Satara District Bar Association Satara Vs State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court)
There is certainly an element of confidentiality in the notings by Judges of any Committee of this Court. There is also very good reason why such notings should not in fact ever be disclosed or allowed to be disclosed. Whether or not this falls within the description of “a fiduciary relationship” is something we need not examine further. But the routine practice is that a submission from the Registry is placed before each of the Judges in that particular committee in turn. It is placed in order of seniority beginning with the Judge who is most junior in terms of years of service on the Bench. This is done consciously so that the Judges who are given the papers next in sequence have the benefit of seeing the comments and notings previously made and of then either agreeing or raising any other point. Often, any Judge in this list irrespective of the hierarchy, may ask that the point be discussed in the meeting. That request is always accepted. In any meeting, there is no question of any Judge being senior or junior. At that stage, all are equally entitled to voice their views. There is a full and frank exchange of views; dissents, especially noted dissents, are exceedingly rare. A judge who had earlier endorsed contrary notings might, in the discussions that followed with the other Judges reverse his position. We may also note that the system of placing a submission before “a junior” Judge first does not indicate and is not meant to indicate that any less weightage is given to that opinion. These are our internal processes for dealing with complex administrative issues. In Maharashtra, this is indeed especially complex given the size of the judiciary and the fact that decision-making is not confined to matters pertaining to the High Court alone. Withholding file notings is, in our view, entirely salutary. This is required for the better administration of justice. The actual material may be disclosed pursuant to an RTI enquiry as along with the final decision but the file notings are only transitory and tentative views and an exchange of views. These should under no circumstances be allowed to be brought into public domain or be made the subject of any controversy.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT
1. We have heard Mr Anturkar for the Petitioners and Dr Sathe for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.
2. Filed by the Satara District Bar Association, this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges what it calls “approvals” dated 31st July 2015 and 6th March 2020 of this High Court on its administrative side. The impugned approvals relate to the establishment at Wai in the Satara District of a Court of an Additional District Judge and a Court of a Civil Judge, Senior Division.
3. A few facts are necessary. These are drawn from the Petition and also from the Affidavit in Reply filed on behalf of the High Court Administration by Mr Yogesh Rane, Registrar (Legal and Research).
4. The Petitioner claims to be a registered organization of about 2500 members and is a Bar Association of the Satara District. The District Court at Satara has 11 Talukas. The Petition recites that the Petitioner learnt that the Bar Associations at Wai and Phaltan were making representations to the High Court to establish a District Court and a Court of a Civil Judge, Senior Division at those places.
5. In paragraph 4(vii) of the Petition, the Petitioner says that these representations by the taluka-level Bar Associations at Wai and Phaltan were “needless” as Wai did not have sufficient infrastructure. Judicial officers, staff and litigants would be put to great difficulty. The Petition then goes on to say that the Petitioners learnt that the High Court had accepted the representation of the Wai Bar Association and sanctioned the establishment of a District Court, Additional Sessions Court and that of a Civil Judge, Senior Division at Wai to cover the Talukas of Wai, Khandala and Mahabaleshwar. These three Talukas fall in Satara District and are presently under the jurisdiction of the Satara District Court. (This Khandala Taluka is distinct from the other one near Lonavala).
6. To give some idea of the relative siting of these places, we include a public-domain map of the region below. This is only for convenience and ease of reference.
7. Paragraph 4(viii) of the Petition then says that the Petitioner filed an application under the Right to Information Act (“RTI Act”) and received some documents pertaining to the administrative approvals of 31st July 2015 and 6th March 2020. On 3rd October 2020, the Petitioners made a detailed representation to this Court asking that the decision to establish Courts at Wai be reconsidered. The main thrust of this representation for reconsideration is that the mere pendency of cases cannot be a determinative criterion for approving the establishment of a new court. A judge-to-cases ratio fixed in 2004 at 500 is outdated because there is a surge in case filings. Strangely, in an apparent contradiction to the previous submission, it is then urged that there are insufficient cases pending in the Wai, Khandala and Mahabaleshwar (and Phaltan) Talukas to justify the establishment of an Additional Sessions Court and a Civil Judge, Senior Judge. In other words, it is suggested that caseload pendency is not a valid determinant for approving a proposal to establish a new court; but the lack of a pendency can be invoked to justify rejecting a proposal for a new court.
8. As usual, the truth lies somewhere in between. What the law says, and we will turn to a binding decision a little later, that pendency and caseloads cannot be the sole determinant. No judgment says that pendency and caseloads cannot be a determinant or a consideration at all.
9. There is a tabulation given for the years 2018, 2019 and 2020 in the Petition itself.
