In Imtiaz Ahmad vs State of Uttar Pradesh, a bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant have sought the following information from Law Secretaries of all States:
The extent of funds which have been made available to the state on centrally sponsored schemes.
Amount disbursed by the state government for the State and District judiciary.
An Amount which remains to be provided to the state and the district judiciary were diverted to other projects.
Details of utilization certificate from the financial year 2017-18 to 2021-22.
The Court also directed the Registrar Generals of all High Courts to respond within 4 weeks to the note submitted by the Amicus Curiae regarding the infrastructure and strength of Judges in each of the respective States or the Union Territories.
During the hearing Amicus Curiae and Senior Advocate Vibha Datta Makhija, referred to her supplementary note to give suggestions for adoption of a method to attend to the infrastructural needs of the judiciary.
She submitted in a note that there should be a member from the High Court committee, who is part of the central monitoring level committee or state monitoring level committee. She also highlighted the problem related to the
sanctioned strength of judges
Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj advised the bench on various aspects such as pendency of cases in the country, vacancies of manpower in the courts, number of judicial officers posted for non-judicial work.
Justice Chandrachud in the order asked the States to respond as to how much they have spent from the centrally sponsored scheme on the judiciary since 5 years.
READ THE ORDER-