Tuesday, August 4, 2026
होमCurrent AffairsGlass Wall in Supreme Court: Installed, Then Removed — ₹2.68 Crore Spent!

Glass Wall in Supreme Court: Installed, Then Removed — ₹2.68 Crore Spent!

Published on

Glass Wall in Supreme Court: In a development that’s raised eyebrows across legal and public forums, the Supreme Court of India recently saw the installation and removal of a glass wall, at a total reported cost of ₹2.68 crore (approx. $320,000).


🧊 Why Was the Glass Wall Installed?

Glass Wall in Supreme Court:The initiative was undertaken during the tenure of then Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, who stated that the wall would help optimize the centralized air conditioning and make the courtroom environment more comfortable.

It was intended as an infrastructure enhancement, aligning with modern energy-efficiency goals.


⚖️ Strong Opposition from Lawyers’ Bodies

Glass Wall in Supreme Court:However, the move was met with strong resistance from the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA).

Members criticized the decision, calling the wall “unnatural and obstructive to the transparency of court proceedings.” Many lawyers argued that it undermined the open-court principle and was an unnecessary expenditure.


💸 ₹2.68 Crore Spent — Public Money, Private Concerns

According to official sources, the cost of installing and then dismantling the glass panels totaled ₹2.68 crore. Once this figure became public, there was an immediate outcry on social media and within legal circles, with many questioning the judicious use of public funds.

Critics pointed out that such large-scale spending stands in contrast to the judicial system’s persistent backlog and resource shortages.


📢 Calls for Transparency and Accountability

Legal voices are now demanding greater transparency and financial oversight on administrative decisions made within the judiciary. Many have called for a formal explanation of who approved the expenditure and why such a costly change was reversed within months.


Nimisha Priya’s Execution Temporarily Halted in Yemen, But Victim’s Family Refuses Pardon

Latest articles

Section 141 NI Act Not Applicable to Sole Proprietorships | The Legal Observer

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act...

Supreme Court Extends 498A to Live-In Relationships | The Legal Observer

The Supreme Court has ruled that Section 498A IPC applies to qualifying live-in relationships,...

Supreme Court Pending Cases Rise | The Legal Observer

Supreme Court pending cases and High Court backlog remain a major concern. The Law...

Supreme Court on Abhishek Banerjee Travel Plea | The Legal Observer

The Supreme Court asked the Calcutta High Court to decide Abhishek Banerjee's foreign travel...

More like this

Section 141 NI Act Not Applicable to Sole Proprietorships | The Legal Observer

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act...

Supreme Court Extends 498A to Live-In Relationships | The Legal Observer

The Supreme Court has ruled that Section 498A IPC applies to qualifying live-in relationships,...

Supreme Court Pending Cases Rise | The Legal Observer

Supreme Court pending cases and High Court backlog remain a major concern. The Law...