A & A Legal Services

24/11/2017

Arbitrary detention at check-posts unfair: High Court

Holding that detention at check-post by the local authorities and demanding of substantially high amounts from the holder of goods was illegal and violative of law, the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a recent decision directed release of the goods while also imposing cost on the government department. The High Court declared that "acting on one technicality or the other with a view to harass and abuse the power of detention of vehicles and goods is not consistent with the fair procedure required to be followed to justify interference with the right of life and liberty of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution".

The High Court inter alia observed as under;
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of detaining the goods at the Check Post was arbitrary and malafide. There was no attempt at evasion and even if valuation of the respondents is accepted and it is to be presumed that there was attempt at evasion of tax of about Rs. 27,500/-, there was no justification for demanding Rs. 8 lacs for release of goods. It is further pointed out that the action is highhanded. At best, the Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could be required to furnish bond of Rs. 27,500/- or the information could have been sent to the concerned authority so that the alleged loss of tax could be recovered from the concerned dealer. Reliance is placed on judgment of this Court in Xcell Automation v. Government of Punjab and another [2007] 005 VST 0308 to the effect that power at the Check Post cannot be abused and detention cannot be arbitrarily continued. Even if there was an allegation of attempt at evasion, the goods must be released on reasonable conditions. No justification has been shown for demand of Rs. 8 lacs for release of goods.
7. We are of the view that the present case is an instance of abuse of authority by the concerned detaining authority at the Check Post. No basis for suspicion of undervaluation has been shown. Even if it is assumed that there was alleged under-valuation and attempt at evasion of tax to the extent of Rs 27,500/-, continued detention of goods and the vehicles for more than a week resulting in loss of more than the amount of alleged evasion of tax cannot be ignored. The detaining authority is expected to act responsibly and pass appropriate order to the extent required for checking the evasion of tax. This has not been done. Continued detention may be permissible only if there is failure on the part of the owner or the transporter to secure the allegedly evaded tax or the amount of penalty which may be entailed under the statutory provisions. Acting on one technicality or the other with a view to harass and abuse the power of detention of vehicles and goods is not consistent with the fair procedure required to be followed to justify interference with the right of life and liberty of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution. Department of the State must ensure that drastic power of detaining vehicles and goods at the Check Post is not abused. We find that abuse is taking place frequently without any let or hindrance and the head of the concerned department has failed to check the abuse which calls for interference by this Court.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has undertaken to furnish bank guarantee to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- which will take care of the alleged evasion of tax and on such bank guarantee being furnished, the goods and the vehicles will stand released forthwith. The Bank guarantee will be to indemnify the State of the tax loss, if any determined in appropriate proceedings within six months from today. On expiry of six months, the Bank guarantee will stand discharged subject to tax liability being discharged. It is also made clear that this order will not debar any legal proceedings being taken in the matter, as may be permissible. The detaining authority will pay costs quantified at Rs. 50,000/- in all the three cases together to be deposited with the High Court Legal Aid Committee within one month from today. The amount of costs may be recovered from the person who is responsible for acting illegally. The State will also be at liberty to initiate Learned counsel for the petitioners has undertaken to disciplinary proceedings against persons responsible for the misconduct.
Have a look at the decision.
Tarun Jain on 5/10/2011

Holding that detention at check-post by the local authorities and demanding of substantially high amounts from the holder of goods was ille...

24/11/2017

No encroachment on public roads, even for religious reasons: High Court

In an earlier post of 2009 we had covered a direction passed by the Supreme Court to the effect that no construction of temples could be made on public roads. We had also covered in 2010 a decision of the Kerala High Court that there could not be any public meetings on roads as it creates inconvenience to public at large. It appears that there is no effect of such directions being passed on the common folk. In this post we are covering a decision of the Allahabad High Court which again emphasizes this point to hold that even for religious reasons there can be no encroachment on public roads.

The case of Luvkuch v. State of Uttar Pradesh [Misc. Bench No. 13474/2016, decision dated 03.06.2016][AIR 2016 All 220] came up before the High Court on account of the complaint of local residents of the State against those "encroaching upon a public pathway by raising construction of a religious structure (Temple) and attempting to encroach upon the public land". They submitted that "people of this Country are basically simple and have faith in one or the other religion" and they are "normally soft whenever any religious activity is undertaken, even if it causes inconvenience of any kind to them". It was on account of this tendency of theirs, it was argued, that others took "advantage of such religious sentiments normally shown by majority of people" and such "scrupulous people do not hesitate in gross misuse by proceeding to encroach upon public land causing obstruction in smooth movement of public." Their argument was noted by the High Court in the following terms;
"3. ... Many a times, we have seen that in the garb of constructing religious structures, like Temple, Mazar, Samadhi, Mosque, Gurudwara, Church etc., public roads (including highways), streets, pathways etc. are encroached upon, obstructing or creating hindrance in smooth movement of public including vehicular traffic and once such structure is raised, due to fear of adverse consequences, people normally avoid to complain, and used to adjust such misuse. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that authorities in power, who under the statute, are responsible to prevent such encroachment and illegal constructions also play soft and do not take or hesitate in taking action for preventing such activities and this is causing mushroom growth of such structures by encroaching upon public roads (including highways), streets, pathways etc. ..."
The Government lawyer accepted that "such encroachment and illegal constructions, neither in law nor otherwise can be allowed" but also submitted that it was "looking to religious sentiments of people" that "authorities find it difficult to take actual action." Taking note of the position, the High Court passed the following order;
"6. There is no fundamental or legal right to encroach upon a public road (including highway), street etc. and raise construction of any kind thereon. These unauthorised and illegal activities cause hindrance and interruption in free flow and movement of traffic including foot walkers. Every citizen has a fundamental right of movement and this cannot be allowed to be infringed by a few violators in public and apathy of State authorities. In our view, those who create such obstructions as also those who perpetuate it by taking care/ managing such structures and also those who fail to take any action in law, all deserve to be taken to task and make responsible and accountable for their respective misdeeds.
7. Looking to the wider perspective of the issue and widespread tendency of such encroachment in the name of religion, faith, sect etc., we find that the State Government and Officials must be asked to act and show response in an effective manner."
In this background the High Court passed the following directions to all State authorities;
(i) State of U.P. through Chief Secretary, U.P. is directed to issue a general direction to all Collectors and Senior Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of Police including the Officers responsible for maintenance of roads including highways) in State of U.P. to ensure that no religious structure in any form, whatsoever, shall be allowed / permitted to be raised on public road (including highways), street, pathway, lane etc. including sideways which is part and parcel of road (including highways) etc. and belong to State.
(ii) If any such structure is existing and has been raised in the last five years, to be more precise on and after 01.01.2011, the same shall be removed forthwith and a compliance report shall be submitted by Collectors etc. of concerned Districts to Principal Secretary/Secretary of concerned department, who shall submit a comprehensive report to the Chief Secretary within next two months.
(iii) If any such religious structure has been raised encroaching upon public road (including highways), street, lane etc., as stated above, before 01.01.2011, a Scheme shall be worked out and executed to shift the same to a private land offered by beneficiaries of such religious structures or persons responsible for its management or to remove it, within six months and a compliance report shall be submitted in the manner as said above in Direction No. (ii).
(iv) On and after 10.06.2016, it shall be the responsibility of all Deputy Collectors/ Collectors in respective Sub-divisions and District as also Circle Officers and Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police of concerned District including the Officers responsible for maintenance of roads (including highways) that no encroachment is made, by raising religious structures, by whatever name it is called, belong to any religion, creed, caste, sect, section etc., on public roads (including highways), streets, pathways, sideways, lanes etc. and if any deviation or disobedience is found, these Officers shall be personally responsible. This disobedience shall also be treated a deliberate and intentional disobedience to lower down authority of Court and would amount to criminal contempt.
(v) State Government is also directed to make out a plan so as to ensure that public roads (including highways), streets, pathways, sideways, lanes etc. are not obstructed creating hindrance in the smooth flow of traffic/movement of public on such roads (including highways) due to observance of religious activities and such activities are performed strictly at the places identified for the same or belong to concerned religious sections or at private place.
(vi) In the present case, District Magistrate is directed to take immediate steps and take appropriate action within two weeks.
While indeed the High Court has passed the directions calling upon the authorities to take action, one cannot rule out with certainty that such actions will not be repeated again. Land grabbing, albeit in the name of religion, is a common affair in the country and it will definitely take more than a mandamus to the authorities to act. The common folks must realise the importance of the issue and then only some improvement can be expected.
Tarun Jain on 2/11/2017

In an earlier post of 2009 we had covered a direction passed by the Supreme Court to the effect that no construction of temples could be ...

03/10/2017

SORRY MY LORD ! THIS IS NOT JUSTICE BUT MANIFESTATION OF ANTI-WOMEN ATTITUDE, PURE & SIMPLE !!
Another decision lets down women!
Kunika
Many differ with the court’s acquittal of Mahmood Farooqui, the re-inventor of dastangoi. In particular, is an advance on a woman’s body permissible if she has said ‘No’ in a cadence that may not have the ring of definitiveness?
This time a Fulbright scholar pursuing PhD from Columbia University has been told that the “forceful” act of her “good friend” of “taking away her sexuality”, even after she said “no”, did not amount to r**e. Why? Because she failed the ‘test of denial’.
Apparently, she said ‘no’.
But that ‘no’ was not strong enough to mean a ‘no’, rather it meant ‘yes’. Even when she was unwilling and explicitly expressed that to the accused, what got communicated to him was that she was willingly consenting and willfully participating in the act. Surprisingly, she communicated her consent by repeatedly saying no !
A `feeble’ no is yes?
The judgment of the Delhi High Court has reasoned it out by creatively highlighting the nuanced shade of a “feeble no” or “feeble hesitation” between an express Yes and No.
A “feeble no’’ has been defined to mean a “yes” in the ``instances of woman behavior’’ and it is further explained that “feeble hesitation can never be understood as a positive negation of any advances by the other partner”.
The court has, therefore, cast a duty upon the prospective victims in each case to ensure that there is a loud and clear NO even if she was in physical and emotional trauma.
As per the decision, this categorisation comes into play when “the parties are known to each other, are persons of letters and are intellectually/academically proficient, and if, in the past, there have been physical contacts in which case little or no resistance and a feeble no would not mean a denial of consent”.
Here are three examples to check how consent would figure-
Parties known to each other: A 10 year old girl knows her step-father very well. However when he tries to force himself she is not able to resist and she falls in “feeble no” category.
Persons of letter and intellectually proficient: A PhD scholar is groped from behind by her university tutor in his cabin; she gets incapacitated by him and is unable to resist.
Past physical contacts: A wife gets divorce from her husband on the ground of cruelty and out of revenge the husband enters his former wife’s house and tries to sexually assault her. Due to fear the woman is incapable of any resistance.
All these cases would now fall squarely within the above mentioned exceptional categorisation carved out by this decision. The women would be assumed to have consented by showing no resistance or feeble hesitation. It would not matter that she was overpowered by the perpetrator in those situations and could not fathom the correct manner of saying ‘no’.
Coerced consent
The Court, erroneously, failed to consider that in many cases the victims ‘go along’ not because they are consenting or wish to participate in the act, but because the perpetrators are often forceful and the victims fear that something bad or worse would happen if they do not keep silent, as it happened in the present case. The victim had duly communicated her denial to the accused by saying no when he asked her and had also given him a push, but she went along as she was afraid. She was not consenting, she was fearful. There was no consent of any kind by any stretch of imaginative interpretation of the term as per the Indian Penal Code.
This decision would also have a bearing on the issue of marital r**e, which would be an alien concept post the invention of the different shades of ‘no’. Invariably, in all cases of marital r**e the degree of ‘no’ falls in the “feeble no” category. The absence of any real resistance would, as per this judgement, “re-affirm willingness” as “an expression of disinclination alone, that also a feeble one, may not be sufficient to constitute r**e.” Moreover, due to past physical contact there would be an element of assumed consent and it would not matter that one of the partners to the act is a bit hesitant. Such feeble hesitations coupled with the history of physical contact would put to rest the whole debate on marital r**e.
However, it is not the first instance that the Courts have, instead of seeing women as equal autonomous beings, viewed cases of sexual assault through the male-centric lens.
Stereotyped reasoning
In 1979 a young tribal girl who was r**ed by police officers in the police station was termed a liar and disbelieved as she had failed to show a resistance strong enough for the judges to believe that she was violated. The Supreme Court , held that “her failure to appeal to her companions who were no others than her brother, her aunt and her lover, and her conduct in meekly following Ganpat appellant and allowing him to have his way with her to the extent of satisfying his lust in full, makes us feel that the consent in question was not a consent which could be brushed aside as “passive submission”.”
Recently, Punjab & Haryana High Court handed out a stereotypical and prejudiced understanding of a r**e case. The Court, while suspending the sentence of the three accused, wrote a masterpiece on victim shaming. She was alleged of “casual relationship with her friends, acquaintances, adventurism and experimentation in sexual encounters" and a case of “misadventure stemming from a promiscuous attitude and a voyeuristic mind" as the “narrative does not throw up gut wrenching violence that normally precede or accompany such incidents".
The woman was not only violated by her ‘friends’.
The Courts always approach r**e cases in a stereotypical manner where a sexual assault must always be preceded by violence and resistance, the absence of which is understood to be consent.
Such consent jurisprudence developed by the Courts has devised ominous propositions which could turn the tide in favour of the perpetrators in the future.
The writer is an advocate in the Supreme Court

This time a Fulbright scholar pursuing PhD from Columbia University has been told that the “forceful” act of her “good friend” of “taking away her sexuality”, even after she said “no”, did not amount to r**e.

28/02/2017

NO CHANGE. ADHAR REMAINS VOLUNTARY
Gopal Krishna (THE TRIBUNE 28.02.2017)

The law doesn’t provide for linking of UID/Aadhaar with either the bank account or biometric profiling. While the US, Australia, China, France and the UK have abandoned such biometric identification, it is underway in India in an illegitimate manner.
Those who wittingly or unwittingly promote biometric profiling-based 12 digit-Unique Identification (UID)/Aadhaar number must remember that the old maxim — “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear” — has been given a very public burial.
This maxim, attributed to N**i propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels, has been debunked. This myth is never questioned when it is advanced as an argument to support whatever draconian surveillance measure is being pushed out. These assumptions include existence of a benign government. It ignores the fact that no single entity can securely withhold information amidst massive pressures to share information within and beyond government. Information flow is akin to water flow which is getting monetised by the private sector of all ilks.
In its counter affidavit in the Supreme Court in Lokniti Foundation vs Union of India case, the Union of India has stated that UID/Aadhaar is voluntary. This submission has been reproduced in the order of CJI headed two-Judge Division Bench on February 6, 2017 that stated “currently Aadhaar card or biometric authentication is not mandatory for obtaining a new telephone connection.”
In its petition, Lokniti Foundation, had prayed that “the Aadhar card or such other biometric identification may be made compulsory for verification of the mobile phone subscribers.” After the Attorney General’s submission, it is apparent that the Bench decided to adhere to the Constitution Bench’s order that keeps biometric UID/Aadhaar Number voluntary.
This position has been repeated by the High Courts of Karnataka, Jammu and Kashmir and Andhra Pradesh. In a glaring case, Punjab and Haryana High Court bench headed by the then Chief Justice A K Sikri (currently a judge of the Supreme Court) heard a matter challenging a circular making UID/Aadhaar number mandatory. The moment the Court raised questions of laws, the Centre withdrew the circular. The decision underlined that the UID/Aadhaar project is illegitimate and indefensible. When it is made mandatory, it is legally assailable. Notably, the West Bengal Assembly passed a unanimous resolution against the UID/Aadhaar number-related scheme in supreme public interest. The current CJI headed Division Bench made a slight departure from its observation on January 5, 2017, wherein a CJI headed three-Judge Bench, including Justice N V Ramana and Justice D Y Chandrachud, observed that there is no urgency in setting up a Constitution Bench as per the request of Chief Justice of India headed 5-Judge Constitution Bench including Justice M.Y. Eqbal, Justice C. Nagappan, Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Amitava Roy. The order of the Constitution Bench reads: “Since there is some urgency in the matter, we request the learned CJI to constitute a Bench for final hearing of these matters at the earliest.” Over 15 months have passed but the order remains unresponded. This order puts on record that: “This Bench is constituted only for the purpose of deciding the applications filed by the Union of India seeking certain clarification/modification in the orders passed by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court dated 11.08.2015.” It is germane to note that this August 11, 2015 order of the three-Judge Bench of Justice Chelameswar, Justice S.A. Bobde and Justice C. Nagappan observed, “We are also of the opinion that the institutional integrity and judicial discipline require that pronouncement made by larger Benches of this Court cannot be ignored by the smaller Benches without appropriately explaining the reasons for not following the pronouncements made by such larger Benches.” Its order reads: “By a reasoned order, the matters are referred to a Bench of appropriate strength.”
The order of the Bench of appropriate strength dated October 15, 2015 passed by the CJI headed 5-Judge Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in the “UID/Aadhaar” matter reads: “We impress upon the Union of India that it shall strictly follow all the earlier orders passed by this Court commencing from 23.09.2013. We will also make it clear that the Aadhaar card Scheme is purely voluntary and it cannot be made mandatory till the matter is finally decided by this Court one way or the other.” The Court reiterated its order on September 14, 2016 after the passage of The Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 underlining the fact that the last order of the Supreme Court is the law of the land. Indian residents or agencies which are facing problems due to any order which are making biometric UID/Aadhaar Number compulsory can use the Court’s orders to save oneself from illegitimate, illegal and unconstitutional instructions or circulars. Notably, the existing legal provisions do not provide for seeding of UID/Aadhaar with any scheme or project. Nor does it provide for biometric profiling which is underway in an illegitimate manner. Meanwhile, the USA, Australia, China, France, UK and the Philippines have abandoned biometric uniqueness-based national identification exercises. It is quite evident that repeated Court’s orders issued till February 6, 2017 make it clear that UID/ Aadhaar remains voluntary.
While it can be safely inferred that the hearing by CJI headed 3-Judge Bench on January 5, 2017 was not done by a Bench of appropriate strength, but the hearing by the Division Bench on February 6, 2017 is compliant with “institutional integrity and judicial discipline”. Notably, Supreme Court’s website continues to refer to Writ Petition (Civil) 494 of 2012 and related cases under the “Subject Category: Five Judges Bench Matter”, making it abundantly clear that Supreme Court’s Registry has not complied with the order of the Justice Chalmeshwar-headed Bench wherein it observed, “We, therefore, direct the Registry to place these matters before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders.”
There is a logical legal obligation for government and non-government agencies that are implementing Aadhaar-related schemes and systems to use the order of the Election Commission (August 13, 2015) as a template to revise their orders and circular to comply with Court’s order in letter and spirit. There is hope that Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench will be set up in right earnest before it is too late.

The writer is with Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties (CFCL)

21/01/2017

DEFENCE MINISTRY FINED Rs.5 CRORES FOR FALSELY IMPLICATING & SENTENCING AN ARMY OFFICER TO MISAPPROPRIATE THE GOLD RECOVERED BY HIM
AFT reinstates 2/Lt after 25 yrs
Slaps Rs 5-cr fine on Ministry of Defence; asks for promotion up to Lt Col
Shahira Naim Tribune News Service Lucknow, January 20

The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) has reinstated Second Lieutenant Shatrughan Singh Chauhan after 25 years, restoring his seniority and promotions as well as imposing a fine of Rs 5 crore on the Ministry of Defence.
The matter, which came up before AFT’s Justice DP Singh and Air Marshal Anil Chopra yesterday, is about Mainpuri native Second Lt SS Chauhan, who had been serving in the Sixth Rajput Battalion when he was court martialled on November 4, 1991, which sacked him and awarded him seven-year imprisonment.
The order was later confirmed by the then General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Udhampur. In a major indictment of his seniors, the AFT observed that his senior officers had purposely implicated the young officer in a false case to ensure that the gold he had recovered during a search operation could be concealed from the government.
The AFT order quashing Chauhan’s sacking order has directed the Defence Ministry to provide him promotional avenues up to the stage of Lieutenant Colonel for the purpose of arrears of salary pension benefits and rank.
The ministry is also to pay Rs 4 crore to Chauhan and another Rs 1 crore has to be deposited in the Army Central Welfare Fund within four months.
The case goes back to April 11, 1990, when during the peak days of militancy during a search operation in Srinagar, Chauhan in the presence of other soldiers had recovered 147 gold biscuits weighing around 27.5 kg.
The CO, Colonel KRS Panwar allegedly put pressure on Chauhan not to mention the gold in the documents. The other senior officers also remained silent.
The gold biscuits were allegedly embezzled by the senior army officers. The officer took the matter to Parliament's Committee of Petitions. The Army headquarters ordered a separate inquiry.
It was during the inquiry that some army officers covering him with a blanket attacked Chauhan while he was sleeping in a tent.
In 1991, the court martial cut short Chauhan’s career sentencing him to seven-year jail on charges of being a deserter and mentally unstable

LUCKNOW:The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) has reinstated Second Lieutenant Shatrughan Singh Chauhan after 25 years, restoring his seniority and promotions as well as imposing a fine of Rs 5 crore on the Ministry of Defence.

20/01/2017

FALSE IMPLICATION OF WITNESS, COSTS THE POLICE DEARLY. COURT AWARDS 49 LAKHS COMPENSATION TO VICTIM
Khalra murder: Rs 49 lakh damages for key witness
Manish Sirhindi Tribune News Service Patiala, January 20

A local court today ordered Rs 49-lakh compensation for Kirpal Singh, a key witness in the Jaswant Singh Khalra kidnapping and murder case, who was framed in a false r**e case but was acquitted in 2007.
The court of Sukhwinder Singh, Civil Judge, Senior Division, asked the then Punjab IG Rajinder Singh, current IG Paramraj Singh Umranangal, then Sub-Inspectors Sarabjit Singh Cheema, Jaipal Singh and Shamsher Singh Guddu, journalist Parveen Komal and a woman complainant, Gurmeet Kaur alias Monika, to pay Rs 7 lakh each to Kirpal.
A neighbour of human rights activist Khalra, Kirpal had filed a suit against the seven persons seeking Rs 50 lakh as compensation on account of malicious prosecution he faced at their behest.
The court said: “It has been found that Kirpal is entitled to damages from the police officials, the complainant and the witness on account of malicious prosecution faced by him at their hands. Kirpal suffered mental tension, torture, agony, harassment and irreparable loss. All accused should pay him Rs 7 lakh each, totaling Rs 49 lakh, within two months.”
Kirpal was booked by the Patiala police on July 28, 2003, on a r**e complaint filed by Gurmeet Kaur and Parveen Komal. Kirpal said the case had been slapped to prevent him from appearing in court in connection with the Khalra case, but despite all pressure he got his statements recorded in the court.
He was acquitted of the r**e charge on December 22, 2007. The state filed an appeal in the High Court, which was also dismissed.
Khalra had been involved in a campaign to highlight the plight of those who ‘disappeared’ after being arrested during the 1980s and early 1990s. On September 6, 1995, he “disappeared”.
Many, including Kirpal, had seen him being picked up by Punjab Police in Amritsar.

PATIALA:A local court today ordered Rs 49-lakh compensation for Kirpal Singh, a key witness in the Jaswant Singh Khalra kidnapping and murder case, who was framed in a false r**e case but was acquitted in 2007.

13/01/2017

Judge collapse alert in overloaded high court
Our Bureau (The Telegraph 13.01.2017)

Calcutta, Jan. 12: A judge today said the judges in Calcutta High Court were overburdened with workload because of vacancies and might collapse like the "vulnerable" 150-year-old court building.
"Because of scarcity of adequate number of judges, we, the judges of Calcutta High Court, are overburdened. Our condition is like that of the high court building, which may collapse any time," Justice B. Somadder said.
The observation came at a time Calcutta High Court is being run with only 39 judges against a sanctioned strength of 79 judges. Nearly 3.78 lakh cases are pending in the court.
Vacancies in several courts could not be filled because the Centre had twice sent back to the Supreme Court collegium the list of nominees, seeking clarifications. Usually, after the apex court clarifies once, the government accepts the list. This time, the process has got prolonged, triggering accusations that the Centre was dragging its feet.
Justice Somadder added today: "The chief secretary and the cabinet secretary are getting much more facilities than high court judges. When we ask for any facility for the development of work culture in the high court, the state government comes up with a lot of excuses."
Justice Somadder made the observations while hearing a fair case involving the Trinamul-led Asansol Municipal Corporation and a BJP-backed organisation.
Rabishankar Chattopadhyay, an advocate, said: "Nowadays, even civil judges are assigned to dispose of criminal cases."
A Calcutta High Court official said: "The situation is going to be more critical in the coming days as at least 11 judges of the court will retire by November this year."
The observations by Justice Somadder, who is also the chairman of the development committee of the high court, bring to the fore the condition of the high court building.
According to a recent report submitted to the state government by IIT Roorkee, a portion of the high court building is sinking steadily.
"The western side of the building where four Bar Association rooms are located on the ground floor and the first floor is sinking as the base of the building has been damaged," a source said.
Recently, a chunk of debris had fallen in the Bar Association's Room 11. Justice Somadder had to close the area for repairs while the Bar Association has been shifted to two other rooms.
The state government has asked the IIT to submit a detailed project report to repair the damaged portion. A lawyer felt that the pace of progress was slow, probably the reason why the judge spoke out.

A judge today said the judges in Calcutta High Court were overburdened with workload because of vacancies and might collapse like the 'vulnerable' 150-year-old court building.