Patterns and Training Policies for
Staff working in Courts need to be settled. There is need of “Human Resource
Department” to be established at the High Courts. Posts of Court Managers are
necessary for professional working of Registries.2 

The judiciary are perhaps the most prominent amongst those involved in
running the court. The largest group of judges are lay magistrates - formally
titled justices of the peace. The word "lay" means that these are ordinary
citizens who are not legal professionals - they have no legal training and are
appointed not for any legal expertise but in order to ensure that the local
community is involved in the running of the legal system and that its
substantive decisions - who is guilty or innocent and what the law means -
reflect to some extent community values. There are around 30,000 lay
magistrates. They sit as groups of three (as a "bench"), though sometimes a
shortage of magistrates means there are just two (but it is not lawful to have just
one). The lay magistrates preside over criminal trials in the magistrates’ courts,
which deal with the vast majority of criminal cases.

This very heavy reliance upon lay members of the public in the running of the
courts system is centuries old but it is unusual in comparison with many other
countries. Some of the controversies which arise are as follows:

2
http://www.sci.nic.in/ncmspap.pdf

28
  it is suggested that lay magistrates in their composition do not really
represent the local community. Traditionally, they were predominantly
male and upper or middle class. The gender balance has been addressed
to a fair extent, but recruitment from all sections of society has not been
achieved. Some of the problems include the degree of commitment
required (around 20 sittings per year, plus some training sessions) and the
narrow ways in which recruitment takes place.
 the impact which lay persons can have or should have on the legal
system. Are substantial variations in the way in which the law is applied
to be viewed as fair? For example, complaints are made when one group
of magistrates has a much higher conviction or imprisonment rate than
another.
 There may also be limitations on lay involvement because the lay
magistrates sit with a legally qualified clerk, though the clerk should
confine the advice to matters of law not fact
 there are concerns about efficiency. Because they are not professional
lawyers, it is said that lay magistrates take longer to analyse and
understand cases. They are also more tolerant of verbose advocacy than a
professional judge would be. So cases last longer, and there are three of
them per case. Though they are not paid a fee for their services, the fact
that the court has to be in session for longer is a great expense.

An increasing number of magistrates’ courts now make use of stipendiary

magistrates. These are professional lawyers (most were either barristers or
court clerks before taking this office) who are paid (a stipend) to act as full-time
lawyers. There are in fact only around 100 full-time stipendiary magistrates
(half in London), but their number is growing, and as it is reckoned that one
stipendiary can perform the work of around 30+ lay magistrates, their presence
is significant. (see Stipendiary Magistrate Appointments through the Lord

29
Chancellor's Department pages) From the government’s point of view, their
efficiency is very desirable. Nevertheless, the Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine) has
emphaised the principle of lay involvement:

"....I have no plans for a wholesale replacement of the lay magistracy by

stipendiary magistrates...Without the lay magistracy, there would be a justice
system - but it would be much less ‘of the people, by the people, and for the
people’."

(Presidential Address to the Annual General Meeting of The Magistrates’

Association, 11 October 1997)

Another interesting speech is again by The Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine of

Lairg, Ministerial Statement to the House of Lords: "The organisation of the
Magistrates' Courts," 29 October 1997.

See The Place Of The Magistrates Court In The English Judicial

System and The English Magistrate pages.

See also the Lord Chancellor's Department's The Magistrates' Courts

Service pages.

In the Crown Court, dealing with more serious criminal cases, the court
personnel involves not only members of the judiciary but also a jury.

The Crown Court judiciary:

The trial is presided over by a judge whose functions are to ensure the fair
conduct of the proceedings and also to give rulings on points of law. The judges
also determine the sentence if the defendant is found guilty. At the end of the

30
presentation of evidence, the judge "directs" the jury as to the law to be applied.
This can involve quite complex instructions as to the law on a given subject.
Usually, judges will also summarise and analyse the facts for the jury - but
should not pass comment on them, save where directed to do so by law. An
important example of the latter is that judges may now make adverse comments
if a suspect fails to give evidence in court about a defence being relied upon.

ROLE OF COURT PERSONNEL

Judge
A judge presides over the County Court. Judges (often known as justice) preside
over the Supreme, Federal, Family and High Courts. The judge deals with any
legal issues that arise during the trial. The judge informs the jury of their role
and instructs them on the law, so that the jury can apply the law to the facts of
the case. If an accused is found guilty, a judge imposes a sanction. 

MAGISTRATE
Magistrates preside over the Magistrates' an appropriate sanction Court

BARRISTER

A Magistrate must decide what the facts of the case are and also the law that is
to be applied. The magistrate must determine the guilt or innocent of the
accused. If he or she finds the person guilty, it will be necessary to impose
Barristers are collectively known as 'The Bar' and are referred to as counsel. If
an individual needs the advice of a barrister, that person must first approach a
solicitor, because that's who Barristers take instructions from. The duties of a
31
Barrister consist partly of paperwork and partly appearing in court to represent
client. 

SOLICITOR
The duties of a solicitor are many and varied. They give legal advice to people
on a large range of issues and prepare necessary documentation. A Solicitor
may represent a client in the Magistrates' Court. The Solicitor will prepare the
trial brief for the barrister to enable the case to be represented in court. 

PROSECUTOR
The party who brings a criminal case to the court is the prosecution, acting on
behalf of the Crown. The prosecutor will present the facts of their case to the
court, through the questioning of witnesses and the presentation of evidence.
The prosecutor tries to prove to the court that the accused is guilty. Often
prosecute in the Magistrates' Court 

ASSOCIATE
The judges associate is the Judge's personal assistant. The Judge's associate sits
in front of the judge in the County and Supreme Court. The associate assists the
judge with legal research and administrative support. The associate draws out
the ballot from the jury pool for jury selection, swears in the jury, keeps a list of
trial exhibits and documents and records the verdict of the jury. 

PROTHONOTARY
The Prothonotary is the chief administrative officer of the Supreme Court 

REGISTrAR
The registrar is the chief administrative officer of the County, and Magistrates
Court. 

32
CLERK
The clerk assists the magistrate with administrative support. Clerk calls all cases
in the Magistrates' Court and swears in all witnesses as the

INFORMANT 
The Tipstaff assists judges in the County and Supreme Courts administrative
support. They are responsible for ensuring court protocol and court formalities
are followed. The tipstaff also swears in witnesses, looks after the jury, escort.
They may also be represented by a lawyer, or they may represent themselves. 
The person alleging an offence is known as the 'informant'. The informant is
usually a police officer who may have arrested the accused or investigated the
matter, but can also be a member of the public.jurors into the courtroom and
jury room and also deal with any concerns of the jury. The person who has been
charged with an offense is known 'accused' in the Magistrates', County and
Supreme Courts.

33
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
 INTRODUCTION
 COURTS INFRASTRUCTURE
 HIGH COURT JUDGES TO MONITOR PROJECTS
ON COURT INFRASTRUCTURE
 COURT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME
 STANDARD COURT ROOM
 THE JUDGES’ CHAMBER
 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AT GROUND LEVEL ENTRY POINTS
 FOR JUDGES
 FOR ADVOCATES
 FOR LITIGANTS/GENERAL PUBLIC
 ADMINISTRATIVE WING
 PROSECUTION WING
 SECURE LOCK-UP FOR PRISONERS ATTENDING COURT
HEARINGS
 UTILITY BLOCK AND OTHER UTILITIES
 LAND AND BUILDING AREA REQUIRED
 SMALLER MODULES OF COURTS
34
 IT INFRASTRUCTURE FOR COMPUTERISATION AND E-COURTS
 THREE STEPS TO GO DIGITAL
 PERSONNEL
 THE CROWN COURT
 ROLE OF COURT PERSONNEL

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 REPORT OF THE SUB-COMMITTEE OF NATIONAL COURT

MANAGEMENT SYSTEM COMMITTEE HEADED BY HON’BLE
MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
 https://prezi.com/huf_p212zw5q/role-of-court-personnel/
 http://doj.gov.in/sites/default/files/Judicial-Infrastructure.pdf
 http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Give-details-of-funds-for-court-
infrastructure-SC-to-Centre/articleshow/55696723.cms
 http://www.sci.nic.in/Court%20Development%20Planning%20System.
pdf

35