Home / Supreme Court / Judgments / 2011 / Diary 10032

ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSN.TR.WORKING PRES. v. UNION OF INDIA .

Supreme Court of India | Diary 10032/2011

Status

ROP - of Main Case

Decided On

13-09-2012

Bench

Petitioner

ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSN.TR.WORKING PRES.

Respondent

UNION OF INDIA .

Primary Holding

SKIP:model_skip

Download Judgment (PDF) Check another SC case

Full Judgment Text

\204` IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION I.A.NOs. 33-37, 38-41 IN 34 AND 42 IN TRANSFER CASE (CIVIL.) NO. 22 OF 2001 BRIJ MOHAN LAL Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) WITH CONMT. PET. (CIVIL) NO. 324/2012 IN T.C.(C) NO. 22/2001 T.P.(C)NOs. 407-410 OF 2001 ORDER I.A.NO. 33 Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and in the light of order dated 20th April, 2010 in I.A. No. 77 of three Hon'ble Judges of this Court in All India Judges' Association & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. modifying the earlier judgment in the aforesaid case, we modify our Order dated 19th April, 2012 passed in Transferred Case (Civil) No. 22 of 2001 etc., as under: In paragraph 146, Clause 13(a) shall be read as under: (a) Such promotion, when effected against the 25%/10% quota, as the case may be, for out-of-turn promotion on merit, in accordance with the judgment of this Court in the case of All India Judges' Association (supra) as modified by the order dated 20th April, 2010 of this Court, by taking and being selected through the requisite examination, as contemplated for out-of-turn promotion. We make it clear that the 10% variation would come into play with effect from 01.01.2011 and 25%, prior thereto. In other words, the candidates who were promoted as FTC Judges prior to 01.01.2011 shall be governed by 25% promotion quota while the candidates who were promoted as FTC Judges from the service cadres subsequent thereto shall be in the ratio of 10% with effect from 01.01.2011. It is further clarified that the direction contained in Clause 13(b) against 25% quota shall stand substituted by "50% or 65%" with the afore specified dates. The interlocutory application is disposed of accordingly. I.A.NO. 34 Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant does not want to press this application. Hence the application is dismissed as withdrawn. I.A. NO. 35 One month time from today is granted to the applicant-State for the implementation of this Court's order dated 19th April, 2012 passed in Transferred Case (Civil) No. 22 of 2001 etc. The interlocutory application is accordingly disposed of. I.A.NO. 36 Heard learned counsel for the applicant-State. The prayer (a) of the applicant is granted. The State is allowed to discontinue the Fast Track Court Scheme after the staff recruited thereunder are absorbed in the District Court Service. However, prayer (b) of the applicant seeking exemption from

creating 10% additional posts for Fast Track Court Judges, is rejected. The interlocutory application is accordingly partly allowed. I.A.NO. 37 None appears for the applicant-State. We, however, grant two months time from today to the applicant- State for the implementation of this Court's order dated 19th April, 2012 passed in Transferred Case (Civil) No. 22 of 2001 etc. The interlocutory application is accordingly disposed of. I.A.NOs. 38-40 & 41-42 Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in view of the withdrawal of I.A.No. 34 by the concerned applicant, the applicants of these applications also do not want to press these applications. Accordingly, these applications also stand dismissed as withdrawn. CONMT. PETN. (C) NO. 324/2012 IN T.C.(C) NO. 22/ 2001 We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the petitioner- Association may be allowed to withdraw this petition with liberty to move the High Court, in case the members of the petitioner- Association are not promoted. We accordingly allow the petitioner to withdraw the contempt petition with the aforesaid liberty. The contempt petition is accordingly disposed of. T.P.(C) Nos. 407-410 OF 2001 In view of our Judgment dated 19th April, 2012, these transfer petitions also stand disposed of. .............................J. (A.K. PATNAIK) New Delhi, .............................J. 13-09-2012 (SWATANTER KUMAR)ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.10 SECTION XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSI.A.NOs. 33-37, 38-41 IN 34 AND 42 INTRANSFER CASE (CIVIL.) NO. 22 OF 2001BRIJ MOHAN LAL Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for modification, clarification, extension of time, directions, intervention, impleadment and office report)WITHCONTMT. PET. (CIVIL) NO. 324/2012 IN T.C.(C) NO. 22/2001T.P.(C) NO. 407-410/2001(With appln. for ex-parte stay and office report)Date: 13/09/2012 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATNAIK HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SWATANTER KUMAR

For the parties : Mr. P.S. Narasimha, Sr. Adv. (A.C.) Mr. A. Mariarputham, Sr. Adv. Mr. Imtiyaz Ahmad, Adv. Mr. S. Wasim Qadri, Adv. Mr. B.V. Balramdas, Adv. Ms. Sunita Sharma, Adv. Mr. S.R. Singh, Sr. Adv. Ms. Namita Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Avnish Singh, Adv. Mr. Sushant K. Yadav, Adv. Mr. Vijay Hansaria, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vivek Singh, Adv. Mr. A. Mariarputham, AG Ms. Aruna Mathur, Adv. Mr. Yusuf Khan, Adv. for M/S Arputham Aruna & Co., Advs. Mr. Anil Grover, AAG Mr. Noopur Singhal, Adv. Dr. Manish Singhvi, AAG Mr. Amit Lubhaya, Adv. Mr. Irshad Ahmad, Adv. Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, Adv. Mr. Amit Kr. Singh, Adv. Mr. Vikrant Yadav, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Dhingra, Adv. Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv. Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Adv. Mr. Jesal, Adv. Ms. Nandini Gupta, Adv. Mr. C.D. Singh, Adv. Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Adv. Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv. Mr. Ritu Raj Biswas, Adv. Ms. A. Subhashini, Adv. Mr. Manjit Singh, AAG Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta, Adv. Mr. Vikas S. Walia, Adv. for M/s Corporate Law Group, Advs. Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. S. Bhowmick, Adv. Mr. S.C. Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Pragyan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Heshu Kavina, Adv. Mr. Rupesh Gupta, Adv. Mr. Gautam Dhamija, Adv. Mr. K.N. Madhusoodhanan, Adv. Mr. R. Sathish, Adv. Mr. R.K. Gupta, Adv.

Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Atul Jha, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Jha, Adv. Mr. D.K. Sinha, Adv. Mr. Khawirakpam Nobin Singh, Adv. Mr. Sapan Biswajit Meitei, Adv. Mr. Prateek Dwivedi, Adv. Ms. Rachna Shrivastav, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Giri, Adv. Mr. Dilip Kr. Sharma, Adv. Mr. Anil Shrivastav, Adv. Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Adv. Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri,Adv. Mrs. Sumita Ray, Adv. Mr. S. Ravi Shankar, Adv. Mr. Shiv Ram Sharma, Adv. Mr. Nitin Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, Adv. Mr. Ashok K. Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Ashok Mathur, Adv. Mr. G.S. Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. G. Prakash, Adv. Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Adv. Mr. K. Ram Kumar, Adv. Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, Adv. Mr. Pradeep Misra, Adv. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Adv. Mr. Raj Kumar Mehta, Adv. Mr. R. Sathish, Adv. Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain, Adv. Mr. T.G. Narayanan Nair, Adv. Mr. T.C. Sharma, Adv. Mr. T.V. Ratnam, Adv. Mrs V.D. Khanna, Adv. Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Adv. Mr. Annam D.N. Rao, Adv. Mrs.Revathy Raghavan, Adv. Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Adv.

Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav, Adv. Mr. J.P. Dhanda, Adv. Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri, Adv. Mr. B.S. Banthia, Adv. Mr. Mukesh K. Giri, Adv. Mr. Radha Shyam Jena, Adv. Mr. Anil Shrivastav, Adv. Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Adv. Mr. P.I. Jose, Adv. Mr. Vishwajit Singh, Adv. Ms. Meera Mathur, Adv. Mr. Gopal Prasad, Adv. Mr. Sibo Sankar Mishra, Adv. Mr. Javed Mahmud Rao, Adv. Mr. Abhijit Sengupta, Adv. Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, Adv. Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Jagjit Singh Chhabra, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, Adv. Mr. C.D. Singh, Adv. Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Adv. M/S. Parekh & Co., Adv. Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran, Adv. Mr. Kuldip Singh, Adv. Mr.Manish Kumar Saran, Adv. Mr. Vivek Singh, Adv. Ms. Namita Choudhary, Adv. Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Adv. Mr. P. Parmeswaran, Adv. Mrs.D. Bharathi Reddy, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Nayyar, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R All the applications/petitions are disposed of in terms of the signed order.

The Registry is directed to circulate copy of this order to all the High Courts.| (G. SUDHAKARA RAO) | | (SHARDA KAPOOR) ||COURT MASTER | |COURT MASTER | (SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE)

n&ITEM NO.1A Court No.9 SECTION XVIA(For judgment) S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSTRANSFER CASE (CIVIL.) NO. 22 OF 2001BRIJ MOHAN LAL Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)WithTransferred Case (C) No.23 of 2001Writ Petition (C) No.140 of 2005Writ Petition (C) No.28 of 2011Writ Petition (C) No.152 of 2011Writ Petition (C) No.250 of 2008Writ Petition (C) No.254 of 2008Writ Petition (C) No.261 of 2008C.A. arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.26148 of 2010C.A. Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.26209 of 2010C.A. Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.26318 of 2010C.A. Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.26363 of 2010C.A. Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.26364 of 2010C.A. Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.26432 of 2010C.A. Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.26444 of 2010C.A. Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.26446 of 2010C.A. Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.26448 of 2010 1C.A. Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.26634 of 2010C.A. Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.26660 of 2010C.A. Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.27437 of 2010C.A. Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.27682 of 2010C.A. Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.28019 of 2010C.A. Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.28130 of 2010C.A. Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.28353 of 2010C.A. Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.30500 of 2010C.A. Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.30577 of 2010C.A. Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.30599 of 2010C.A. Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.30912 of 2010C.A. Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.31485 of 2010C.A. Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.2485 of 2011C.A. Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.1412-1413 of 2011C.A. Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.32624-32627 of 2011Writ Petition (C) No.203 of 2010C.A. No. 1276 of 2005Date: 19/04/2012 These Petitions were called on forpronouncement of judgment today.For appearing parties: Mr. P.S. Narasimha,Sr.Adv. (A.C.) Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri,Adv.For State of Mizoram: Mr. K.N. Madhusoodhanan,Adv. Mr. R. Sathish,Adv. 2State of M.P. Mr. Vikas Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. B.S. Banthia, Adv.

Govt. of Puducherry Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Adv. Mr. S.J. Aristotle, Adv. Mr. Praburamasubramanian, Adv. Mr. Khawairakpam Nobin Singh, Adv. Mr. Sopam Biswajit Mattei, Adv. Mr. Teehi P., Adv.State of Haryana Mr. Manjit Singh, AAG Mr. Tarjit Singh, Adv. Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta, Adv. Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, Adv. Mr. C.D. Singh, Adv. Mr. Sibo Sankar Mishra, Adv.State of Meghalaya Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. S. Bhowmick, Adv. Mr. S.C. Ghosh, Adv. Ms. Garima Bose, Adv.State of Gujarat Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Adv. Ms. Jesal, Adv. Mr. Rojalin Pradhan, Adv. 3 Mr. Sanjay Kharde, Adv. Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Adv. Mr. Haresh Raichura, Adv. Ms. Saroj Raichura, Adv.State of Chattisgarh Mr. Atul Jha, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Jha, Adv. Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Adv. Mr. P. Parmeswaran,Adv. Mr. Shibashish Misra,Adv. Ms. Kamini Jaiswal,Adv. Ms. Rachana Srivastava,Adv. Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra,Adv. Mr. V.N. Raghupathy,Adv. Mr. Javed Mahmud Rao,Adv. Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh,Adv. Mr. Annam D.N.Rao,Adv. Mr. T.V. Ratnam,Adv. Mr. Prashant Bhushan,Adv. Mr. K. Ram Kumar,Adv. Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv. Mr. Anil Shrivastav,Adv. Mr. Sanjay R.Hegde,Adv. Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee,Adv. 4M/s Corporate Law Group

Mr. J.P. Dhanda,Adv.Mr. Ashok Mathur,Adv.Mrs. V.D. Khanna,Adv.Mr. T.C. Sharma,Adv.Mr. Raj Kumar Mehta,Adv.Mr. V.G. Pragasam,Adv.M/s. Arputham, Aruna & Co.Mrs. Revathy Raghavan,Adv.Ms. A. Subhashini,Adv.Mr. Radha Shyam Jena,Adv.Mr. Mukesh K.Giri,Adv.Mr. vishwajit Singh,adv.Mr. Rajesh Srivastava,Adv.Mr. Anil K.Jha,Adv.Mr. G.S. Chatterjee,Adv.Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain,Adv.Mr. P.I. Jose,Adv.Mr. Pradeep Misra,Adv.Mr. Manish Kumar Saran,adv.Mr. Anil Kumar Jha,Adv.Mr. G. Prakash,Adv.M/s. Parekh & Co.Mr. T.G. Narayanan Nair,Adv.Mr. Gopal Prasad,Adv.Mr. Naresh K.Sharma,Adv.Mr. Gopal Prasad,Adv.Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran,Adv. 5Ms. Meera Mathur,Adv.Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav,Adv.Mr. Ashok K.Srivastava,Adv.Mr. Abhijit Sengupta,Adv.Mr. B.P. Yadav,Adv.Mr. Jagat Singh Chhabra,Adv.Mr. S. Ravi Shankar,Adv.Mrs. D.Bharathi Reddy,Adv.Mr. D.S. Mahra,Adv.Mr. Arun K. Sinha,Adv.Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma,Adv.Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv.Mr. Shiv Ram Sharma,Adv.Mr. Nikhil Nayyar,Adv.Mr. D.N. Ray,Adv.Mr. Lokesh K.Choudhary,Adv.Mrs. Sumita Ray,Adv.Mr. Shibashish Misra,Adv.Mr. C.S.N. Mohan Rao,Adv.Mr. Manoj K. Mishra,Adv.Mr. T. Mahipal,Adv.Mr. A. Venayagam Balan,Adv.Mr. Nitin Bhardwaj,Adv.Mr. P.S. Sudheer,Adv.Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal,Adv.Ms. Abha R. Sharma,Adv.Mr. Irshad Ahmad,Adv.Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta,Adv. 6 Mr. D. Mahesh Babu,Adv. Mr. G.N. Reddy,Adv. Mr. G. Ramakrishna Prasad,Adv. Mr. Venkateswara Rao Anumolu,Adv. Ms. T. Kanaka Durga,Adv. Mr. Sridhar Potaraju,Adv. Hon'ble Mr. Swatanter Kumar pronouncedthe judgment of the Bench comprising of Hon'ble

Mr. Justice A.K. Patnaik and His Lordship. In terms of the signed reportablejudgment, W.P.(C)NO.152 of 2011 is dismissed asinfructuous. All interim orders passed in any of theabove petitions shall automatically standvacated in terms of this order. With the abovedirections, all the appeals and other writpetitions are partially allowed while leavingthe parties to bear their own costs. (O.P. Sharma) (M.S. Negi) Court Master Court Master(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file) 7 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) NO. 22 OF 2001Brij Mohan Lal ...Petitioner VersusUnion of India & Ors. ...Respondents With Transferred Case (C) No. 23 of 2001, Writ Petition (C) No. 140 of 2005, Writ Petition (C) No. 28 of 2005, Writ Petition (C) No. 152 of 2011, Writ Petition (C) No. 250 of 2008, Writ Petition (C) No. 254 of 2008, Writ Petition (C) No. 261 of 2008, CA No.3635 of 2012 @ SLP(C) No. 26148 of 2010 CA No.3636 of 2012 @ SLP(C) No. 26209 of 2010 CA No.3637 of 2012 @ SLP(C) No. 26318 of 2010 CA No.3638 of 2012 @ SLP(C) No. 26363 of 2010 CA No.3639 of 2012 @ SLP(C) No. 26364 of 2010 CA No.3640 of 2012 @ SLP(C) No. 26432 of 2010 CA No.3641 of 2012 @ SLP(C) No. 26444 of 2010 CA No.3642 of 2012 @ SLP(C) No. 26446 of 2010 CA No.3643 of 2012 @ SLP(C) No. 26448 of 2010 CA No.3644 of 2012 @ SLP(C) No. 26634 of 2010 CA No.3645 of 2012 @ SLP(C) No. 26660 of 2010 8 CA No.3646 of 2012 @ SLP(C) No. 27437 of 2010 CA No.3647 of 2012 @ SLP(C) No. 27682 of 2010 CA No.3648 of 2012 @ SLP(C) No. 28019 of 2010 CA No.3649 of 2012 @ SLP(C) No. 28130 of 2010 CA No.3650 of 2012 @ SLP(C) No. 28353 of 2010 CA No.3651 of 2012 @ SLP(C) No. 30500 of 2010 CA No.3652 of 2012 @ SLP(C) No. 30577 of 2010 CA No.3653 of 2012 @ SLP(C) No. 30599 of 2010 CA No.3654 of 2012 @ SLP(C) No. 30912 of 2010 CA No.3655 of 2012 @ SLP(C) No. 31485 of 2010 CA No.3656 of 2012 @ SLP(C) No. 2485 of 2011 CA Nos.3657-3658 of 2012 @ SLP(C) Nos. 1412-1413 of 2011 CA Nos.3659-3662 of 2012 @ SLP(C) Nos. 32624-32627 of 2011 Writ Petition (C) No. 203 of 2010 Civil Appeal No. 1276 of 2005

J U D G M E N TSwatanter Kumar, J.1. Leave granted in the all the above SLPs.2. The Writ Petition being CWP No. 5740 of 2001 titled BrijMohan Lal v. Union of India and Ors. was filed in the HighCourt of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh under Article 226/227of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ inthe nature of quo warranto and prohibition, requiring the 9respondents to stop the scheme and policy of appointment of theretired District and Sessions Judges as ad hoc Judges of theFast Track Courts (hereinafter referred to as the `FTCs') in theState Judicial Services. It was also prayed in that petitionthat in order to maintain the standards of judicial system, thescheme of appointing the retired Judges, as opposed to theregular appointment of Judges to the posts of District andSessions Judges from the members of the Bar or from the lowerjudiciary, should be given up. The principal submission made inthe writ petition was that the constitutional scheme containedunder Articles 233 to 235 read with Articles 308 and 309 of theConstitution do not contemplate and permit appointment ofretired judges as ad hoc District and Sessions Judges. Evenotherwise, there is no constitutional provision which empowersthe authorities concerned to make such appointments. Thepurpose of this petition obviously was to ensure that only themembers of the Bar are appointed by direct recruitment to thepost of ad hoc District and Sessions Judges.3. A writ petition being Writ Petition No.8903 of 2001titled Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh v. Union of India also cameto be filed before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabadpraying that the Court may issue appropriate order, writ ordirection declaring that constitution of the FTCs and 32

presiding officers in the State of Andhra Pradesh and the G.O.M. 10Nos. 38 Law (LA & J. Courts.C) Department, dated 27th March, 2001and G.O. Rt. No. 412, Law (LA & J. SC.F) Department dated 27thMarch, 2001 was unconstitutional and consequently should be setaside.4. The Union of India filed two transfer petitions beforethis Court being Transfer Petition Nos.331-332 of 2001 fortransfer of both the Brij Mohan Lal case and the Bar Council ofAndhra Pradesh case (supra) from the High Courts of Punjab andHaryana and Andhra Pradesh respectively, to the Supreme Court.These petitions came to be allowed vide order dated 3 rd August,2001. By the same order, a Bench of this Court even permittedthe intervention by other parties who might have filed similarpetitions in different High Courts of the country.5. Both these writ petitions upon transfer to this Courtwere numbered as Transferred Cases Nos. 22 and 23 of 2001,respectively.6. On 6th May, 2002, a detailed order was passed by thisCourt in Transferred Case No.22 of 2001 and the directionsissued therein read as under : "1. The first preference for appointment of judges of the Fast Track Courts is to be given by ad-hoc promotions from amongst eligible judicial officers. While giving such promotion, the High Court shall follow the procedures in force in the matter of promotion to such posts in Superior/Higher Judicial Services. 112. The second preference in appointments toFast Track Courts shall be given to retiredjudges who have good service records with noadverse comments in their ACRs, so far asjudicial acumen, reputation regardinghonesty, integrity and character areconcerned. Those who were not given thebenefit of two years extension of the age ofsuperannuation, shall not be considered forappointment. It should be ensured thatthey satisfy the conditions laid down inArticle 233(2) and 309 of the Constitution.The concerned High Court shall take adecision with regard to the minimum-maximumage of eligibility to ensure that they are

physically fit for the work in Fast TrackCourts.3. No Judicial Officer who was dismissed orremoved or compulsorily retired or made toseek retirement shall be considered forappointment under the Scheme. JudicialOfficers who have sought voluntaryretirement after initiation of Departmentalproceedings/inquiry shall not be consideredfor appointment.4. The third preference shall be given tomembers of the Bar for direct appointment inthese Courts. They should be preferably inthe age group of 35-45 years, so that theycould aspire to continue against the regularposts if the Fast Track Courts cease tofunction. The question of theircontinuance in service shall be reviewedperiodically by the High Court based ontheir performance. They may be absorbed inregular vacancies, if subsequent recruitmenttakes place and their performance in theFast Track Courts is found satisfactory.For the initial selection, the High Courtshall adopt such methods of selection as arenormally followed for selection of membersof the Bar as direct recruits to theSuperior/Higher Judicial Services.5. Overall preference for appointment inFast Track Courts shall be given to eligible 12officers who are on the verge of retirementsubject to they being physically fit.6. The recommendation for selection shallbe made by a Committee of at least threeJudges of the High Court, constituted by theChief Justice of the concerned High Court inthis regard. The final decision in thematter shall be taken by the Full Court ofthe High Court.7. After ad-hoc promotion of judicialofficers to the Fast Track Courts, theconsequential vacancies shall be filled upimmediately by organizing a specialrecruitment drive. Steps should be takenin advance to initiate process for selectionto fill up these vacancies much before thejudicial officers are promoted to the FastTrack Courts, so that vacancies may not begenerated at the lower levels of thesubordinate judiciary. The High Court andthe State Government concerned shall takeprompt steps to fill up the consequential aswell as existing vacancies in thesubordinate Courts on priority basis.Concerned State Government shall takenecessary directions within a month from thereceipt of the recommendations made by theHigh Court.8. Priority shall be given by the FastTrack Courts for disposal of those Sessionscases which are pending for the longestperiod of time, and/or those involvingunder-trials. Similar shall be theapproach for Civil cases i.e. old casesshall be given priority.9. While the staff of a regular Court ofAdditional District and Sessions Judge

includes a Sessions Clerk and an officePeon, work in Fast Track Courts is reportedto be adversely affected due to shortage ofstaff as compared to regular Courtsperforming same or similar functions. Whensingle Orderly or Clerk proceeds on leave,work in Fast Track Courts gets held up.The staff earmarked for each such Court are 13a Peshkar/ Superintendent, a Stenographerand an Orderly. If the staff isinadequate, the High Court and the StateGovernment shall take appropriate decisionto appoint additional staff who can beaccommodated within the savings out of theexisting allocations by the CentralGovernment.10. Provisions for the appointment of PublicProsecutor and Process Server have not beenmade under the Fast Track Courts Scheme. APublic Prosecutor is necessary for effectivefunctioning of the Fast Track Courts.Therefore, a Public Prosecutor may beearmarked for each such Court and theexpenses for the same shall be borne out ofthe allocation under the head `Fast TrackCourts'. Process service shall be donethrough the existing mechanism.11. A State Level Empowered Committee headedby the Chief Secretary of the State shallmonitor the setting up of earmarked numberof Fast Track Courts and smooth functioningof such Courts in each State, as per theguidelines already issued by the Governmentof India.12. The State Governments shall utilize thefunds allocated under the Fast Track CourtsScheme promptly and will not withhold anysuch funds or divert them to other uses.They shall send the utilization certificatesfrom time to time to the Central Government,who shall ensure immediate release of fundsto the State Governments on receipt ofrequired utilization certificates.13. At least one Administrative Judge shallbe nominated in each High Court to monitorthe disposal of cases by Fast Track Courtsand to resolve the difficulties andshortcomings, if any, with theadministrative support and cooperation ofthe concerned State Government. StateGovernment shall ensure requisitecooperation to the Administrative Judge. 1414. No right will be conferred on JudicialOfficers in service for claiming any regularpromotion on the basis of his/herappointment on ad-hoc basis under theScheme. The service rendered in Fast TrackCourts will be deemed as service rendered inthe parent cadre. In case any JudicialOfficer is promoted to higher grade in theparent cadre during his tenure in Fast TrackCourts, the service rendered in Fast TrackCourts will be deemed to be service in suchhigher grade.

15. The retired Judicial Officers who areappointed under the Scheme shall be entitledto pay and allowances equivalent to the payand allowance they were drawing at the timeof their retirement, minus total amount ofpension drawn/payable as per rules.16. Persons appointed under the Scheme shallbe governed, for the purpose of leave,reimbursement of medical expenses, TA/DA andconduct rules and such other servicebenefits, by the rules and regulations whichare applicable to the members of theJudicial Services of the State of equivalentstatus.17. The concerned High Court shallperiodically review the functioning of theFast Track Courts and in case of anydeficiencies and/or shortcoming, takeimmediate remedial measures, taking intoaccount views of the Administrative Judgenominated.18. The High Court and the State Governmentshall ensure that there exists no vacancy sofar as the Fast Track Courts are concerned,and necessary steps in that regard shall betaken within three months from today. Inother words, steps should be taken to set upall the Fast Track Courts within thestipulated time." 157. As is evident from the above directions, the appointmentsto FTCs were to be made on ad hoc basis. Primarily, there werethree sources of recruitment, firstly by promotion from amongstthe eligible judicial officers, secondly by appointment ofretired judges with good service records and lastly by directrecruitment from amongst the members of the Bar between the agegroup of 35 to 45 years. In the last category, the selectionwas to be made in the manner similar to that of directrecruitment to the Higher Judicial Services. It was alsoconsidered desirable that the eligible officers on the verge ofretirement, be appointed with overall preference, subject totheir physical fitness and as recommended by a Committee of atleast three judges, constituted by the Chief Justice of theconcerned High Court and as approved by the Full Court of thatHigh Court. This Court had foreseen the possibility of theclosure of the Fast Track Courts Scheme (FTC Scheme). It

directed that the service in the FTCs will be deemed as serviceof promoted Judicial Officers rendered in the parent cadre.However, no right would accrue to such recruits promoted/postedon ad hoc basis from the lower judiciary for regular promotionon the basis of such appointment. For direct recruits,continuation in service will be dependant on review by the HighCourt and there could be possibility of absorption in theregular vacancy if their performance was found to be 16satisfactory. Besides these two aspects, the directions alsodealt with the management of FTCs, timely and appropriateutilization of funds and monitoring of smooth functioning of theFTCs by the State Level Empowered Committee headed by the ChiefSecretary of the State; the disposal of cases was to bemonitored by one Administrative Judge, nominated by the HighCourt. It was expected that each FTC will at least have onePublic Prosecutor earmarked. This was the sum and substanceof the directions issued by this Court while disposing of boththese transferred cases. However, this Court still directedregular filing of quarterly status reports before this Court andheld that the matter would remain alive to that extent.8. The quarterly status reports have been filed from time totime about the functioning of the FTCs in the entire country.In the meanwhile, some writ petitions came to be filed directlybefore this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution and somespecial leave petitions were also filed against variousjudgments of different High Courts. Thus, it will be usefulfor us to at least take a note of all the cases which arepending before this Court.9. As opposed to the prayer made in the cases of Brij MohanLal (supra) and Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh (supra), twoseparate writ petitions were filed in this Court being WritPetition (Civil) No. 152 of 2011, All India Judges' Association 17

Through V.N. Shah, Working President v. Union of India & Ors.and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 140 of 2005, All Media JournalistsAssociation v. Union of India with the prayer that the Courtshould issue appropriate writ or direction to the respondents toextend the FTC Scheme for another five years or even till31.03.2015 and to release the necessary funds for that purpose.10. It was also prayed in the latter petition that fiveyears' time to utilize the funds should be considered from thedate of actual starting of the first FTC and also that aCommittee should be appointed to make suggestions with respectto further strengthening the FTC Scheme to get better results.11. In both these writ petitions, the prayer was similar thatthe FTC Scheme should be continued for a further period of fiveyears, from 2005 in one and from 2011 in the other.12. It is the case of the petitioners in these writ petitionsthat the FTC Scheme has proven a success in Tamil Nadu and evenin other States and, therefore, the extension of the FTC Schemeis necessary. Another issue that has been raised in thesepetitions is that the persons who were appointed as directrecruits from the Bar were, at the relevant time, in the agegroup of 35-45 years and while serving in the FTCs have becomeoverage for re-employment in permanent posts. Also, as per theBar Council of India Rules (Rule 7), they would now be 18ineligible to practice in any Court lower than the High Court.Therefore, this would seriously jeopardize the interests of thepersons appointed as ad hoc judges of the FTCs and it would bean additional and appropriate reason for further continuing theFTC Scheme.13. On somewhat similar lines is another writ petition filedin this Court, being Writ Petition (Civil) No. 28 of 2011 titledRoshan Lal Ahuja v. Union of India & Ors., wherein the

petitioner has raised a challenge to a part of the letter dated11th March, 2010. Vide this letter, though the extension of thepetitioner as FTC Judge was recommended by the Chief Justice ofthe High Court of Punjab and Haryana, yet it was said that ifthe recommendation to continue the FTC Scheme is accepted, theservices of the officer would be liable to be terminated only on7th March, 2011 and if the scheme was discontinued, he would beterminated on 31st March, 2010 itself.14. In that very Writ Petition, challenge was also raised tothe decision of the Union of India to discontinue the FTC Schemebeyond 31st March, 2011. This decision was said to bearbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the fundamentalrights under Article 21 of the Constitution.15. The appointment of the judicial officers in that case hadbeen made under Rules 8 and 9 of the Punjab Superior JudicialService Rules, 1963 and selections were made under Rule 5 of the 19Haryana Additional District and Sessions Judges Ad hoc ServicesRules, 2001. The petitioners, therefore, claimed a right tothe post and prayed that the FTC Scheme be continued.16. There are a bunch of Special Leave Petitions which aredirected against the judgments of the Gujarat High Court. Allthe petitioners before the High Court were direct recruits fromthe Bar and were appointed to the posts of ad hoc AdditionalDistrict Judges under the FTC Scheme on different dates, allbetween 2002 to 2004. The term of some of them had initiallybeen extended but later their services were terminated. Forexample, vide order dated 25th September, 2009 their serviceswere extended but vide order dated 14th December, 2009, servicesof the same officers stood terminated. For either of theseorders, one hardly finds any reason recorded on the file.17. As per the facts noticed by the High Court in theimpugned judgment, services of 53 FTC Judges came to beterminated. By orders dated 12th October, 2006 services of six

Judicial Officers were terminated on the ground of `having notbeen found suitable', by orders dated 8th February, 2007,services of seven other officers were terminated on the sameground, by orders dated 28th April, 2008, the services of 2 FTCJudges were discontinued again on the same ground. Still videorder dated 25th September, 2009, the services of 12 directly 20recruited FTC ad hoc Additional District Judges were terminatedby the State with effect from 30 th September, 2009, on therecommendation of the High Court. Vide order dated 8 th October,2009, services of another 11 Judicial Officers working under theFTC Scheme were terminated by the State on the recommendation ofthe High Court, w.e.f 15th October, 2009 and, lastly, vide orderdated 14th December, 2009, services of 13 officers wereterminated on the recommendation of the High Court on the groundof `having not been found suitable'. By these orders, servicesof only the direct recruits were terminated. Out of the 66persons appointed as direct recruits, some persons had eitherleft or died and only these 53 remained in service. The HighCourt, vide its judgment dated 11th August, 2010 dismissed thewrit petition as far as 18 officers were concerned, returning afinding that in the face of the service record of theseofficers, the recommendation of the High Court and theconsequent order issued by the State Government cannot befaulted with. With regard to the six Judicial Officers whoseservices were terminated vide order dated 12th October, 2006, theHigh Court came to the conclusion that they had no right to thepost and those petitioners could not derive any benefit from theprovisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India anddeclined to interfere with the order of termination. Thus, onlywith respect to 12 officers did the High Court remand the matter 21

to the administrative side of the High Court for reconsiderationwith reference to the service records of these officers. TheHigh Court also noticed that certain complaints which had beenreceived against these officers had been dropped, afterconducting fact finding enquiry or because the allegations werefound to be vague. For these reasons, the High Court concludedthat the decision on the administrative side of the High Courtwas not based on record and was prima facie illogical and,therefore, referred the matter back to the High Court. Rest ofthe writ petitions also came to be dismissed by the High Court.18. In furtherance to the judgment of the High Court, theFull Court of the Gujarat High Court reconsidered the matter onthe administrative side. It found that only the cases of sixpetitioners deserved favourable reconsideration, while theremaining six were without merit and its earlier decision, inrecommending termination of their services needed to bereiterated. The six officers who were dismissed beingdissatisfied with the order of the High Court as communicated tothem by the Principal District Judge vide order dated 5 th March,2011, again approached the Gujarat High Court on its judicialside, praying for quashing the said order and continuation oftheir services under the FTC Scheme. When these writ petitionscame up before the High Court for hearing, the argument was that 22there was no adverse remarks against these officers and,therefore, they were entitled to continue in employment on thebasis of the decision of this Court in the case of Smt.Madhumita Das & Ors. v. State of Orissa & Ors. [2008 AIR SCW4274], wherein this Court had held that yardstick for assessingthe performance of direct recruit FTC Judges on the one hand andthe members of the regular judicial services on the other, couldnot be different as they discharge similar functions.19. The High Court, while declining the relief prayed for,concluded as under :

"10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, as we find that the central Government Scheme for Fast Track Court has come to an end from 1.4.2011 and the petitioners cannot be accommodated against the regular post in the regular cadre of the District Judges, including the 100 Courts of Additional District Judges created for one year in the regular cadre, which are to be filled up on the basis of a separate rules, we are of the view that no relief can be granted in favour of the petitioners, the scheme of Fast Track Court having abolished. 11. So far as their appointment in the regular service post of the Additional District Judge including 100 posts of Additional District Judge is concerned, we may only mention that as per the earlier judgment rendered in the case of the petitioners dated 11.8.2010 in SCA No.148 of 2010 and analogous cases, it having observed that the petitioners cannot be absorbed in the regular service of the State and in absence of any provision made in the Gujarat Judicial Services Rules for appointment by way of absorption from amongst the Fast Track Court Judge, as they cannot be 23 absorbed, we hold that the petitioners cannot even claim straightway absorption in the regular service of Gujarat Judicial Services including the temporary posts of Additional District Judges created by resolution dated 30.3.2011. However, as per the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Brij Mohanlal (Supra) (AIR 2002 SC 2096), the petitioners may apply for appointment by selection, if normal rule is followed for selection of members from Bar as direct recruits to the Superior/Higher Judicial services, subject to their eligibility."20. Thus, the petitioners whose writ petitions wereoriginally dismissed by the Gujarat High Court vide its judgmentdated 11th August, 2010 and those whose petitions weresubsequently dismissed vide judgment dated 21st June, 2011, havechallenged the same before this Court in the above-mentionedSpecial Leave Petitions.21. Now, we may notice another group of cases where theprayer made is diametrically opposite to that made in the caseof Brij Mohan Lal (supra). The petitioners in Writ Petition (C)No.261 of 2008 titled Sovan Kumar Dash & Ors. v. State of Orissa& Anr. have approached this Court directly under Article 32 of

the Constitution with a prayer that they should be absorbedagainst vacant posts in the regular cadre as per the directionscontained in Brij Mohan Lal Case (supra). They further made aprayer that the notification dated 11th April, 2008 issued by theState of Orissa calling for applications from eligible 24candidates for direct recruitment from the Bar to the cadre ofthe District Judge be quashed. These petitioners have taken theplea that they have already crossed the eligibility condition ofage. Similarly, another set of petitioners have also filed WritPetition (C) No.250 of 2008 titled Madhumita Das & Ors v. Stateof Orissa & Ors. The petitioners therein were working as FTCJudges. While invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Courtunder Article 32 of the Constitution, they prayed that they beabsorbed against the regular vacancies of the State cadre ofDistrict Judges. They further prayed that the abovementionedadvertisement dated 11th April, 2008, inviting applications forall the posts of District Judges including the posts againstwhich the petitioners were working, be quashed. It is thecontention of the petitioners in this petition that they havealready attained an age more than the higher age limitprescribed while working as ad hoc Judges of the FTCs. Also,while judging the performance of the FTC Judges, the conditionof completion of eight sessions trials per month cannot beimposed as it has not so been imposed against the judges who areforming the regular cadre of the State services.22. In this petition, no final order has been passed by thisCourt. However, at the interim stage, when the Writ Petitioncame up for hearing on 11th June, 2008, this Court passed thefollowing order : 25"Issue notice.Challenge in these writ petitions is to theAdvertisement No.1 of 2008 issued by theOrissa High Court. The petitioners havebeen selected to function as ad hocAdditional District Judges in terms of thejudgment of this Court in Brij Mohan Lal vs.Union of India and Ors. [(2002) 5 SCC 1].It is their grievance that 16 posts

advertised also include the 9 postspresently held by the petitioners in the twowrit petitions. It is pointed out that theeligibility criterion fixed in theadvertisement rules out the presentpetitioners. Firstly, some of them areabove the maximum age of 45 years andsecondly, being Judicial Officers, theycannot apply for posts advertised formembers of the Bar. It is also pointed outthat in terms of what has been stated bythis Court in Brij Mohan's case (supra), atparagraph 10, direction No.4, they are to becontinued (in the ad hoc posts) belonging toFast Track Courts, and, thereafter, inrespect of regular posts available, afterthe Fast Track Courts cease to function.Their cases are to be considered subject totheir performance being found satisfactory.Their stand is that they have been continuedfrom time to time. Obviously, theirperformance was found to be satisfactory.Presently, we are not concerned with thatquestion which may have relevance only atthe time of considering their absorption inrespect of the regular vacancies. It issubmitted by Mr. Uday U. Lalit, learnedsenior counsel that while assessing theperformance, there cannot be differentyardsticks, i.e. same parameters have to beadopted while judging the performance of thepetitioners viz-a-viz those which arerecruited from another source, i.e. fromamongst the Judicial Officers. We findsubstance in this plea also. Therefore, wedirect that the process of selectionpursuant to the Advertisement No.1 of 2008may continue but that shall only be in 26 respect of 7 posts, and not in respect of 9 posts presently held by the petitioners. It is pointed out that the High Court, after the advertisement has been issued has issued certain letters regarding the non-disposal of adequate number of cases. The petitioners have given reasons as to why there could not be adequate disposal of the cases. Needless to say, the High Court shall consider the stand taken in the responses while judging their suitability for appointment on regular basis. The petitioners shall continue to hold the posts until further orders, for which necessary orders shall be passed by the High Court. It is made clear that as and when regular vacancies arise, cases of the petitioners shall be duly considered. There shall not be any need for them to appear in any examination meant for recruitment to the cadre of District Judge."23. As is evident from the above order, the cases of thepetitioners were directed to be considered as and when theregular vacancies arose and they did not need to appear in any

examination meant for recruitment to that post. This order ofthe Court has been relied upon by all the petitioners indifferent matters before this Court who are or were working asFTC Judges and are praying for their regularization in theservice. This was an interim order subject to the final orderthat the Court would pass while disposing of the writ petitionfinally.24. Writ Petition (C) No. 254 of 2008 titled Prakash KumarRath v. State of Orissa is again a petition invoking the writ 27jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution,wherein the petitioner's case is that he had been selected asper the Judicial Services Rules of the State but had later beenappointed as ad hoc Additional District and Sessions Judge tothe FTC. Having been selected in the regular cadre and as perthe regular process, his services could not be dispensed withand the communication dated 4th April, 2008 and the advertisementdated 11th April, 2008 seeking to fill up vacancies in theregular cadre, are liable to be quashed and the petitioner isentitled to be absorbed regularly in the State service cadre.25. Writ Petition (C) No. 203 of 2010 titled M.K. Sharma &Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court & Anr. involves the cases where themembers of the regular service cadre, i.e., Civil Judge, SeniorDivision, had been promoted as ad hoc FTC Judges and had workedfor more than five years in that post. The State of Rajasthanissued a Notification dated 15th April, 2010 invitingapplications for promotion to 22 posts in the cadre of DistrictJudges, by limited competitive examination, in accordance withthe provisions of the Rajasthan Judicial Services Rules, 2010.The respondents, vide this notification, required thepetitioners also to appear in the limited competitiveexamination for promotion to the cadre. According to thepetitioners, they had already been promoted in accordance with

28the 2010 Rules as Additional District Judges and, therefore,they are not liable to take the limited competitive examination.It is the case of the petitioners that they be treated asregular members of the State Judicial Service and be given equaltreatment with other Judicial Officers as in the case of Smt.Madhumita Das (supra).26. Civil Appeal No. 1276 of 2005 titled Smt. G.V.N. BharathaLaxmi & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. is an applicationquestioning the correctness of the judgment of the High Court ofAndhra Pradesh dated 13th July, 2004, passed in Writ Petition (C)No.11273 of 2004, wherein the High Court declined to grant theprayer of the petitioners, who were appointed as the PresidingOfficers in the FTC under the Andhra Pradesh State HigherJudicial Service Special Rules for Ad hoc Appointments, 2001,that they be granted absorption in the regular cadre of Districtand Sessions Judges created in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Theplea of the petitioners was that they had been appointed underthe Rules and have gained sufficient experience as ad hoc Judgesunder the FTC Scheme and are liable to be regularized in thatscale.27. It is appropriate for us to refer to the Rules before weventure to discuss the merits of various cases. It isundisputed that there are Rules in place in all the States, with 29which we are concerned, for appointment to the Superior JudicialServices, as for example, the Punjab Superior Judicial ServicesRules, 2007 in the State of Punjab. Besides these Rules, someof the States like, Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Orissa andJharkhand had enacted separate sets of Rules for appointment asad hoc Judges under the FTC Scheme or otherwise. The State ofAndhra Pradesh framed the Rules which were called as The AndhraPradesh State Higher Judicial Service Special Rules for AdhocAppointments, 2011 (Andhra Rules). Orissa enacted OrissaJudicial Service (Special Scheme) Rules, 2001 (Orissa Rules),

Jharkhand enacted Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service(Recruitment, Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules 2001(Jharkhand Rules) and Gujarat framed Gujarat State JudicialService Rules, 2005 (Gujarat Rules) which were applicable onlyto the officers in service.28. Appointments to the post of ad hoc Judges under the FTCScheme have been made by different States in different mannerseither with the aid of the regular Rules for appointment to theHigher Judicial Services/Superior Judicial Services withoutfollowing the due and complete process under those Rules orunder the temporary rules enacted by the respective States forthis purpose. Some of the States have not taken recourse to anyof these Rules, but have made appointments by issuing generalorders. 3029. It will be useful to refer to the Rules solely enactedfor this purpose and relating to temporary appointments. In thecase of Orissa, Rule 3 of the Orissa Rules provides thatnotwithstanding anything contained in the Orissa SuperiorJudicial Service Rules, 1963 and Orissa Judicial Service Rules,1994, the appointment of Additional District Judges on ad hocand purely temporary basis for implementation of the FTC Schemewill be made under these Rules. Rule 4 contemplates that theappointment made under these Rules shall be purely on ad hoc andtemporary basis and was liable to be terminated at any timewithout any prior notice. This was amended by the OrissaJudicial Service (Special Scheme) Amendment Rules, 2003 topermit the selection of members from the Bar by way of directrecruitment. The amendments of 2003 were necessitated by virtueof the directions issued by this Court on 6th May, 2002 in thecase of Brij Mohan Lal (supra). According to all these Rules,the retired District Judges, retired Additional District Judges,in-service Chief Judicial Magistrates having three years ofservice remaining and the members from the Bar who were eligible

to be considered for appointment as FTC Judges by directrecruitment or judicial officers eligible for promotion, as thecase may be may be, appointed to the FTCs. All these Rulesprovided that the appointment shall be purely on ad hoc andtemporary basis. Rule 7 clearly stated that in-service judicial 31officers shall not claim regular promotion in the regular cadreon the basis of his/her appointment made under the FTC Scheme.These Rules also provided for disqualification, pay and otherallowances payable to the FTC Judges.30. These Rules clearly indicate that the appointment to thepost of FTC Judges under the FTC Scheme was purely ad hoc andtemporary, without giving any right to the persons so appointed.31. Similarly, the Legal Department of the State of Gujaratalso issued a notification bringing into force the Rules for adhoc and purely urgent temporary appointment of Judicial Officersand the members of staff in the State of Gujarat forimplementing the FTC Scheme. The committee for selection ofsuch officers was, again, a committee of Judges constituted bythe Chief Justice of the concerned High Court. The nature ofthe appointment and eligibility criteria were provided for underthis Notification as follows: "4. The appointment made under these Rules shall be purely on ad hoc and urgent temporary basis and such appointments shall be liable to be terminated at any time without any notice. 5. (i) The appointments on ad hoc basis for the posts of District and Sessions Judges as the Presiding Officer of the Fast Track Courts shall be made by the Governor on recommendation of the High Court either by promotion or transfer or by recruitment from amongst-- 32 (a) Retired District & Sessions or retired Assistant Judges/retired City Civil and Sessions Judges or (b) Judicial Officers eligible to be appointed as Assistant Judges, or (c) Advocates eligible to be appointed

as District and Sessions Judges, (ii) District and Sessions udges or City Civil and Sessions judges or Assistant Judges, who retired on attaining the age of superannuation or who took voluntary retirement in normal course but have not attained the age of 63 years at the time of appointment shall be eligible to be considered for such ad hoc appointment subject to fitness and suitability. 6. No right is conferred on any Judicial officer in service for claiming any regular promotion on the basis of his appointment on ad hoc basis under the Scheme and these Rules."32. The State of Andhra Pradesh, in exercise of the powersconferred under Article 233 and proviso to Article 309 of theConstitution, framed Rules which were called the Andhra PradeshState Higher Judicial Service Special Rules for Ad hocAppointments, 2001 (Andhra Rules). In terms of Rule 2,notwithstanding anything contained in the Special Rules ofAndhra Pradesh State Higher Judicial Services, 1958, theappointment of District and Sessions Judges on ad hoc basisshall be made by direct recruitment from the members of the Bar,by transfer from amongst Senior Civil Judges in the State 33Service or by re-employment of retired District Judges, providedthat 33¹/3 per cent of the total number of ad hoc posts shall befilled by direct recruitment. The rule of reservation of postswas to apply to direct recruitment. The qualificationprescribed for appointment of persons from the Bar to categoryII post under Rule 3 of the Special Rules for Andhra PradeshState Higher Judicial Services, 1958 was to apply mutatismutandis to the direct recruitment from the Bar under the AndhraRules. Nevertheless, in terms of Rule 7(1)(b), a personappointed under Rule 2(i) shall not be regarded as a member ofthe permanent cadre covered under Rule 2 of the Special Rulesfor Andhra Pradesh State Higher Judicial Service, 1958 and shall

not be entitled to any preferential right to any otherappointment to this service or any other service and theirservice shall not be treated as regular or permanent under theState Government. The Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CC&A)Rules, 1991 were applicable to all the services under theseRules.33. In the case of State of Rajasthan, this Court isprimarily concerned with the officers who were members of theJudicial Services of the State and who had been appointed asAdditional District Judges in terms of Rule 22 of the RajasthanHigher Judicial Services Rules, 1969 (Rajasthan Rules). TheseRules provided for temporary or officiating appointments. 34Relying upon the Rajasthan Rules, the petitioners claimregularization without taking the written examination.34. We may also notice the challenge to the various Rules bythe petitioners from different States. As is evident, thepetitioners are praying for absorption and regularization oftheir services as members of the regular service cadre of thatState with reference to the Rules of the respective States.However, there is also a challenge raised to the constitutionalvalidity of Rules 4 and 6 of the Gujarat Rules, under which thecandidates were appointed as ad hoc Judges for the FTC Scheme.Rule 4 provided for the pure ad hoc and urgent temporary natureof these posts and specified that their services were terminablewithout any notice while Rule 6 put an embargo upon thepetitioners from claiming any regularization on the basis ofsuch ad hoc service. The High Court had repelled the challengeto both these provisions and, in fact, had come to a positiveconclusion that the petitioners had no right to these posts.35. We may now summarise the contentions which have beenraised before us in this bunch of cases by the petitioners,

States and the Union of India. Wherever the services of thepetitioners have been terminated, they have argued that suchtermination is arbitrary and without any basis. The contentionby the petitioners from the State of Gujarat is that, in fact,the termination is stigmatic inasmuch as their services have 35been dispensed with on the ground of their `having not beenfound suitable'. Such discontinuation in the service,therefore, amounts to termination which itself is punitive innature. It is also the contention of these petitioners thatthere was nothing adverse in their record which could justifythe taking of such decision. Besides acting in such anarbitrary manner, the State Government and the High Court haveadded insult to the injury, as the Bar Council of India Rulesdebar the petitioners from practicing in the District Courts andCourts equivalent or lower to the FTCs where they had beenpracticing prior to their appointment as ad hoc Judges under theFTC Scheme. Now, except in the High Courts and the SupremeCourt, all doors of practicing law are closed for them. Todemonstrate their plea of arbitrariness in termination, theyargued that the chart of confidential report shown at page 31 to32 of SLP (C) No.26148 of 2011 against the name of P.D. Guptahas been marked as `good' under the column `knowledge of law andprocedure' but then a note has been made that she shouldimprove. Similarly, the remarks recorded against others also donot tally with what has been stated in the main chart. Thereappear to be some mistakes, typographical or otherwise, inrelation to entries in the Confidential Reports and even thegrades of the persons to whom they refer. 3636. In other cases, the contention is that the advocates hadbeen appointed by following the due procedure prescribed underthe Rules/Notification and, therefore, keeping in view thejudgments of this Court in the cases of Brij Mohan and Madhumita

Das (supra), the petitioners are entitled to continue in serviceand to be regularized in the service. In fact, their rightsunder Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution have been violated.It is also contended that as a one-time exercise, theregularization can take place, as was directed by this Court inthe case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Uma Devi (3)& Ors. [(2006) 4 SCC 1].37. In addition to these contentions raised on the factualmatrix of the case, challenge to the constitutional validity ofRules 4 and 6 of the Gujarat Rules was made by the appointeeswhose cases, even upon reconsideration by the Full Court of theGujarat High Court, were not favourably considered.38. The State of Gujarat and other States have taken thestand that they are not prepared to take upon themselves thefinancial burden of continuation of the FTC Scheme, particularlywhen the Central Government has decided not to extend the Schemeany further beyond 31st March, 2011. Though they conceded thatprovision of fair and expeditious trial is the obligation of theState, which nevertheless is subject to financial limitations ofthe State. On behalf of the State of Gujarat, the main 37contender, it has been argued that the petitioners have no rightto the post and in terms of the Gujarat Rules also, no right isvested in the petitioners. Discontinuation of services of thesepetitioners had not caused any stigma upon the petitioners asthey have not been held guilty of any misconduct.39. The stand of the Union of India is that it had initiallycreated the FTCs for a limited period of five years. However,subsequently with the intervention of this Court, it wasextended by another five years and finally, it stood extendedupto March, 2011. Till that date, the Central Government hasdischarged all its liabilities relating to infrastructure andfinances. In fact, the Central Government has principally takenthese financial liabilities on its shoulders while theappointments and all the other matters fall in the domain of the

State Governments. The 13th Finance Commission has providedRs.5,000 crores under different heads relating to the Judiciary.This amount is inclusive of allocations for Gram Nyayalayas andEvening Courts. Under the 11th Finance Commission, 1734 FTCswere created and there has been a successful reduction in totalnumber of cases. Nevertheless, because of more legislations,there has been an increase in pendency. The Finance Commissionand its functions are duly provided under Articles 264, 280 and281 of the Constitution. The sharing of expenditure at the endof every five years is to be declared by the Finance Commission. 3840. The fact that this financial aid and the responsibilityof the Central Government to run the FTC Scheme would eventuallycome to an end was a fact known to all the State Governments andthe High Courts right from the inception of the FTC Scheme andas such, the action of the Central Government in not continuingthe FTC Scheme cannot be faulted with. The Cabinet Note wasprepared on 7th July, 2010 in relation to continuation of theScheme of Central assistance to the States for FTCs for anotherone year and the same was approved vide letter dated 9th August,2010 and the said letter read as under : "I am directed to say that the matter of continuation of central assistance to the State Governments for the operation of the Fast Track Courts was under consideration of Government. In this regard, attention is invited to Shri S.C. Srivastava, Joint Secretary's D.O. letter No.15017/5/2008- JUS(M) dated 31.3.2010 to Law Secretaries of all the State Governments. 2. Government has now decided to continue providing central assistance for funding the Fast Track Courts all over the country for one more year beyond 31.3.2010 i.e. up to 31.3.2011 at the rate of Rs.4.80 lakh per court for meeting the recurring expenditure on these courts. Any expenditure in excess of this amount will have to be borne by the State Government out of their own resources. 3. It has also been decided that there will be no central funding for Fast Track Courts beyond 31.3.2011. 4. The central assistance for Fast Track Courts for 2010-11 will be made available to a maximum of 1562 Fast Track Courts that were reported operational on 31.3.2005 when the scheme of central assistance was 39

continued beyond 31.3.2005 for a further period of five years. Accordingly, the maximum number of Fast Track Courts for which central assistance will be provided to Arunachal Pradesh will be 3."41. Having taken this decision, the Union of India does notwish to continue the FTC Scheme beyond the specified period.The two important aspects which emerge from the submissions ofthe parties, with particular reference to the Union of India,are, firstly, that the Ministry of Law and Justice, Union ofIndia declared a Vision Statement on 24th October, 2009. In thatstatement, it was declared publicly that the Ministry of Law andJustice shall ensure that 15,000 judge positions are establishedwithin two years to dispose of the cases expeditiously and toprovide speedy trial. Secondly, one aspect which has beenheavily relied upon by the petitioners is that even in the ChiefJustices and Chief Ministers Conference held on August 16, 2009at New Delhi, the work of expeditious disposal of cases by theFTCs under the FTC Scheme was highly appreciated and it wasassured that the said Scheme shall continue till 2015 andneither any of the States nor the Centre raised the plea offinancial limitations at that time. Once this was the definiteview of such a high level meeting, it was expected of theCentral Government as well as the State Governments, to followthe said directive. But, on the contrary, they have taken a 40decision to discontinue the Scheme with effect from 31th March,2011. Some of the States have urged before this Court that theycan continue with the FTC Scheme only if the Central Governmentcontinues to provide 100 per cent funding for the same. Inresponse, the Union of India has also stated that it has noobjection, if, within their own means, each State Governmentcarries on with the FTCs already established in the respectiveStates. Consequently, there is a state of impasse, which hasemerged from these opposing stands taken by the StateGovernments, on the one hand and the Central Government, on the

other.42. However, the State and the Centre, both, have taken thestand that it is not permissible for this Court to issue amandamus directing either the State Governments or the CentralGovernment to either continue the FTC Scheme or to provide thefunds for the FTC Scheme. Articles 112, 264, 280 and 281 of theConstitution detail the budgeting provisions and presentation ofannual financial statements before the Parliament. Thus, itwill not be appropriate for this Court to step into thefunctions of the Executive, as specific powers under theConstitution are vested with the latter in relation to financesof the States.43. Learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. P.S. Narsimha, Senior Advocatecontended with some vehemence that there are various decisions 41of this Court to support the proposition that the writ ofmandamus could be issued by this Court in such circumstances.However, the formulation of such directions would be a point offine construction by the Court. A large number of cases arepending, so this Court would have to take judicial notice ofsuch heavy pendency and it will be well within its jurisdictionto pass orders and directions with respect to reduction ofpendency. What should be the strength of judges in the countryis again a matter where the Courts may not directly comment asthere may be many policy considerations that would influence theGovernment's decision. The Court can express a hope that theGovernment of India will periodically review the strength ofJudges in each State and appoint as many Judges as required forthe purpose of disposing of the arrears of pending cases.However, the Court, while exercising restraint, with minimumencroachment on the Executive field and within the contours ofthe reasonable extent of jurisdiction even in the givencircumstances, may issue mandamus directing the States to incurexpenditure in order to maintain the independence of judiciary

and to ensure fair trial. It is also contended by the learnedamicus that even under the American justice delivery system, theCourts have gone to the extent of passing such directions, forexample, in the case of Commonwealth ex rel. Carroll v. Tateet al. (442 Pa.45; 274 A.2d 193) where Judge Montgomery issued a 42mandamus order against the defendants therein to appropriate andpay an amount of US $2,458,000 and made final his injunctiveorder dated 27th July, 1970 against adjustment. The Court tookthe above view in exercise of its inherent powers, it being abasic precept of the Constitutional form of Republic Governmentthat the Judiciary is an independent and co-equal branch ofGovernment along with the Executive and Legislative Branches.On the strength of this American case and various judgments ofthis Court in the cases of All India Judges' Association v.Union of India & Ors. [(1992) 1 SCC 119]; All India Judges'Association v. Union of India & Ors. [(1993) 4 SCC 288]; RecordAssociation v. Union of India & Ors. [(1993) 4 SCC 441]; and AllIndia Judges' Association v. Union of India & Ors. [(2002) 4 SCC247], the contention is that this Court should directcontinuation of the FTC Scheme as the expenses have already beenincurred and 1562 Courts are functional.44. The First National Judicial Pay Commission, in the year1999, noticed the statistics of pending cases in the country.It mentioned that nearly 1.30 crore cases are disposed of while1.45 crore fresh cases are filed every year. Thus, the backlogof cases increases every year. To put it simply, the existingbacklog was stated to be two crores, increased by nearly 12 to15 lakh cases per year. This Commission took note of the factthat there were nearly 340 Central legislations which created 43offences and matters allied thereto, triable by the Court ofMagistrate. These legislations were also increasing with thepassage of time. It was felt desirable that, at the minimum,double the present number of judicial officers were required tohandle the problem of pendency of cases in the country.

45. The 120th Report of the Law Commission, 1987 brought outanother very significant drawback in the justice administrationsystem of the country. In terms of this report, the proportionof judicial officers in India was 10.5 officers per millionpopulation, in the year 1987. This percentage, in comparison toother developed countries in the world, was probably the lowest.Australia had 41.6 judicial officers per million population,Canada 75.2, England 50.9 and the United States of America 107per million population.46. The National Crime Record Bureau, Ministry of HomeAffairs, also published a Report on Crime in India. Accordingto this report, approximately 49 lakh criminal cases under theIPC and 36 lakh criminal cases under the special or local lawswere pending at the end of the year 2000. Realizing the gravityof the problem, the then Minister of Law and Justice, Governmentof India had evolved the FTC Scheme, primarily to deal with thependency of sessions cases. This was termed as a "long-termroad map" for judicial reforms that was being chattered out bythe Government. The FTC Scheme originally contemplated 44establishment of five Courts per district in approximately 600districts, thus making a total of 3000 Courts in the country.Instead of employing new Judges, services of retired Judges wereto be utilised. The supporting staff was to be appointed on re-employment basis and it was estimated that Rs. 2.16 lakhs annualexpenditure was likely to be incurred while taking only 50 percent of the normal salary for the serving employees. Therecurring cost per Court per year was Rs.3.32 lakhs and non-recurring cost was Rs.4.6 lakh per court per year. However,this proposed FTC Scheme was curtailed to some extent, by the11th Finance Commission which only recommended 1,734 Courts atthe rate of Rs.29 lakh expenditure per court. Out of this, non-recurring expenditure per Court was estimated at Rs.5,00,000/-and recurring expenditure at Rs.4.8 lakhs. The total

expenditure estimated for the period of five years was Rs.509crores. The purpose primarily was to reduce the pendency ofcriminal cases pending in the respective courts. Theanticipated benefits of the FTC Scheme, as projected, were -speedy trial, elimination of pendency in the district courts,enormous saving of expenses incurred on under-trials, etc.There was a further possibility of saving of funds on account ofpublic prosecutors, manpower for running jails and even onbehalf of the under-trials with regard to fees that they spendon advocates. In the case of All India Judges Association v. 45Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 288, this Court took note of thefact that the Judiciary had been included as a plan subject bythe Planning Commission. The Court directed that theinfrastructure, including the Courts and residential complexesfor the Judges should be built in consultation with therespective High Courts and the High Courts should take dueinterest in such construction. In compliance with the saidjudgment, the Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Plan earmarked Rs.110crores, Rs.385 crores and Rs.700 crores, respectively, forinfrastructure for the Judiciary. It may be usefully noticedhere that on the one hand, the Central Government has taken thedecision to discontinue the FTC Scheme for reasons best known toit and, on the other hand, it has sanctioned funds of Rs.2500crores as per the 13th Finance Commission Report for commencementand running of Morning/Evening/Special/Judicial/Metropolitan/Shift Courts for the period 2010-11 to 2014-15, amongst otherheads of expenditure. But no funds appear to have been allocatedfor judicial infrastructure.47. The 11th Finance Commission under Article 275 of theConstitution allocated Rs.502.90 crores in the year 2000 for theFTC Scheme. It was stipulated that there shall be a time-boundutilization of these funds within the five years of the FTCScheme, the term of which was to end on 31st March, 2005.

4648. The FTC Scheme was challenged by different persons beforevarious High Courts. The Union of India took a clear stand thatappointment of retired judges was not a mandatory requirementand additionally, the FTC Scheme also contemplated ad hocappointment of Judicial Officers, as well as direct recruitmentfrom the Bar. Though the FTC Scheme was contemplated to be fora definite period of five years, it came to be extended andremained into force under the judgment of this Court in the caseof Brij Mohan Lal (supra) and even under certain otherdirections passed in the case of Madhumita Das (supra). It isthe conceded position before us that the Central Government haddecided not to finance the FTC Scheme beyond 31st March, 2011.Out of the funds of Rs.502.90 crores, which were allocated bythe 11th Finance Commission, a balance of Rs. 83.87 crores waslying with the Central Government, as only Rs. 420.03 crores hadbeen disbursed as on 31st March, 2005. It was ordered by thisCourt that this amount will not lapse and will be disbursed forthe implementation of the FTC Scheme. But from the recordbefore us, it appears that neither the amount has been disbursednor spent under the FTC Scheme. On the recommendation made bythe Chief Justices and the Chief Ministers Conference, theCabinet Committee on Economic Affairs vide its decision dated 7thApril, 2005 extended the FTC Scheme for a period of another fiveyears with 100 per cent Central funding. Again, the FTC Scheme 47was extended by the decision of the Central Government till 31 stMarch, 2011 but thereafter the Union of India had taken aconscious decision not to extend the financing of FTC Schemebeyond 31st March, 2011.49. Despite discontinuation of the FTC Scheme by the Union ofIndia, a number of States have decided to continue with the FTCScheme, at least for the present. This decision of theconcerned States needs to be noticed with appreciation. In the

State of Orissa, the State Government has taken a decision tokeep the FTC Scheme in force till 31st March, 2013, however, theState has not taken any decision as to what would happenthereafter. The State of Gujarat, on the other hand, hasdecided not to continue with the Scheme beyond 31 st March, 2011and the Judicial Officers appointed directly from the Bar on atemporary basis have been relieved. As already noticed, anumber of writ petitions have been filed challenging the above-mentioned actions of the State.50. The State of Andhra Pradesh, on the recommendation of theHigh Court, has also taken a conscious decision to continue theFTC Scheme till 31st March, 2012. State of Haryana has taken atentative view to continue the FTC Scheme till March 2016,subject to a final decision to be taken by the competent 48authority in the State hierarchy. The State of Rajasthan hasdecided to continue the FTC Scheme till 29th February, 2013.Whether any of the appointees to the post of ad hoc judges underthe FTC Scheme have a right to the post in context of the factsof the present case?51. The first and foremost question that requires theconsideration of this Court at this very stage is whether theappointees have a right to the post. In order to answer thisquestion, we must first refer to the letters of appointmentwhich were issued to the appointees, particularly the appointeesin the States of Gujarat, Rajasthan, Orissa, Andhra Pradesh and,on somewhat similar lines, even in other States.52. In the State of Gujarat, the Notification dated 12 thNovember, 2003 and other notifications vide which advocates wereappointed directly as ad hoc Judges, FTCs under the FTC Scheme,are similarly worded. The relevant part of the Notificationdated 12th November, 2003 reads as under:-

"No. Fast Track Court/102002/270/ 270/D :- Following practicing Advocates who are selected for the appointment of Ad-hoc basis under rule 5(1) (C) of "The ad-hoc and purely urgent temporary appointment of Judicial Officers and members of the Staff in the State of Gujarat for implementing the Special Scheme of Fast Track Courts (Sponsored by Central (Govt.) for elimination of arrears Rule, 201 are appointment for a period of two years from the day they over charge of the said posts as on Ad-hoc and purely temporary basis as 49 Joint District Judges to preside over the Fast Track Courts."53. A bare reading of the above Notification clearly showsthat they were appointed under the FTC Rules, on ad hoc basisand on purely urgent temporary appointment, for a period of twoyears from the date they took over the charge of the said posts.The entire emphasis of the Notification was on the appointmentsbeing temporary, ad hoc and terminable at any time. Theseappointments were made under the "Ad hoc and purely urgenttemporary appointment of Judicial Officers and the members ofstaff in the State of Gujarat for implementing the SpecialScheme of Fast Track Courts (sponsored by the CentralGovernment) for elimination of arrears Rules 2001". TheseRules, in turn, referred to the expression "Committee" whichmeans the Committee of the Judges of the High Court constitutedby the High Court or the Chief Justice. `Fast Track Court'means the Court created under the FTC Scheme as sponsored by theCentral Government and for all other words and definitions, onehas to refer to the Gujarat Judicial Services Recruitment Rules,1961. Rule 3 of the said Rules prescribed that the appointmentswere on ad hoc and on purely urgent temporary basis forimplementing the FTC Scheme and the Rules were notwithstandingthe Gujarat Judicial Service Recruitment Rules, 1961. These

appointments were made by the Governor on the recommendation of 50the High Court either by promotion or transfer of JudicialOfficers or by recruitment from amongst retired District andSessions Judges/Judicial Officers and advocates eligible to bedirectly appointed as District and Sessions Judges. Theselection of the candidates for such ad hoc appointment was tobe made by the Committee on the basis of the procedure andcriteria laid down. Rule 6 of the Gujarat Rules clearly statedthat no right is conferred on any Judicial Officer in servicefor claiming any regular promotion on the basis of hisappointment on ad hoc basis under the Scheme. Further, Rule 4of the Gujarat Rules provided for termination of their services.54. For all other conditions of service, these officers wereto be governed by the conditions of service applicable to theJudicial Officers of the State.55. In the State of Orissa, advocates were appointedtemporarily as ad hoc Additional District Judges in the payscale of Rs. 10,650-325-15350 by direct recruitment to the FTCswhich had been established under the grant of 11 th FinanceCommission. In terms of the notification of appointment, theirservice conditions were to be governed by the Orissa Rules, asamended from time to time. All other appointees were appointedby similar notification of different dates. Therefore,reference to the Orissa Rules becomes necessary. 5156. These Rules were pari materia to the Judicial ServiceRules framed by the Orissa State except that the appointmentswere initially for a period of one year and subject totermination without notice. Clause 4 of the said Rules reads asunder :- "4(1) The appointment made under these rules shall be on ad hoc and temporary basis. (2) The appointment shall be made initially for a period of one year and shall be liable to be terminated at any time without any

prior notice. (3) During the term of such appointment the appointees will be under the administrative and disciplinary control of the High Court."57. These Rules were framed by the State of Orissanotwithstanding the Orissa Superior Judicial Services Rules,1963 and the Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 1994. Any right toregular promotion in the regular cadre was also specificallydenied under Rule 7 of the Orissa Rules.58. In the State of Andhra Pradesh also, under Rule 2 of theAndhra Rules, the advocates were directly appointed asAdditional District Judges to preside over FTCs videNotification dated 6th October, 2003. These appointments werealso ad hoc and temporary, for a limited period. These Ruleswere framed notwithstanding anything contained in the SpecialRules for Andhra Pradesh State Higher Judicial Service, 1958 and 52provided the same categories of recruitment to the FTCs as wereprovided under the Rules of two above-mentioned States. It dulyprescribed for the qualifications, seniority, posting andtransfer of the appointees. Under the terms and conditions ofservice, Rule 7(1)(b) specifically contemplated that a personappointed under the Andhra Rules shall not be entitled to anypreferential right to any other appointment to this service orany other service. It was also contemplated that their servicesshall neither be treated as regular or permanent under the StateGovernment nor shall it be a bar for the appointment to postscovered by the other Rules in that State. Under Rule 2(4), allappointments made from time to time under the Andhra Rules wereto cease on 31st March, 2005, i.e., the period for which the FTCScheme was created at the first instance.59. All the petitioners/candidates in the State of Rajasthanwere members of the regular Judicial Services of that State.They were promoted on ad hoc basis to officiate as AdditionalDistrict Judges (Fast Track) and they had been functioning assuch for a considerable period. They were given extension of

service vide Notification issued by the State. Now, they havebeen asked to take the Limited Competitive Examination for beingpromoted on regular basis to the Higher Judicial Services of theState. This has been challenged by them on different grounds,as already noticed above. But, we must notice that initially 53when they were appointed as Additional District Judges, they hadnot taken any written examination as prescribed under the Rulesand the judgment of this Court in the case of All India JudgesAssociation (supra). Further, in fact, they have not taken suchan examination till date.60. Upon an analysis of the above-stated Rules relating tothe different States, the appointment letters issued to theappointees and the methodology that was adopted for appointmentof the FTC Judges, it becomes clear that the appointees cannotbe said to have any legal, much less an indefeasible, right tothe posts in question. Firstly, the posts themselves weretemporary, as they were created under and within the ambit andscope of the FTC Scheme sponsored by the Union of India, whichwas initially made only for a limited period of five years.Now, financing of the FTC Scheme has already been stopped by theCentral Government with effect from 31st March, 2011. Nopermanent posts were ever created. In other words, theirappointments were temporary appointments against temporaryposts. The relevant Rules of the States clearly postulate thatthe appointments made under the Rules were purely on ad hocbasis and urgent temporary basis and were terminable withoutnotice. The Rules as well as the respective notifications ofappointment issued to these appointees, unambiguously statedthat no right would be conferred upon the appointees for regular 54promotion on the basis of working on ad hoc basis under the FTCScheme. The notifications vide which the judges/candidates/petitioners were appointed, particularly in the State ofGujarat, clearly specified these appointments to be temporary

and for a period of two years on ad hoc basis. The cumulativeeffect of the notifications appointing the petitioners to thesaid posts under the FTC Scheme and the relevant Rules governingthem clearly demonstrate that these were temporary and, in somecases, even time-bound appointments, terminable without priornotice. It is difficult for the Court to accept the contentionof these petitioners that there was any indication, in the abovenoted Rules or otherwise, that the said appointments werepermanent and that the appointees were entitled to be absorbedregularly in those posts.61. Normally, there are three kinds of posts that may existin a cadre - (1) permanent posts; (2) temporary posts; and (3)quasi permanent posts. Accordingly, there can be a temporaryemployee, a permanent employee or an employee in quasi permanentcapacity. In the case of Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd.v. Workmen [(2007) 1 SCC 408], this Court, while elucidatingupon the distinction between temporary and permanent employeesstated that such distinction is well settled. Whereas apermanent employee has a right to the post, a temporary employeehas no right to the post. It is only the permanent employee who 55has a right to continue in service till the age ofsuperannuation. As regards a temporary employee, there is noage of superannuation because he has no right to the post atall. Thus, it follows that for a person to have a right to thepost, the post itself has to be a permanent post duly sanctionedin the cadre. The person should be permanently appointed tothat post. Normally, it is only under these circumstances thatsuch an employee gets a right to the post, but even when atemporary employee is appointed against a permanent post, hecould get a right to the post provided he had at least acquiredthe status of a quasi permanent employee under the relevantRules. Where neither the post is sanctioned nor is permanentand, in fact, the entire arrangement is ad hoc or is for anuncertain duration, it cannot create any rights and obligations

in favour of the appointees, akin to those of permanentemployees. The appointees in the present case had beenappointed not only on ad hoc and temporary basis but the entireFTC Scheme itself was ad hoc and for a duration of five yearsonly as declared by the Central Government. Despite that, someof the States declared the FTC Scheme for two years only. Inthese circumstances, it is not possible for this Court to holdthat the appointees had any right to the post.62. Decades ago, this Court, in the case of Parshotam LalDhingra v. Union of India [AIR 1958 SC 36], was seized with a 56matter where the appellant had been granted promotion from ClassIII Service in the Indian Railways to Class II, but, in view ofthe adverse remarks in his Confidential Report, the same was noteffected. The action of the State was challenged before theHigh Court. The learned Single Judge took the view that thisaction of the State was punitive. However, the judgment wasreversed by the Division Bench of the High Court. AConstitution Bench of the Supreme Court allowed the appeal,while holding as under : "12. In the absence of any special contract the substantive appointment to a permanent post gives the servant so appointed a right to hold the post until, under the rules, he attains the age of superannuation or is compulsorily retired after having put in the prescribed number of years' service or the post is abolished and his service cannot be terminated except by way of punishment for misconduct, negligence, inefficiency or any other disqualification found against him on proper enquiry after due notice to him. An appointment to a temporary post for a certain specified period also gives the servant so appointed a right to hold the post for the entire period of his tenure and his tenure cannot be put an end to during that period unless he is, by way of punishment, dismissed or removed from the service. Except in these two cases the appointment to a post, permanent or temporary, on probation or on an officiating basis or a substantive appointment to a temporary, on probation or on an officiating basis or a substantive appointment to a temporary post gives to the servant so appointed no right to the post and his service may be terminated unless his service

57 had ripened into what is, in the service rules, called a quasi-permanent service..."63. In the case of Champaklal Chimanlal Shah v. Union ofIndia [AIR 1984 SC 1854], this Court held that where aGovernment servant had completed three years service and theRules provided for declaration of his service thereafter as aquasi-permanent employee, the Government servant would become aquasi-permanent employee only if such declaration was actuallymade. Similar view was also taken earlier in the case ofJaswant Singh v. State of Haryana [(1979) 4 SCC 440].64. Therefore, the above principles clearly show that thereshould be a right vested in an employee, which is dulyrecognized and declared in accordance with the Rules governingthe conditions of service of such employee before such relief isgranted. Unless the Government employee holds any status asafore-indicated, it may not be possible to grant relief to theGovernment employee, particularly, when such relief is notprovided under the relevant Rules.65. We may even consider this from a different point of view.These Rules had been framed under Article 309 of theConstitution and had the force of law. Of course, in some ofthe petitions, i.e., in some of the matters relating to theState of Gujarat, there is challenge raised to theconstitutional validity of Rules 4 and 6 of the Gujarat Rules, 58which we shall shortly proceed to discuss, but in all othercases arising from different States, there is no challenge tothe validity of the Rules governing these appointments.66. Right to a post is not a fundamental right but is a civilor a statutory right. That the creation of a post, absorption

and payment of salaries on regular pay scales are purelyExecutive functions and under the Doctrine of Separation ofPowers well left are these functions to the Executive, was theview expressed by this Court in the case of P.U. Joshi v.Accountant General [(2003) 2 SCC 632]. To take another example,where a person is sent on deputation to a post even afterconsultation with the Union Public Service Commission but for alimited period, after the expiry of the said period, thedeputationist can neither claim a right to continue in thatpost, nor can he claim absorption on permanent basis as he hadno right to the post. This view was stated by this Court, inthe case of Union of India v. S.N. Panicker [(2001) 10 SCC 520].It is primarily the nature of the post, the method and manner ofappointment to the said post and the Rules governing theconditions of service of that post which would be the preceptsto deal with such situations.67. Article 310 of the Constitution is concerned with thetenure of office of persons serving the Union or a State. Except 59as expressly provided by the Constitution, every person who is amember of a defence service or a civil service of the Union orState or an all-India service or holds any post connected withdefence or any civil post under the Union, holds such officeduring the pleasure of the President or during the pleasure ofthe Governor of the State, as the case may be. However,Article 311 of the Constitution carves out an exception toArticle 310 and states that no person who is a member of a civilservice of the Union shall be dismissed or removed by anauthority subordinate to that by which he was appointed andthen, only after holding of an enquiry and opportunity of beingheard and making a representation in respect of those chargesand on penalty proposed. Proviso to Articles 311(2) and 311(3)provide further exceptions to the operation of Article 311

itself. The doctrine of pleasure, under our Constitution, dealswith three different categories of posts. First, offices whichare held during the pleasure of the President or Governor, asthe case may be; second, offices held during pleasure of thePresident or Governor but subject to some restrictions againstremoval; and third, offices held for a specified term but withimmunity against removal, except by impeachment. The thirdcategory of posts is not subject to the doctrine of pleasure.Having regard to the Constitutional scheme, it is not possibleto extend the type of protection against removal granted to one 60category of officers, to another category. In India, contraryto the law in England, even the doctrine of pleasure haslimitations and restrictions.68. It is believed that, where Rule of Law prevails, therecan be nothing like unfettered discretion or unaccountableaction. The degree of reasoning required in support of thedecision may vary. The degree of scrutiny during judicialreview may vary. But the need for reasoning exists. As aresult, when the Constitution of India provides that someoffices will be held during the pleasure of the President,without any express limitations or restrictions, this powershould, however, necessarily be read as being subject to thefundamentals of constitutionalism. {Refer B.P. Singhal v. Unionof India [(2010) 6 SCC 331]}. We must also notice anothersettled position of law, stated by this Court in the case ofUnion of India & Anr. v. Tulsiram Patel [(1985) 3 SCC 398], thatthe origin of Government services is contractual. There is anoffer and acceptance in every case. But once appointed to hispost or office, the Government servant acquires a status and hisrights and obligations are no longer determined by the consentof both the parties, but by statute or statutory rules as framedand unilaterally altered by the Government. In other words, the

legal position of a Government servant is more one of statusthan that of contract. 6169. Therefore, the appointees do not have an absolute rightto the post, but we would have to consider the effect of thejudgments of this Court in the cases of Madhumita Das (supra)and Brij Mohan Lal (supra) to examine if the petitioners inthese cases are entitled to any relief or not. Before we enterinto discussion upon that aspect of the case, it will benecessary for us to deliberate on the question whether writ ofmandamus can at all be issued in this case and, if so, itsscope. Needless to say, the origin of the FTC Scheme was in apolicy decision by the Central Government. The CentralGovernment had taken a decision to implement the FTC Scheme,particularly to deal with the arrears of criminal cases in thecountry and it had taken unto itself the burden of financing theentire scheme. It was to incur all infrastructural andrecurring expenditures for implementation of the FTC Scheme.Examined from any point of view, it was a policy decision of theUnion of India, which was accepted by the various StateGovernments, which in turn implemented this policy by appointingad hoc Judges to preside over FTCs. These appointments weremade by three different methods: from amongst the retiredJudges, by promotion from Civil Judges (Senior Division), and bydirect recruitment from the Bar.70. The Central Government then has taken a decision not tofinance the FTC Scheme beyond 31st March, 2011. However, some of 62the State Governments have still taken a decision at their ownlevel to continue with the FTC Scheme, for the time being. Noneof the States appearing before us have stated that, as a matterof policy or otherwise, they have decided to continue the FTCScheme at their own expense as a permanent feature of JusticeAdministration System. It is a settled principle of law thatmatters relating to framing and implementation of policy

primarily fall in the domain of the Government. It is anestablished requirement of good governance that the Governmentshould frame policies which are fair and beneficial to thepublic at large. The Government enjoys freedom in relation toframing of policies. It is for the Government to adopt anyparticular policy as it may deem fit and proper and the lawgives it liberty and freedom in framing the same. Normally, theCourts would decline to exercise the power of judicial review inrelation to such matters. But this general rule is not freefrom exceptions. The Courts have repeatedly taken the view thatthey would not refuse to adjudicate upon policy matters if thepolicy decisions are arbitrary, capricious or mala fide. Inbringing out the distinction between policy matters amenable tojudicial review and those where the Courts would decline toexercise their jurisdiction, this Court, in Bennett Coleman &Co. and Others. v. Union of India and Others [(1972) 2 SCC788], held as under : 63 "100. The argument of the petitioners that Government should have accorded greater priority to the import of newsprint to supply the need of all newspaper proprietors to the maximum extent is a matter relating to the policy of import and this Court cannot be propelled into the unchartered ocean of Government policy."71. We must examine the cases where this Court has stepped inand exercised limited power of judicial review in matters ofpolicy. In Asif Hameed v. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Anr.[1989 Suppl.(2) SCC 364], this Court noticed that, where achallenge is to the action of the State, the Court must act inaccordance with law and determine whether the State has actedwithin the powers and functions assigned to it under theConstitution. If not, it must strike down the action, ofcourse, with due caution. Normally, the Courts do not givedirections or advise in such matters. This Court held as under:- "19. When a State action is challenged, the

function of the court is to examine the action in accordance with law and to determine whether the legislature or the executive has acted within the powers and functions assigned under the Constitution and if not, the court must strike down the action. While doing so the court must remain within its self-imposed limits. The court sits in judgment on the action of a coordinate branch of the Government. While exercising power of judicial review of administrative action, the court is not an Appellate Authority. The Constitution does not permit the court to direct or advise the 64 executive in matters of policy or to sermonize qua any matter which under the Constitution lies within the sphere of legislature or executive, provided these authorities do not transgress their constitutional limits or statutory powers." (emphasis supplied)72. It is also a settled cannon of law that the Governmenthas the authority and power to not only frame its policies, butalso to change the same. The power of the Government, regardinghow the policy should be shaped or implemented and what shouldbe its scope, is very wide, subject to it not being arbitrary orunreasonable. In other words, the State may formulate orreformulate its policies to attain its obligations of governanceor to achieve its objects, but the freedom so granted is subjectto basic Constitutional limitations and is not so absolute inits terms that it would permit even arbitrary actions. Certaintests, whether this Court should or not interfere in the policydecisions of the State, as stated in other judgments, can besummed up as:(I) If the policy fails to satisfy the test of reasonableness, it would be unconstitutional.(II) The change in policy must be made fairly and should not give impression that it was so done arbitrarily on any ulterior intention.(III) The policy can be faulted on grounds of mala fide, unreasonableness, arbitrariness or unfairness etc. 65(IV) If the policy is found to be against any statute or the Constitution or runs counter to the philosophy behind these

provisions.(V) It is dehors the provisions of the Act or Legislations.(VI) If the delegate has acted beyond its power of delegation.73. Cases of this nature can be classified into two mainclasses: one class being the matters relating to general policydecisions of the State and the second relating to fiscalpolicies of the State. In the former class of cases, the Courtshave expanded the scope of judicial review when the actions arearbitrary, mala fide or contrary to the law of the land; whilein the latter class of cases, the scope of such judicial reviewis far narrower. Nevertheless, unreasonableness, arbitrariness,unfair actions or policies contrary to the letter, intent andphilosophy of law and policies expanding beyond the permissiblelimits of delegated power will be instances where the Courtswill step in to interfere with government policy.74. In the case of Mohd. Abdul Kadir and Anr. v. DirectorGeneral of Police, Assam and Ors. [(2009) 6 SCC 611], thisCourt, while declining regularization of the persons employed ina particular project under a temporary Scheme, though the samehad been continued for a long time, commented upon the scope ofinterference in the policy relating to Prevention of 66Infiltration of Foreigners Additional Scheme, 1987 andconsidered it appropriate to draw the attention of theauthorities to the issues involved in the case by directing asunder: - "22. We are conscious of the fact that the issue is a matter of policy having financial and other implications. But where an issue involving public interest has not engaged the attention of those concerned with policy, or where the failure to take prompt decision on a pending issue is likely to be detrimental to public interest, courts will be failing in their duty if they do not draw attention of the authorities concerned to the issue involved in appropriate cases. While courts cannot be and should not be makers of policy, they can certainly be catalysts, when there is a need for a policy or a change in policy."

75. The correct approach in relation to the scope of judicialreview of policy decisions of the State can hardly be stated inabsolute terms. It will always depend upon the facts andcircumstances of a given case. Furthermore, the Court wouldhave to examine any elements of arbitrariness, unreasonablenessand other Constitutional facets in the policy decision of theState before it can step in to interfere and pass effectiveorders in such cases. A challenge to the formation of a Statepolicy or its subsequent alterations may be raised on verylimited grounds. Again, the scope of judicial review in suchmatters is a very limited one. One of the most important 67aspects in adjudicating such a matter is that the State policyshould not be opposed to basic Rule of Law or the statutory lawin force. This is what has been termed by the courts as thephilosophy of law, which must be adhered to by valid policydecisions.76. The independence of the Indian Judiciary is one of themost significant features of the Constitution. Any policy ordecision of the Government which would undermine or destroy theindependence of the judiciary would not only be opposed topublic policy but would also impinge upon the basic structure ofthe Constitution. It has to be clearly understood that theState policies should neither defeat nor cause impediment todischarge of judicial functions. To preserve the doctrine ofseparation of powers, it is necessary that the provisionsfalling in the domain of judicial field are discharged by theJudiciary and that too, effectively.77. This Court has consistently held that the writ ofmandamus can be issued, perhaps not as regards the manner ofdischarge of public duty but with respect to the due exercise ofdiscretion in the course of such duty. In the case of S.P.Gupta v. Union of India [(1981) Supp. SCC 87], this Courtissued directions to the Union of India to determine, within a

reasonable time, the strength of permanent Judges required fordisposal of cases instituted in the High Courts and to take 68tests to fill up the vacancies after making such determination.While stating that the appointment of judges was considered tobe a power coupled with duty, the Court in held as under: - "In a parliamentary democracy with a written Constitution in which three organs of the Governments are clearly marked out, it becomes a primary duty of the State to provide for fair and efficient administration of justice. Justice must be within the easy reach of the lowest of the lowliest. Rancour of injustice hurts an individual leading to bitterness, resentment and frustration and rapid evaporation of the faith in the institution of judiciary. Two vital limbs of the Justice system are that Justice must be within the easy reach of the weaker sections of the society and that it must be attainable within a reasonably short-time, in other words, speedily. Leaving aside other factors contributing to the arrears in courts, it cannot be gainsaid that in each High Court adequate number of Judges must be appointed and the situation in each High Court must be regularly reviewed by the President so as to efficiently discharge the duty cast on him by Article 216. In the course of hearing a statement was made on behalf of the Union of India that the Government is taking steps to review the strength of each High Court to determine the adequate strength of each High Court and then to take steps to make appointments according to the targets so devised. As this statement is a solemn undertaking to this Court, it may be reproduced in extenso: The Union Government has decided to increase the number of posts of permanent judges in the various High Courts keeping in view the load of work, the guidelines prescribed and other relevant considerations. In fact in 1980 itself, on the basis of institution, disposal and arrears of cases and the 69guidelines prescribed, the Governments ofseven States where the problem was moreacute, had been addressed to consideraugmentation of the Judge strengths of theirHigh Courts. It has been decided that wherenecessary the guidelines prescribed will besuitably relaxed by taking into accountlocal circumstances the trend of litigationand any other special or relevant factorsthat may need consideration. The UnionGovernment will take up the matter with thevarious State Governments so that afterconsulting the Chief Justices of the High

Courts, they expeditiously send proposalsfor the conversion of a substantial numberof posts of Additional Judges into those ofpermanent judges.2. The Union Government has also decidedthat ordinarily further appointments ofAdditional Judges will not be made forperiods of less than one year.But to say that a litigant who wants hiscase to be disposed of as early as possiblebeing convinced that his case is not handledby the Court for want of adequate number ofjudges can bring an action to issue amandamus to the Government to appointadequate number of judges requires moreelaborate arguments and in view of thestatement it is not necessary to deal withthe submission.XXX XXX XXX1251. Notwithstanding the principle ofseparation of powers found entrenched in theConstitution of the United States of America,as can be seen from the last part of para 141of Vol. 52 of the American Jurisprudence 2d.under the title 'Mandamus' if it is theconstitutional or statutory duty of agovernor or the President to exercise hisdiscretion with respect to a certain matterhe may be required by mandamus to do so butthe manner in which he has to discharge thatduty cannot be directed by the courts. Asobserved in the English decisions referred to 70 above it is manifest that a statutory discretion is not necessarily or indeed usually absolute, it may be qualified by express and implied legal duties to comply with substantive and procedural requirements before a decision . is taken, whether to act and how to act. I am of the view that the power conferred on the President by Article 216 of the Constitution to appoint sufficient number of Judges is a power coupled with a duty and is not merely a political function. In the instant case ordinarily the court would have been reluctant to issue any mandamus to the Government to comply with the duty of determination of the strength of Judges of High Courts. But having regard to the undisputed total inadequacy of the strength of Judges in many High Courts, it appears to be inevitable that the Union Government should be directed to determine within a reasonable time the strength of permanent Judges required for the disposal of cases instituted in them and to take steps to fill up the vacancies after making such determination."78. Thereafter, even in the case of All India Judges'Association v. Union of India & Ors. (1992) 4 SCC 288, thisCourt not only issued a mandamus but even directed theacceptance of the Justice Shetty Commission Report and

consequently ordered the State Governments to fix grades of pay,grant appropriate pay scales as well as make amendments in theage of retirement and other conditions of service, as necessary,in order to maintain the independence of judiciary. Again, ina subsequent judgment taken up in the year 2002, in the same 71case All India Judges' Association v. Union of India [(2002) 4SCC 247], this Court held as under : "21. The next question which arose for consideration is whether the Shetty Commission was justified in recommending that 50 per cent of the expense should be borne by the Central Government. It has been contended by the learned Advocate-General for the State of Karnataka as well as on behalf of the other States that the judicial officers working in the States deal not only with the State laws but also with the federal laws. They, therefore, submitted that, in fairness of things, the Central Government should bear half of the expenses of the judiciary. XXX XXX XXX 25. An independent and efficient judicial system is one of the basic structures of our Constitution. If sufficient number of Judges are not appointed, justice would not be available to the people, thereby undermining the basic structure. It is well known that justice delayed is justice denied. Time and again the inadequacy in the number of Judges has adversely been commented upon. Not only have the Law Commission and the Standing Committee of Parliament made observations in this regard, but even the Head of the judiciary, namely, the Chief Justice of India has had more occasion than one to make observations in regard thereto. Under the circumstances, we feel it is our constitutional obligation to ensure that the backlog of the cases is decreased and efforts are made to increase the disposal of cases. Apart from the steps which may be necessary for increasing the efficiency of the judicial officers, we are of the opinion that time has now come for protecting one of the pillars of the Constitution, namely, the judicial system, by directing increase, in the first instance, in the Judge strength from the existing ratio of 10.5 or 13 per 10 lakh people to 50 Judges per 10 lakh people. 72 We are conscious of the fact that overnight these vacancies cannot be filled. In order to have additional Judges, not only will the posts have to be created but infrastructure required in the form of additional courtrooms, buildings, staff etc., would also have to be made available. We are also aware of the fact that a large number of vacancies as of today from amongst the sanctioned strength remain to be filled. We,

therefore, first direct that the existing vacancies in the subordinate courts at all levels should be filled, if possible latest by 31-3-2003, in all the States. The increase in the Judge strength to 50 Judges per 10 lakh people should be effected and implemented with the filling up of the posts in a phased manner to be determined and directed by the Union Ministry of Law, but this process should be completed and the increased vacancies and posts filled within a period of five years from today. Perhaps increasing the Judge strength by 10 per 10 lakh people every year could be one of the methods which may be adopted thereby completing the first stage within five years before embarking on further increase if necessary."79. Such is not the practice in India alone, but it isprevalent even in the United States of America. In the case ofCommonwealth ex rel. Carroll v. Tate et al. (supra), JudgeMontgomery of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania upheld the orderof mandamus issued against the defendants for appropriation andpayment of the amounts needed for infrastructure and otherrequirements for proper running of the Courts. The Court heldthat it is a basic precept of the Constitutional form ofRepublican Government that the Judiciary is an independent and 73co-equal Branch of the Government along with Executive andLegislative Branches and the amount that had been recommended bythe Mayor for utilization by the Judiciary was found to beinadequate to meet the reasonable needs of the Court for thefiscal year. Thus, the Court, while reducing the amountoriginally ordered by Judge Montgomery, nevertheless upheld theissue of mandamus, affirming the earlier order earlier withsome modification.80. It is, thus, clear that it is the constitutional duty ofthis Court to ensure maintenance of the independence ofJudiciary as well as the effectiveness of the Justice DeliverySystem in the country. The data and statistics placed onrecord, of which this Court can even otherwise take judicialnotice, show that certain and effective measures are required to

be taken by the State Governments to bring down the pendency ofcases in the lower Courts. It necessarily implies that theGovernment should not frame any policies or do any acts whichshall derogate from the very ethos of the stated basic principleof judicial independence. If the policy decision of the Stateis likely to prove counter-productive and increase the pendencyof cases, thereby limiting the right to fair and expeditioustrial to the litigants in this country, it will be tantamount toinfringement of their basic rights and constitutionalprotections. Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that in 74these cases, the Court could issue a mandamus. The extent ofsuch power, we shall discuss shortly hereinafter.81. Thus, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusionthat in the cases at hand, this Court is possessed of thejurisdiction and is competent to issue a writ of mandamus and/orappropriate directions. However, the scope and dimensions ofsuch directions is a matter of further deliberation, which weshall shortly proceed to discuss.Right to Practice82. Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution provides afundamental right to practice any profession or to carry on anyoccupation, trade or business. This right is subject to thelimitations contained under Article 19(6) of the Constitution.The State is empowered to make any law imposing, in the interestof general public, reasonable restrictions on the exercise ofthe rights conferred by the said sub-clause. This powerspecifically refers to the professional or technicalqualifications necessary for practicing any profession orcarrying on any occupation. The right to practice law is notan absolute right and is subject to the possession of requisitequalifications as contemplated under the Advocates Act, 1961.This right to practice is further subject to the limitationsprescribed in and the regulatory regime of the Bar Council ofIndia Rules. Therefore, the argument that once a lawyer

75possesses the requisite qualifications, he has an unrestrictedand unregulated right to practice, is not tenable.83. The appointees in the present case argued that in termsof the Bar Council of India Rules, after they cease to be judgesof the FTCs for any reason whatsoever, they shall be debarredfrom practicing in the district and subordinate courts. Theirright to practice is abridged with respect to the courts inwhich they acted as judges and courts of the equivalent or lowergrade. They can still practice in the higher courts, i.e.,permissible Tribunals, High Courts and the Supreme Court ofIndia. Thus, there is no complete and absolute restriction ontheir right to practice. It is only a partial restrictionwhich is based upon securing the larger public interest and theinterest of ensuring transparency in the administration ofjustice. This by itself, therefore, cannot be a considerationfor compelling the Government to continue their appointments, ifthey are otherwise not entitled under law to continuation. Thisquestion, in somewhat similar circumstances, came up forconsideration of this Court when the retired members of theCustom, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short"the CESTAT") were not permitted to practice before the sameTribunal on the strength of Rule 7 Chapter III, Part VI of theBar Council of India Rules. This Court not only upheld thevalidity of the said Rules, but also held that this did not 76amount to an absolute and unreasonable bar on the right topractice of the past members of the Tribunal. Upon anobjective analysis of the principles stated therein, this Courtheld that except where a challenge is made on the grounds oflegislative incompetence or the restriction imposed is ex facieunreasonable, arbitrary and violative of Part III of theConstitution, the restriction would be held to be valid and

enforceable. We may refer to the following paragraph of thejudgment of this Court, in the case of N.K. Bajpai v. Union ofIndia & Anr. (CA No. 2850 of 2012 arising out of SLP(C) No. 8479of 2010), to which one of us, Swatanter Kumar, J was a member,decided on 15th March, 2012, which reads as under:- "29. An objective analysis of the above principles makes it clear that except where the challenge is on the grounds of legislative incompetence or the restriction imposed was ex facie unreasonable, arbitrary and violative of Part III of the Constitution of India, the restriction would be held to be valid and enforceable."84. For the reasons afore-noticed and the law indicatedabove, we do not find any merit in the contention raised onbehalf of the appointees/petitioners that they would suffer anirreparable loss by termination of their services as FTC judgesand that the restriction contained in Rule 7 of the Bar Council 77of India Rules amounts to an absolute unreasonable restrictionupon their right to practice in the event of such termination.Scope of Judicial Review85. The power of judicial review to examine the validity of alegislation falls within a very limited compass. It is treatedby the Courts with greater restraint and on a much higherpedestal than examination of the correctness or validity ofState policies. In the present case, the Union of India hadframed a policy, which was termed as the FTC Scheme. This was aconscious policy decision taken by the appropriate Government,the implementation whereof in regard to financialinfrastructure, capital or recurring expenditure was primarilythat of the Union of India. Some of the State Governmentsframed Rules to fill up the posts of Judges who were to presideover the FTCs, while others just took a policy decision withrespect to the existing statutory Rules for recruitment to theregular Higher Judicial Services cadre of that State. As

already noticed, the FTC Scheme contemplated three differentsources for recruitment of judges, i.e. by direct recruitment,promotion and appointment of retired Judges. The work done bythe FTCs over long period had been appreciated by all concerned.To demonstrate this aspect, we may refer to certain statisticswhich have been placed on record by different States. 7886. As per the latest data placed on record, the State ofAndhra Pradesh had sanctioned 108 posts of FTC Judges, out ofwhich 72 are stated to be in place as on the financial year2010-2011. These courts disposed of 20,696 cases in the periodfrom 01.01.2011 to 30.11.2011 and the pendency as on 30.11.2011in these courts was 35,290 cases. In Bihar, 183 posts werecreated and 138 judges are presently in position. 18,222 caseshave been disposed of in the period from 01.01.2011 to31.12.2011, and 13,149 cases transferred to regular courtsleaving arrears of 75,868. The State of Gujarat has claimed,for the same year, that 166 judicial posts were sanctioned andfunctioning, and they had disposed of 38,426 cases in the periodfrom 01.01.2011 to 31.12.2011 leaving arrears/ pendency of86,755 cases.87. In Himachal Pradesh, there were nine judicial posts, outof which five are presently filled and 8607 cases were disposedof in the period from 01.01.2011 to 31.12.2011 leaving pendencyof 5852 cases. Jharkhand had 39 presiding officers in place outof the 89 sanctioned posts and they had disposed of 1406 casesin the period from 01.01.2011 to 31.03.2011, leaving a pendencyof 22,238 cases as on 31.03.2011.88. In Kerala, 25 posts out of 38 sanctioned posts werefunctioning. 9,925 cases were disposed of in the period from01.01.2011 to 31.12.2011, leaving a pendency of 13,809 cases. 7989. In Karnataka, 92 out of 93 sanctioned posts are

functioning. They have disposed of 39,800 cases in the periodfrom 01.01.2011 to 31.12.2011, leaving a pendency of 33,661cases. In Madhya Pradesh, 44 out of 59 judicial posts arefilled and they have disposed of 61,866 cases in the period from01.01.2011 to 31.12.2011, leaving a pendency of 36,284 cases.In Maharashtra, out of 100 sanctioned posts, 91 judicialofficers have been appointed. They have disposed of 25235cases, leaving a balance of 54398 in the year 2010-2011. InOrissa, 34 courts out of 72 are functioning. They havedisposed of 7007 cases leaving a balance of 5275 upto the year2010-2011.90. In Punjab and Haryana, out of 18 courts, 15 courts andout of 16 courts, seven courts are working. They have disposedof 7376 cases leaving a balance of 13202 cases. In Rajasthan,42 courts out of 43 are functioning. They have disposed of9680, having a total pendency of 17,474 cases upto the year2010-2011. In Tamil Nadu, 43 out of 49 posts are functional.They have disposed of 65,877 cases in the period from 01.01.2011to 31.12.2011 leaving arrears of 50,386. In Uttar Pradesh, 153posts, out of the sanctioned 156 were functioning. They havedisposed of 16,640 cases in the period from 01.01.2011 to31.03.2011 leaving a pendency of 53,117 cases as on 31.08.2011.In West Bengal, 150 posts out of 151 sanctioned are in place and 80have disposed of 10,499 cases in the period from 01.01.2011 to31.12.2011 leaving a pendency of 32,648 cases upto the year2010-2011.91. There were 1734 FTCs under the FTC Scheme out of which1281 Courts are in place in the entire country. They havedisposed nearly 32.34 lakh cases right from the date of theirestablishment till the year 2010-2011. The above stated

pendency details of criminal cases in the country as on 30March, 2011 is only with regard to Sessions cases. If we takethe total figure of pendency of criminal cases before theSessions Courts, as well as the Magisterial Courts, there shallbe a total pendency of approximately 6.56 lakh cases.92. The above data clearly shows that the pendency ofcriminal cases in the country has increased at a rapid pace,despite a good rate of disposal of cases being maintained by theFTCs. This experiment has been tried over a long period, i.e.,it was started in the year 2001 for an initial period of fiveyears. However, it was subsequently extended and the CentralGovernment agreed to finance the FTC Scheme uptil 30 th March,2011. Thereafter, the various State Governments have eitherdecided to wind up the FTC Scheme or have extended the FTCScheme at their own expense. Thus, there is no unanimitybetween the Union Government and the States either oncontinuation or the closure of the FTC Scheme. 8193. The Union of India, of course, has stated that it wouldnot, in any case, finance expenditure of the FTC Scheme beyond30th March, 2011 but some of the States have resolved to continuethe FTC Scheme upto 2012, 2013 and even 2016. A few States areeven considering the continuation of the FTC Scheme as apermanent feature in their respective States. This, to a largeextent, has created an anomaly in the administration of Justicein the States and the entire country. Some of the States wouldcontinue with the FTC Scheme while others have been forced todiscontinue or close it because of non-availability of funds.94. On the one hand, the Central Government has communicatedits decision not to finance the FTC Scheme to the StateGovernments, but on the other hand and quite strangely, it hasprovided substantial funds for the starting of Evening Courtsand Gram Nyalayas, etc. Again, this is a policy decision andthough the Government has the jurisdiction to decide on such

policy matters, there has to be some rationale andreasonableness in the same. They cannot be so arbitrary andpatently erroneous that it becomes necessary for the Court tointerfere with the same.95. Some of the States, like the State of Gujarat, havedecided to terminate the services of the appointees directlyrecruited from the Bar. However, in some cases, the High Courton its judicial side has quashed the notice of termination. 82In the case of Orissa, although the FTC Scheme is continuingupto 30th March, 2013, they have still dispensed with theservices of some of the direct recruits from the Bar.96. In Chhatisgarh, the FTC Scheme itself has beendiscontinued with effect from 1st April, 2011.97. In some of the other States, the appointees have prayedfor regularization of their services.98. In some of the States, the FTC Scheme is being continuedon ad hoc basis and without any final decision being taken inthat behalf. The appointees have therefore, prayed forcontinuation of the FTC Scheme as well as regularization oftheir services in the regular cadre of the State JudicialServices.99. The policy decision of the State should be in publicinterest and taken objectively. Adhocism or uncertainty in theState policy particularly relating to vital factors ofgovernance, may not bring the requisite dividend. Reasons fortaking a policy decision would squarely fall in the domain ofthe State, but it should be free from element of arbitrarinessand mala fide. There are three basic pillars of ourconstitutional governance i.e. the Executive, the Legislatureand the Judiciary. The doctrine of separation of po

wersdemarcates the area of their respective operation. Normally, 83the Government exercises various controls over itsinstrumentalities and the organizations involved in thegovernance of the State. This would be through financial,administrative or managerial and functional controls. Theseparameters of control may be applied to determine whether or nota particular organization or a body is a State within themeaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. We have noticedthese aspects primarily with the purpose of demonstrating thatjudicial functions and judicial powers are one of the essentialattributes of a sovereign State and on considerations of policy,the State transfers its judicial functions and powers, mainly tothe courts established by the Constitution, but that does notaffect competence of the State to, by appropriate measures,transfer a part of its judicial functions or powers to Tribunalsor other such bodies. This view is expressed by this Court, inthe case of Associated Cements Co. Ltd. v. P.N. Sharma [AIR 1965SC 1595]. However, as far as functioning of the courts, i.e.,dispensation of justice by Courts is concerned, the Governmenthas no control whatsoever over the courts. Further, inrelation to matters of appointments to the Judicial Services ofthe States and even to the Higher Judiciary in the country, theGovernment has some say, however, the finances of Judiciary areentirely under the control of the State. It is obvious thatthese controls should be minimized to maintain the independence 84of the Judiciary. The courts should be able to function freeof undesirable administrative and financial restrictions inorder to achieve the constitutional goal of providing social,economic and political justice and equality before law to itscitizens.100. Article 21 of the Constitution of India takes in itssweep the right to expeditious and fair trial. Even Article

39A of the Constitution recognizes the right of citizens toequal justice and free legal aid. To put it simply, it is theconstitutional duty of the Government to provide the citizens ofthe country with such judicial infrastructure and means ofaccess to Justice so that every person is able to receive anexpeditious, inexpensive and fair trial. The plea of financiallimitations or constraints can hardly be justified as a validexcuse to avoid performance of the constitutional duty of theGovernment, more particularly, when such rights are accepted asbasic and fundamental to the human rights of citizens.101. In the case of High Court of Judicature at Bombay,Through its Registrar v. Shirishkumar Rangrao Patil and Anr.[(1997) 6 SCC 339], this Court articulated the above-mentionedprinciples unambiguously in the following words:- "13. The question then is whether the High Court is justified in recommending to the Governor the respondent's dismissal from service on the basis of the material on record and whether the evidence on record was not sufficient to conclude the 85misconduct of having demanded illegalgratification. In a democracy governed byrule of law, under a written constitution,judiciary is the sentinel on the qui vive toprotect the fundamental rights and poised tokeep even scales of justice between thecitizens and the States or the States interse. Rule of law and judicial review arebasic features of the Constitution. As itsintegral constitutional structure,independence of the judiciary is anessential attribute of rule of law.Judiciary must, therefore, be free frompressure or influence from any quarter. TheConstitution has secured to them, theindependence. The concept of "judicialindependence" is a wider concept takingwithin its sweep independence from any otherpressure or prejudice. It has manydimensions, namely, fearlessness of otherpower centres, economic or political, andfreedom from prejudices acquired andnourished by the class to which the Judgebelongs. Independent judiciary, therefore,is most essential to protect the liberty ofcitizens. In times of grave danger, it isthe constitutional duty of the judiciary topoise the scales of justice unmoved by thepowers (actual or perceived), undisturbed bythe clamour of the multitude. The heart ofjudicial independence is judicialindividualism. The judiciary is not adisembodied abstraction. It is composed of

individual men and women who work primarilyon their own. (Vide C. Ravichandran Iyer v.Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee) The Constitutionof India has delineated distribution ofsovereign power between the legislature,executive and judiciary. The judicialservice is not service in the sense ofemployment. The Judges are not employees. Asmembers of the judiciary, they exercise thesovereign judicial power of the State. Theyare holders of public offices in the sameway as the members of the Council ofMinisters and the members of thelegislature. It is an office of public trustand in a democracy, such as ours, the 86executive, the legislature and the judiciaryconstitute the three pillars of the State.What is intended to be conveyed is that thethree essential functions of the State areentrusted to the three organs of the Stateand each one of them in turn represents theauthority of the State. The Judges, atwhatever level they may be, represent theState and its authority, unlike thebureaucracy or the members of the otherservice. [Vide All India Judges' Assn. v.Union of India [SCC paras 7 and 9] (secondcase).] The Judges do not do an easy job.They repeatedly do what the rest of us seekto avoid, i.e., make decisions. Judges,though are mortals, they are called upon toperform a function that is utterly divine incharacter. The trial Judge is the kingpin inthe hierarchical system of administration ofjustice. He directly comes in contact withthe litigant during the day-to-dayproceedings in the court. On him lies theresponsibility to build a solemn atmospherein the dispensation of justice. Thepersonality, knowledge, judicial restraint,capacity to maintain dignity, character,conduct, official as well as personal andintegrity are the additional aspects whichmake the functioning of the court successfuland acceptable. Law is a means to an end andjustice is that end. But in actuality, lawand justice are distant neighbours;sometimes even strangely hostile. If lawshoots down justice, the people shoot downthe law and lawlessness paralysesdevelopment, disrupts order and retardsprogress. [Vide All India Judges' Assn. v.Union of India9) which quoted with approvalthe statement of law by Krishna Iyer, J.]Fourteenth Report of the Law Commission,extracted and approved by this Court in theabove judgment (SCC p. 134, para 44),postulates thus: "If the public is to give profound respect to the judges the judges should by their conduct try and observe it; not 87 by word or deed should they give cause for the people that they do not deserve the pedestal on which we

expect the public to place them. It appears to us that not only for the performance of his duties but outside the court as well a judge has to maintain an aloofness amounting almost to self-imposed isolation." 14. Therein also, it was further observedthat what is required of a Judge is "a formof life and conduct far more severe andrestricted than that of ordinary people" andthough unwritten, it has been most strictlyobserved. The judicial officers are at onceprivileged and restricted; they have topresent a continuous aspect of dignity andconduct. If the rule of law is toefficiently function under the aegis of ourdemocratic society, Judges are expected tonurture an efficient, strong and enlightenedjudiciary. To have it that way, the nationhas to pay the price, i.e., to keep themabove wants, provide infrastructuralfacilities and services. There was a timewhen a Judge enjoyed a high status insociety. A Government founded on anythingexcept liberty and justice cannot stand andno nation founded on injustice canpermanently stand. Therefore, dispensationof justice is an essential and inevitablefeature in the civilized democratic society.Maintenance of law and order requires thepresence of an efficient system ofadministration of criminal justice. A senseof confidence in the court is essential tomaintain the fabric of ordered liberty forfree people and it is for the subordinatejudiciary by its action and the High Courtby its appropriate control of subordinatejudiciary and its own self-imposed judicialconduct, on and off the bench, to ensure it.If one forfeits the confidence in thejudiciary of its people, it can never regainits lost respect and esteem. The conduct ofevery judicial officer, therefore, should beabove reproach. He should be conscientious, 88 studious, thorough, courteous, patient, punctual, just, impartial, fearless of public clamour, regardless of public praise, and indifferent to private, political or partisan influences; he should administer justice according to law, and deal with his appointment as a public trust; he should not allow other affairs or his private interests to interfere with the prompt and proper performance of his judicial duties, nor should he administer the office for the purpose of advancing his personal ambitions or increasing his popularity. If he tips the scales of justice, its rippling effect would be disastrous and deleterious. Obviously, therefore, this Court in All India Judges' Assn. attempted to ensure better uniform conditions of service for subordinate judiciary throughout the country, it recommended the superannuation of the subordinate judicial officers at the age of 60 years; and ensured amelioration of their service conditions by giving diverse

directions. In 2nd All India Judges' Assn. this Court dealt with the status of the judicial officers as a class and held that they are above the personnel working in other constitutional functionaries, viz., the executive and the legislature. Directions were issued by this Court for ensuring due implementation for their better service conditions. Three years' minimum service at the Bar was recommended to be eligible to be a judicial officer in All India Judges' Assn. v. Union of India (third case). In All India Judges' Assn. v. Union of India (fourth case), direction was issued to ensure accommodation."102. As is evident from the above extract, which makesreference to a number of other judgments of this Court, judicialreview is recognized as a basic feature of the Constitution andindependence of judiciary is integral to the constitutional 89structure, as an essential attribute of the Rule of law.Judiciary must, therefore, be free from pressure and influencesfrom any quarter. The heart of judicial independence isjudicial individualism. The judiciary is not a disembodiedabstraction. It is composed of men and women who work primarilyon their own. Thus, it can be stated with certainty that anyimpediments to the continued and independent functioning of theJudiciary would result in damaging the institution of Justice aswell as adversely affecting the faith of the public in thefunctioning of the Courts/Tribunals. Only if continued judicialindependence is assured, would the Courts/Tribunals be able todischarge their functions in an impartial manner. It isfundamental that members of the Courts/Tribunal be independentpersons. They should resemble the courts and not bureaucraticBoards {Ref. Union of India v. R. Gandhi, President, Madras BarAssociation [(2010) 11 SCC 1]}.103. In the above-mentioned case, this Court also expressedthe view that persons exercising quasi-judicial powers should bevested and possessed with the independence, security andcapacity as is associated with the courts.

104. It is a frequently stated principle that making theJudiciary free from control of the Executive and the Legislatureis essential, as there exists a right to have claims decided by 90Judges who are free from domination by other branches of theGovernment.105. These principles have withstood the test of time and havebeen frequently applied by the courts. Even in the case ofUnion of India & Ors. v. Pratibha Bonnerjea & Anr. [(1995) 6 SCC765], this Court stated that the Judicial Officers belonging tothe subordinate services are placed under the protectiveumbrella of the High Court and that it had no hesitation inconcluding that the relationship between the Government and theHigh Court is not that of master and servant. The JudicialOfficers cannot be said to be holding a post under the Union orthe State.106. It is in this context that this Court, in the case ofAshoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India & Ors. [(2008) 6 SCC 1],while dealing with Right to Education in terms of Article 21A ofthe Constitution, held that financial constraints upon the Statecannot be a ground to deny fundamental rights to citizens.107. On a proper examination of the above principles, it canbe stated without hesitation that wherever the right which isbeing affected is a basic or a fundamental right, the Statecannot be permitted to advance an argument of financialconstraints in such matters. The policy of the State has to bein the larger public interest and free of arbitrariness. 91Adhocism and uncertainty are the twin factors which are bound toadversely affect any State policy and its results. The Statecannot in, an ad hoc manner, create new systems whilesimultaneously giving up or demolishing the existing systems

when the latter have even statistically shown achievement ofresults.108. In reference to the cases at hand, the Central Governmenthad taken a decision to stop financing and consequently to windup the FTC Scheme. However, at the same time, it has allocatedRs.2500crores for operation of the Morning, Evening and Shift Courts inthe country besides providing funds under other heads, as perthe 13th Finance Commission Report for the period 2010-2011 to2014-2015.109. It may not be appropriate for this Court to decide upon acomparative analysis of the policy decisions as to which policyhas greater merit and which policy the Government should adopt,but certainly whichever policy is eventually taken up by theState, it has to be fair, in public interest and also satisfythe constitutional limitation of ensuring independence ofJudiciary.110. Another very important aspect, which has often beennoticed by this Court, is that the Legislature, in exercise ofits power, has enacted various Central and State laws. The 92disputes arising under these laws are to be adjudicated upon bythe Courts. It is a known fact that such legislations are notpreceded by Judicial Impact Assessment by the concernedauthorities.111. To take an example, in 1988 the Legislature amended theprovisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, insertingChapter XVII (Section 138 to Section 142) by the Amending Act 66of 1988. Again, vide the Amending Act 55 of 2002, thepunishment prescribed under Section 138 of that Act was amendedand the period of notice was also reduced to 15 days from theone month period prescribed earlier. These amendments resultedin filing of unexpected number of cases in the courts of thelearned Magistrate. As per the 213th Law Commission Report, thependency in 2008 of Section 138 cases alone in the country is

3.8 million cases in the trial courts.112. Similarly, with the passage of time, owing to thetremendous growth in the population of the country and greaterawareness among citizens of their rights, civil and criminallitigation before the Courts have increased manifold, withoutthere being an equivalent increase in the strength of Judges andenhancement in the infrastructure of the Courts. Thus, it isessential that some kind of consistent and systematized approachis adopted by all the concerned Governments, including the Unionof India, so as to take effective measures to remedy this 93situation as well as to prevent further undesirable increase inthe pendency of cases before the Courts. Expeditious disposalof cases is obviously the first answer to this multifariousproblem.The Conference of the Chief Ministers of the States and theChief Justices of the High Courts113. In order to resolve various administrative and alliedissues relating to the administration of justice in the States,it has been the practice to hold the Chief Justices and ChiefMinisters Conference, which is presided over by the ChiefJustice of India. In these meetings, various steps arediscussed, for which an agenda is circulated and suggestionsfrom the High Courts as well as the State Governments areinvited. This Conference is normally attended by the ChiefMinisters and/or the Law Ministers of the State, Chief Justicesof the High Courts and various other authorities from thebureaucracy and the High Courts. Upon due deliberations,decisions are taken, whereafter Minutes of the same are preparedand circulated. The decisions are recorded and circulated tothe States and the Union of India specifically for theirinformation and further action. Unfortunately, the practicehas shown that these decisions have hardly been implemented by

the concerned authorities. 94114. One such Conference was held on 16th August, 2009 in whichvarious matters were discussed. Item 3 of the Agenda and thedecision taken thereunder reads as follows:- "3. Progress made in setting-up of fast track courts of magistrates and fast track civil courts and continuation of fast track courts. There was unanimity amongst all the participants that Fast Track Courts of Magistrates and Fast Track Civil Courts be set up on the lines of Fast Track Courts of Sessions for the purpose of expeditious disposal of cases pending in the Magisterial Courts. They were unanimous on the aspect that huge accumulation of arrears of cases cannot be arrested unless strength of Judicial Officers is raised. All the speaker were ad idem with the proposal of continuing Fast Track Courts of Sessions for a further period of five years beyond 31st March, 2010, as they were set-up with a laudable object and a large number of cases have been disposed of by these courts. However, the speakers cited financial constraints and desired that the allocation of funds for this purpose be made by the Central Government. DECISION a] Fast Track Civil Courts and Fast Track Courts of Magistrates be set-up in order to arrest accumulation of arrears of cases in such courts. b] Fast Track Courts of Sessions be continued for a further period of five years beyond 31st March, 2010. c] Priority be given to the retired Judicial Officers for appointment to the Fast Track Courts having unblemished service record of 95 integrity, probity and ability as also on the basis of physical and mental fitness. A reasonable amount of remuneration be paid to the retired Judicial Officers appointed for the purpose."115. The matter in regard to setting up of Evening, Morningand Shift Courts was also discussed and it was required that theState Government shall set up at least one Family Court in eachdistrict. Other items which may have some bearing on thematter before us are Item nos. 8 and 13 which read as under:- "8] Steps required to be taken for reduction of arrears and ensuring the speedy trial There was complete unanimity amongst

the participants that cases are not being disposed of within a reasonable time- schedule and they were of the view that strength of Judges at all levels need to be enhanced in order to arrest accumulation of arrears of cases and to provide speedy, efficient and effective justice to the citizens. The speakers also stressed upon the need to evolve methods to arrest arrears of cases and to ensure speedy disposal of cases. The participants also impressed upon the fact that unfilled vacancies be filled up at the earliest which will contribute to reducing the backlog of cases. DECISION The High Courts will make scientific and rational analysis as regards accumulation of arrears and devise a roadmap for itself and jurisdictional courts to arrest arrears of cases taking into account average institution, pendency and disposal of cases and to ensure speedy trial within a reasonable time-schedule. 96 13] Judicial Impact Assessment The proposal of `Judicial Impact Assessment' was welcomed at the Conference and need was felt that it be assessed on a continual basis. It was suggested that a scientific study be made to estimate the additional case-load on the courts on account of a new legislation. DECISION A judicial impact office at the National and State levels on continual basis for making assessment of impact of legislations on judicial work load be constituted."116. There is nothing placed on record before us to show thatthe FTCs at the level of the Magistrate Courts have no furtherefficacy. All the concerned governments, including the Union ofIndia, which duly participated in the Conference, had decided toextend the FTCs for a period of five years beyond 31 st March,2010 i.e. till 31st March, 2015. It was further contemplated inthe above decisions that other measures should also be taken bythe respective State Governments and Union of India to tacklethe problem of arrear of cases. Hardly any decision in thatregard was implemented, but on the other hand, a decisioncontrary to the minutes has been taken with certainty and hasbeen placed before us that the FTC Scheme would not be financedby the Central Government beyond 31st March, 2011. The questionthat arises is whether it is justified for the Central

Government, or any other Government, to brush aside the above 97Minutes and recommendations of such a high level meeting in amost casual manner or whether such Minutes require favourableconsideration by all concerned and proper and complete policydecisions taken in furtherance thereto and such minutes form thefoundation for major policy decisions relating to judiciary.117. The latter perspective demands an affirmative answer asthese decisions and recommendations should be favourablyconsidered by all concerned. Rather, they should form the basisof the policy decisions relating to the administration ofjustice. The Chief Justices and the Chief Ministers are theconstitutional heads of the Judiciary and the Executive,respectively. The matters are discussed by all States, Unionof India and Judiciary. The decisions are taken on the basisof the collective wisdom. One can hardly comprehend aconstitutional body of a higher normative significance than theChief Justices and the Chief Ministers of the respective HighCourts/States to take such policy decisions at the Nationallevel. The meeting is held under the umbrella of the Union ofIndia and is presided over by the Chief Justice of India, UnionMinister for Law and Justice and other high dignitaries todeliberate upon issues which relate to the justice deliverysystem, ultimately affecting the basic and fundamental rights ofthe citizens of this country at large. 98118. It will not only be unfair but unacceptable that theseMinutes be placed in the shelves of the Government archiveswithout attaching any significance to them. In our consideredview, it will neither be fair nor proper for any level in thebureaucratic hierarchy of the Government to reject suchsuggestions at the threshold, that too, without any properreasoning in support thereof. At least, the Cabinet of

theGovernment of India or the State Government, as the case may beshould take into consideration the decisions and recommendationsof this meeting. We hasten to add that due weightage should beattached to these recommendations and preferably, they shouldform the basis of the policy decision by the State or theCentral Government in relation to the matters concerningJudicial administration.Merits of the Respective Cases119. We have already noticed that in the case of the State ofGujarat, a number of persons were appointed as Judicial Officersto preside over the FTCs by way of direct recruitment from theBar. Their services have been terminated on the ground ofunsatisfactory performance. The High Court had, vide itsjudgment dated 1st August, 2010, declined to set aside thetermination of services of most officers, except 12 officerswhose cases were remanded to the High Court for reconsiderationon the administrative side. Out of these 12 officers, the High 99Court reinstated six officers and declined reinstatement of sixothers. In this way, 47 officers have challenged theirtermination orders. In the impugned judgment, the High Courthas noted unsatisfactory performance as the cause fortermination of their services. Entries of their service recordshave been reproduced in the judgment. All these officers hadbeen appointed as ad hoc and temporary FTC Judges. At no pointof time was anything done, directly or indirectly, by the Stateto give rise to a legitimate expectation of the appointees thattheir services will be regularized and they will be absorbed inthe regular cadre. On the basis of the Confidential Recordsreferred to by the High Court, in its judgment, it is difficultfor us to take any different view, particularly when the

sejudicial officers were only temporary and ad hoc appointees withno vested right to the post. Certainly, this is not a case ofmala fide termination. In the subsequent writ petitions beforethe High Court only one reason has been given for thetermination, i.e., the Central Government has refused to extendthe FTC Scheme and so, the State Government of Gujarat has alsodecided not to extend the FTC Scheme beyond 31 st March, 2011.This probably was not a valid reason to dismiss the WritPetitions because the Court ought to have examined the prayer ofthose officers for regularization of their services andabsorption against the regular cadre posts. This aspect of the 100Writ Petition was not even discussed by the High Court and thewrit petitions were dismissed. However, the High Court, whilenoticing that 100 posts of Additional District Judges have beencreated, concluded that the FTC Judges would not be adjusted orabsorbed against those vacancies and that the they could notclaim absorption against those posts. The High Court merelygranted leave to the petitioners to apply for selection to thenew posts or the regular posts, in light of the judgment of thisCourt in the case of Brij Mohan Lal (supra).120. These petitioners have also raised a challenge to Rules 4and 6 of the Gujarat Rules under which they were appointed, onthe ground that the same are arbitrary and discriminatory.Firstly, the Rules under which the petitioners were appointedafter 2001 themselves were to be in force only till 31 stDecember, 2005. Till 2005, none of the appointees challengedthese Rules. For these four years, they, in fact, took fulladvantage of their appointment under these Rules and receiveddifferent service benefits thereunder. We are unable toappreciate the contention that these Rules were arbitrary ordiscriminatory. The Rules themselves were temporary and wereenacted to meet an emergency situation. The appointments were

made purely on ad hoc and urgent temporary basis for a period oftwo years, terminable without any prior notice. A temporaryappointment, which itself was made for a period of two years, 101can hardly be equated to a tenure appointment and must beconstrued on such terms. These appointments were to come to anend by lapse of time. Such an appointment obviously cannot vestor confer any right upon the appointees to be absorbed in thepermanent cadre, as they were not appointed in accordance withthe provisions of the Gujarat Judicial Service RecruitmentRules, 1961. The expression `liable to be terminated at anytime without any notice' could be susceptible to objections ifit was used in the case of a quasi permanent or permanentemployee of a Government servant. However, we have alreadynoticed that there were no permanent posts contemplated underthe FTC Scheme. The entire FTC Scheme was ad hoc and formulatedto operate only until the year 2005. It was continued beyondthat period in accordance with the directions of this Court butnow a decision has been taken not to continue the FTC Schemebeyond 31st March, 2011. Even if, for the sake of argument, weaccept the contention that the expression `liable to beterminated at any time without any notice' is arbitrary andopposed to the basic Rule of Law, it still has to satisfy thetwin tests laid down in the case of Parshotam Lal Dhingra(supra), i.e., firstly, whether the Government servant beingterminated or reduced in rank thereby had a right to the post orto the rank, as the case may be and, secondly, whether he hadbeen visited with evil consequences. Both of these tests have to 102be answered in the negative, in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. We have already held above that theseofficers had no right to their posts and, consequently,discontinuation of their services in the facts of the present

case cannot be construed as punitive or one visiting thepetitioners with civil consequences. This holds true eventhough in some cases, it has been recorded that the performanceof these appointees was found to be unsatisfactory but that isnot the lone reason given by the High Court for dispensing withtheir services. It is the discontinuation of the FTC Schemeitself that is the principal reason for terminating the servicesof all these officers. In the present case, the Rulesthemselves were temporary and were bound to cease to have forceof law after 2005. The posts created were temporary and ad hoc.The appointments were made on ad hoc and urgent temporary basisfor a limited period of two years and terminable without notice.In these circumstances, neither can it be stated that thereexisted posts which had permanent or quasi-permanent characterand were the duly sanctioned posts of the regular cadre of theState Government nor that the appointees had any right to theseposts. Similar views were expressed by this Court in the caseof Mohd. Abdul Kadir (supra) holding that the appointments madeunder a scheme, which was extended from time to time could stillbe terminated or discontinued as the temporary or ad hoc 103engagements or appointments were in connection with a particularproject or a specific scheme only. Such appointments would cometo an end with the scheme itself.121. Writ Petitions have been filed by some of the appointeesfrom the State of Orissa praying for quashing of the cautiondated 4th April, 2008 issued to some officers, including Smt.Madhumita Das, which had informed them that they were requiredto dispose of eight sessions trials every month which, so far,they had not been able to achieve and that if they still failedto achieve the said target, their services would be liable to beterminated. The State of Orissa had issued an advertisement fordirect recruitment to the Higher Judicial Services of the Statedated 11th April, 2008. The appointees to the FTCs prayed thatthis advertisement be quashed and they be absorbed against the

regular vacancies. Amongst others, one Shri Prakash Kumar Rath,petitioner in Writ Petition (C) No.254 of 2008 has approachedthis Court under Article 32 of the Constitution on the groundthat he had earlier been placed in the waiting list of thecandidates selected for regular appointment to the HigherJudicial Services of the State of Orissa under the OrissaSuperior Judicial Service Rules, 1963 though after sometime, hisappointment was made under the Orissa Judicial Service (SpecialScheme) Rules, 2001 relating to temporary appointment for FTCs.According to this petitioner, he ought to be treated as a 104regular candidate as his selection was under the regular servicecadre and, therefore, he should be absorbed against thosevacancies.122. The correctness of the above-mentioned caution isprimarily challenged on the ground that it is violative ofArticles 14 and 16 of the Constitution inasmuch as no suchrestriction or limitation of disposing eight Session Trialsevery month is applied to the members of the State HigherJudicial Services and that the same yardstick should uniformlybe applied to the direct recruits appointed under the Rules aswell as to the Judicial Officers promoted/transferred to theFTCs. This argument is misconceived. The Judicial Officersappointed under the regular cadre of the State Higher JudicialServices are subject to various restrictions and limitations ofjudicial conduct as imposed by the High Court and under therelevant Rules in force. Without exception, unit system fordisposal of cases prevails and is applicable to the courtspresided over by such officers. They are required to dispose ofcertain given number of cases as that is one of the main

parameters for recording the Annual Confidential Reports of theofficers and placing them in the categories of `Outstanding',`Very Good', `Good', `Average', etc. On the contrary, the FTCJudges are to deal only with session trials. This was the verypurpose for which the Scheme was created and, as such, they 105cannot claim that the imposition of such a condition is ex facieunreasonable, arbitrary or discriminatory. In fact, in the writpetitions filed before us, no data has been provided tosubstantiate that it is neither practicable nor possible forthese courts to dispose of eight Session Trials, as contemplatedunder this caution letter dated 4th April, 2008. It is not thatevery sessions trial requires examination of large number ofwitnesses and other evidence. There are a considerable numberof sessions cases where the trial may not really take prolongedperiod for disposal. In the absence of any specific data andeven otherwise, we are unable to accept this contention raisedon behalf of the petitioners-appointees. Similarly, we alsofind no merit in the contention that this Court should quash theadvertisement issued by the State of Orissa for makingselections to the Orissa Higher Judicial Services on the basisof the claims for regularization of the petitioners against suchposts. There are two different sets of Rules, applicable indifferent situations, to these two different classes of officersand further they are governed by different conditions ofservice. They cannot be placed at par. The process of theirappointments is distinct and different. These petitioners haveno right to the post. Thus, it would neither be permissible norproper for the Court to halt the regular process of selection on 106the plea that these petitioners have a right to be absorbedagainst the posts in the regular cadre.123. The prayer for regularization of service and absorptionof the petitioners-appointees against the vacancies appearing in

the regular cadre has been made not only in cases involving caseof State of Orissa, but even in other States. Absorption inservice is not a right. Regularization also is not a statutoryor a legal right enforceable by the persons appointed underdifferent rules to different posts. Regularization shall dependupon the facts and circumstances of a given case as well as therelevant Rules applicable to such class of persons. As alreadynoticed, on earlier occasions also, this Court has declined therelief of regularization of the persons and workmen who had beenappointed against a particular scheme or project. AConstitution Bench of this Court has clearly stated theprinciple that in matters of public employment, absorption,regularization or permanent continuance of temporary,contractual or casual daily wage or ad hoc employees appointedand continued for long in such public employment would be dehors the constitutional scheme of public employment and would beimproper. It would also not be proper to stay the regularrecruitment process for the concerned posts. [refer Uma Devi(3) (supra)]. 107124. It is not necessary for us to deliberate on this issueall over again in view of the above discussion. Suffice it tonotice that the petitioner-appointees have no right to the postsin question as the posts themselves were temporary and werebound to come to an end by efflux of time. With reference tothe letters of their appointment and the Rules under which thesame were issued, it is clear that these petitioners cannotclaim any indefeasible right either to regularization orabsorption. It may also be noticed that under the OrissaSuperior Judicial Services and Judicial Service Rules, 2007,there is no provision for absorption or regularization of ad hocJudges.125. The petitioners from the State of Andhra Pradesh havealso prayed for identical relief claiming that the advertisement

dated 28th May, 2004 issued for filling up the vacancies in theregular cadre should be quashed and not processed any furtherand the petitioners instead should be absorbed against thosevacancies. In view of the above discussion, we find no meriteven in these submissions.126. We have already noticed that the FTC Judges wereappointed under a separate set of Rules than the Rules governingthe regular appointment to the State Higher Judicial Services.It has been clearly stipulated that such appointments would be 108ad hoc and temporary and that the appointees shall not deriveany benefit from such appointments.127. In the case of State of Rajasthan, it is the JudicialOfficers from the cadre of Civil Judge, Senior Division, whowere promoted as FTC Judges. They have continued to hold thoseposts for a considerable period. According to thesepetitioners, they were promoted to the Higher Judicial Servicesas per Rules and, therefore, keeping in view the order of thisCourt in the case of Madhumita Das (supra) as well as the veryessence of the FTC Scheme, they should be absorbed as members ofthe regular cadre of Higher Judicial Services of the State ofRajasthan. The State Government had issued a directive thatthey should undertake the limited competitive examination fortheir regular promotion/absorption in the higher cadre. Theseofficers questioned the correctness of this directive on theground that they were promoted as Additional Sessions Judges(FTC) under the Rules and, therefore, there was no question ofany further requirement for them to take any written examinationafter the long years of service that they have already put in inthe Higher Judicial Services.128. The Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules, 2010 are inforce for appointment to the Higher Judicial Services of theState. The judgment of this Court in All India Judges'

Association case (2002) (supra) as well as the relevant Rules 109contemplate that a person who is to be directly appointed to theHigher Judicial Services has to undergo a written examinationand appear in an interview before he can be appointed to thesaid cadre. As far as appointment by promotion is concerned,the promotion can be made by two different modes, i.e., on thebasis of seniority-cum-merit or through out of turn promotionwherein any Civil Judge, Senior Division who has put in fiveyears of service is required to take a competitive examinationand then to the extent of 25 per cent of the vacanciesavailable, such Judges would be promoted to the Higher JudicialServices. It was admitted before us by the learned counselappearing for the petitioner that these officers who werepromoted as ad hoc FTC Judges had not taken any writtencompetitive examination before their promotion to this postunder the Higher Judicial Services. In other words, they werepromoted on ad hoc basis depending on the availability ofvacancy in the FTCs. Once the Rules required a particularprocedure to be adopted for promotion to the regular posts ofthe Higher Judicial Services, then the competent authority caneffect the promotion only by that process and none other. Inview of the admitted fact that these officers have not taken anywritten examination, we see no reason as to how the challengemade by these Judicial Officers to the directive issued by theState Government for undertaking of written examination may be 110sustained. Thus, the relief prayed for cannot be granted in itsentirety.129. In the case of the States of Punjab and Haryana, theappointees were directly appointed as FTC Judges by way ofdirect recruitment from the Bar and they prayed forregularization of their services and absorption in the regularcadre as well as for continuation of the FTC Scheme till theirabsorption. For the reasons already recorded by us in relationto other States mentioned above, we do not think that the relief

of regularization/absorption can be granted to these petitionersalso in the manner in which they have prayed. They too have noright to the post. Admittedly, these candidates also did notpass any written competitive examination and were appointedsolely on the basis of an interview and must now undergo therequisite examination.The effect of Madhumita Das (supra) and Brij Mohan Lal (supra)and the directions that this Court is required to issue in lightthereof130. The issues arising for the consideration of this Courtunder this head, though ancillary, are of significantimportance. Having held that the petitioners/appointees to theFTCs do not have any right to the post and such appointmentswere temporary, ad hoc and on urgent basis for a limited period,we have yet to examine whether these petitioners would at all be 111entitled to some relief within the framework of law, withparticular reference to certain constitutional provisions. Theindependence of the Judiciary forms part of the basic structureof our Constitution. In the Indian Democracy neitheradministration of justice nor functioning of the courts can berendered irrelevant by actions of other organs of the State.Article 13 of the Constitution prescribes that if relevant lawsare inconsistent with Part III of the Constitution, whenenacted, they shall thereafter be held to be void to the extentof such inconsistency. The power of the Legislature, thus, islimited by the very fundamental restriction prescribing that itcannot enact laws inconsistent with the fundamental rights ofthe citizens. With the development of law, Article 21 has beengiven a very wide connotation. It covers various facets oflife. Right to life encompasses the right to live withdignity. Life or personal liberty cannot be taken away exceptaccording to the procedure established by law. Such procedureestablished by law also has to be reasonable, fair and just.

On failure to satisfy these parameters, such deprivation wouldbe found violative of the fundamental right guaranteed underArticle 21 of the Constitution and would be liable to be struckdown. One such rudiment stated by this Court is the right tofair and speedy trial. 112131. The right to speedy trial is an essential ingredient ofsuch reasonable, fair and just procedure. The State cannot bepermitted to deny the constitutional right to speedy trial tothe accused on the ground that the State does not have adequatefinancial resources to incur the necessary expenditure needed,for improving the administrative and judicial apparatus toensure speedy trial. Usefully, we can refer to the words ofJudge Blackmum in Jackson v. Bishop [404 F Supp. 2d 571] whoproclaimed that `humane considerations and constitutionalrequirements are not, in this day, to be measured by dollarconsiderations'. In the case of Hussainara Khatoon and Others(IV) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna [(1980) 1 SCC 98],this Court held that; "10. ....it is also the constitutional obligation of this Court, as guardian of the fundamental rights of the people, as a sentinel on the qui vive, to enforce the fundamental right of the accused to speedy trial by issuing the necessary directions to the State which may include taking of positive action such as augmenting and strengthening investigative machinery, setting up new courts, building new court houses, providing, providing more staff and equipment to the courts, appointment of additional Judges and other measures calculated to ensure speedy trial."132. This Court, in the case of Sheela Barse (II) and Ors. v.U.O.I. and Ors. [(1986) 3 SCC 632], while expressing its anguish 113over mounting arrears of criminal cases, particularly inrelation to retarded, abandoned or destitute children who werefacing trial and lodged in protection homes for years, issued

various directions and held as under:- "3. ..We are, therefore, firmly of the view that every State Government must take necessary measures for the purpose of setting up adequate number of courts, appointing requisite number of judges and providing them the necessary facilities. It is also necessary to set up an institute or academy for training of Judicial Officers so that their efficiency may be improved and they may be able to regulate and control the flow of cases in their respective courts. The problem of arrears of criminal cases in the courts of magistrates and Additional Sessions Judges has assumed rather disturbing proportions and it is a matter of grave urgency to which no State Government can afford to be oblivious. But, here, we are not concerned with the question of speedy trial for an accused who is not a child below the age of 16 years. That is a question which may have to be considered in some other case where this Court may be called upon to examine as to what is reasonable length of time for a trial beyond which the court would regard the right to speedy trial as violated...."133. It is a known fact that besides the above judgment, in anumber of decisions including all the cases titled All IndiaJudges' Association (supra), the Salem Advocate Bar Associationv. Union of India [(2003) 1 SCC 49] and various other publicinterest litigations, this Court has used all legally 114permissible judicial tools, to pass appropriate directions of ageneric nature and required the Governments to duly takerequisite policy decisions, in furtherance of public duties aswould be the requirement of law and the Constitution. {Ref.Prakash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab and Others [(2006) 8 SCC1]}. The Constitution confers certain rights upon the citizensand they are entitled to full enforcement of such rights.134. The present case has two significant aspects with whichthe Court is concerned. One relates to the grant or refusal ofthe relief claimed by various writ petitioners in thesepetitions while the other enjoins a duty upon the Court to testthe merits or otherwise of the policy decision taken by the

Government as opposed to the rights of the under trials oraccused as well as the right of the public at large to demandspeedy and fair trial. The former may have limited but thelater certainly has far reaching consequences. This Court wouldfail in its duty if it declines to exercise its jurisdiction inthe latter class of cases, solely on the ground that it was apolicy decision and, thus, is beyond the limits of judicialreview, being a matter primarily within the domain of theGovernment. Keeping in view its constitutional duty, theconstitutional rights of citizens of this country at large andwith reference to the facts of a given case, this Court may be 115duty bound to amplify and extend the arm of justice inaccordance with the principle Est boni Judicls ampliareJusticiary non-Jurisdictionem. The argument that matters ofpolicy are, as a rule, beyond the power of judicial review hasto be dispelled in light of the consistent view of this Court.This Court would be required to take unto itself the task ofissuing appropriate directions to ensure that the Rule of Lawprevails and the constitutional goals are not defeated byinaction either when the law requires action or when the policyin question is so arbitrary that it defeats the larger publicinterest.135. Now, we may examine certain essential features which havecompelled us to state the directions with candour :(a) The right of the citizens, undertrials or convicts to a speedy and fair trial.(b) Persistent deadlock between the Union and the State Governments in regard to continuation or otherwise of the FTC Scheme .(c) Uncertainty and adhocism in planning, implementation and financing of the FTC Scheme.(d) The legitimate expectation of the large number of FTC Judges, that their services would be regularized in the Higher Judicial Service of the respective State or that the

FTC Scheme would be made a permanent feature. 116(e) The element of arbitrariness that appears to have crept into the decision-making process of the Government and its hierarchy.(f) Why due weightage was not given to the decision and recommendation of the Minutes of the Chief Justices and Chief Ministers Conference held in the year, 2009 at New Delhi?(g) Whether the decision of the Government was data based and taken objectively?(h) There is an inbuilt contradiction in this policy decision inasmuch as, on the one hand, lack of finances is one of the grounds taken for discontinuance of the FTC Scheme, funds to the tune of Rs.2500 crore have been allocated for starting of the morning, evening and shift courts on the other.136. These are the features of the case which stand out andoblige the Government of India to clarify its stand. The Unionof India has failed to place any material on record to justifyits decision taken vide letter dated 14th September, 2010deciding to stop financing the FTC Scheme with effect from 31 stMarch, 2011. We are quite prepared to accept the contention ofthe Union of India that it will not be a case where this Courtshould venture to issue a mandamus directing continuation of the 117Scheme and reverse the policy decision taken by the Union ofIndia. While we are not oblivious of the principle that policydecisions should be interfered with rarely by the court, we arefully conscious of the fact that the present case is certainlyone where the Court should issue certain directions to ensurethat the fundamental rights and protections available to thecitizens are not violated and at the same time, the decision ofthe Government of India does not undermine the independence ofjudiciary. It may not be mandatory, but is always desirable

that the policy decision in relation to administration ofjustice should be made by Union of India in consultation withthe Supreme Court and/or the respective High Courts of theState. The recommendation of bodies like the Law Commission ofIndia or other special commissions appointed in relation toadministration of justice delivery system ought to be taken intoconsideration. But, we are unable to accept the view that therecommendations given by one of the important organs of theState, the judiciary, are not given effective consideration anddue weightage in framing and implementation of the policiesmaking relating to matters of administration of justice.137. It will neither be appropriate nor logical for the Unionof India and/or the State Governments to raise an argument thatthis Court may not issue any directions or mandamus to theconcerned Government, as it may have far reaching consequences. 118This argument does not impress us at all. Firstly, the Unionof India and the State Governments are not expected to raisesuch issue and secondly, it can hardly be disputed that theGovernments have not been able to successfully perpetrate anystable and result-oriented solution to reduce the huge pendencyof criminal cases before the courts. The finances,infrastructure and existence of adequate posts are the primeconsiderations which would weigh with any Authority or Courtwhile taking any policy decisions or passing necessarydirections in that behalf.138. What appears to have weighed with the Central Governmentfor not continuing the FTC Scheme after 31.03.2011 is that the13th Finance Commission has recommended a grant of Rs. 5,000Crores to the States for improving the justice delivery systemin the country with a specific objective of reducing the arrearssignificantly and out of this amount of Rs.5,000 crore a sum ofRs.2,500 crore has been allotted for morning/evening/shiftcourts and no amount has been allotted for FTCs. The

recommendations of the 13th Finance Commission under the head"Improving Justice Delivery" which are relevant are extractedhereinbelow: "12.76 The improvement of justice delivery is a critical component of the initiative to ensure better outputs and outcomes. This can be done by supporting the judiciary, while simultaneously strengthening the capacity of the law enforcement arm. We discuss here the support required to 119improve judicial outcomes. There are over 3crore cases pending in various courts in thecountry today. At the very least, currentfilings need to be disposed off, to preventaccumulation of arrears. The enormous delay indisposal of cases results not only in immensehardship, including those borne by the largenumber of under-trials, but also hinders economicdevelopment.12.77 The Department of Justice has identified anumber of initiatives which are part of thisaction plan and need support. The first isincreasing the number of court working hoursusing the existing infrastructure by holdingmorning/evening/shift courts. The second entailsenhancing support to Lok Adalats to reduce thepressure on regular courts. The third initiativeinvolves providing additional funding to StateLegal Services Authorities to enable them toenhance legal aid to the marginalised and empowerthem to access justice. The fourth is promotingthe AlternateDispute Resolution (ADR) mechanism to resolve patof the disputes outside the court system. Thefifth is enhancing capacity of judicial officersand public prosecutors through trainingprogrammes. The sixth relates to supportingcreation of a judicial academy in every state tofacilitate such training.12.78 The department has also proposed creationof the post of Court Managers in every judicialdistrict to assist the judiciary in theiradministrative functions. A number of courts ineach state are housed in heritage buildings,which reflect the cultural heritage of thearrears. It is proposed that a grant be providedfor maintaining these buildings.12.79 The Commission, after carefulconsideration has agreed to support the proposalsmade by the Department of Justice by approving agrant of Rs.5,000 Crores to be allocated asdescribe below. These allocations may bereleased in two annual instalments subject toaccounts being maintained and UtilisationCertificates (UCs)/ Statements of Expenditure 120 (SOEs) provided as per General Financial Rules (GFR 2005). 12.80 Operation of morning/ evening/ special judicial-metropolitan magistrate/ shift courts: The present 14,000 district and subordinate courts in the country are disposing off both important as well as petty cases. The pressure on judicial time on account of the petty cases

can be relieved by allotting them to morning/evening courts/ courts of special judicial/metropolitan magistrates. These courts will be staffed either by the regular judiciary on payment of additional compensation, or by retired officers. The morning courts in Andhra Pradesh and the evening courts in Gujarat have demonstrated the feasibility of such models. It is expected that about 14,825 such courts can dispose off 225 lakh pending as well as freshly filed cases of a minor nature within a year. This aggregates to 1125 lakh cases over the period 2010-2015. An amount of Rs.2,500 crore is being provided to facilitate setting up of such courts, which has been allocated to each state in accordance with the number of sanctioned courts."139. It will be clear from the aforesaid extracts from therecommendations of the 13th Finance Commission that therecommendations were based on the proposals of the Department ofJustice, Government of India for setting up morning/evening andshift courts because the morning courts in Andhra Pradesh andthe evening courts in Gujarat had demonstrated the feasibilityof morning and evening courts. The morning and evening courts,however, may not be feasible in the other States in India due tovarious local conditions prevailing in the States. Moreover, asmentioned in paragraph 12.77 of the recommendations of the 13thFinance Commission, the idea behind having morning/evening/ 121shift courts is that sufficient infrastructure such as courtrooms were not available for regular courts and with the sameinfrastructure more hours of judicial work could be done throughmorning/evening and shift courts. The fact, however, remainsthat with the help of funds allotted by the 11 th FinanceCommission, the States have already established additional courtrooms for the FTCs. These relevant aspects have not beenconsidered by the Central Government while rejecting therecommendations in the Conference of Chief Ministers of theStates and Chief Justices of the High Courts for continuing theFTC Scheme after 31.03.2010. The State Governments and the HighCourts of different States should have been consulted and theirviews should have been taken before the Central Government tookthe final decision to reject the proposal at the Conference of

the Chief Ministers of States and Chief Justices of the HighCourts to continue the FTC Scheme. We, however, find that thepolicy-decision of the Central Government to discontinue the FTCScheme beyond 31.03.2011 in its letter dated 14.09.2010 hasalready been given effect to and for this reason we are notinclined to strike down the aforesaid policy-decision of theUnion of India to discontinue the FTC scheme beyond 31.03.2011.140. Nonetheless, it will be clear from paragraph 12.76 of therecommendations of the 13th Finance Commission that there areover 3 crores pending cases in various courts in the country and 122there is enormous delay in disposing of the cases resulting inimmense hardship, including those borne by large number ofunder-trials. If the FTC ad hoc direct recruits who have overthe years gained a lot of judicial experience are regularisedand absorbed in the regular cadre of Additional District Judgesin different States, the problem of arrear of cases can behandled to some extent. The State Governments, however, may nothave the funds to bear the salary and allowances of additionalposts of Additional District Judges and therefore may not be ina position to regularise the ad hoc FTC Judges. To meet thecost disability of some of the State Governments, the 13thFinance Commission has provided funds for different projects,grant-in-aid and infrastructural expenditure relating toestablishment and running of courts. This will be clear fromparagraphs 12.1 and 12.2 of the recommendations of the 13thFinance Commission which are quoted hereinbelow: "12.1 Our terms of Reference (ToR) require us to make recommendations on the principles that should govern the grants-in-aid of the revenues of states out of the Consolidated Fund of India and the sums to be paid to states which are in need of assistance by way of grants-in-aid of their revenues under Article 275 of the Constitution, for purposes other than those specified in the provisos to Clause (1) of that article. 12.2 Grants-in-aid are an important component of Finance Commission transfers. The size of the grants has varied from 7.7 per cent of

123 total transfers under FC-VII to 26.1 per cent of total transfers under FC-VI. Grants recommended by FC-XII amounted to 18.9 per cent of total transfers. In their memoranda to us, a few states have argued that grants should be restricted to only a small portion of the states' share in FC transfers. They have argued that grants have been directed to particular sectors and with conditionalities that restrict the expenditure options of the states. In our assessment, grants-in-aid are an important instrument which enable the Commission to make its scheme of transfers more comprehensive and address various issues spelt out in the ToR. Grants also allow us to make corrections for cost disabilities faced by many states which are possible to address only to a limited extent in any devolution formula. The Commission has accordingly suggested several categories of grants-in-aid amounting in aggregate to Rs.3,18,581 crore which constitutes 18.03 per cent of total transfers."141. To meet the expenses of the State Government forimproving the Justice Delivery System, the 13th FinanceCommission has, therefore, recommended a total grant of Rs.5,000crores under the following specific heads: (i) Operation of morning/ evening/ special judicial- metropolitan magistrate/ shift courts - Rs.2,500 crores (ii) Establishing ADR Centres and training of mediators/conciliators - Rs.750 crores (iii)Lok Adalat - Rs.100 crores (iv) Legal Aid - Rs.200 crores (v) Training of Judicial Officers - Rs.250 crores (vi) State Judicial Academies - Rs.300 crores 124 (vii)Training of Public Prosecutors - Rs.150 crores (viii)Creation of posts of Court Managers - Rs.300 crores (ix) Maintenance of heritage court buildings - Rs.450 crores142. On account of the aforesaid allocations of grants-in-aidto specific heads, the State Governments will not be able toutilise the allocations made in their favour for additionalposts of Additional District Judges for regularising the FTCJudges. We are, thus, of the considered opinion that theCentral Government should, in consultation with the StateGovernments and the High Courts of the different States,reconsider allocating some amount out of the grant of Rs.5000

crores and for such additional amount for meeting the initialexpenses of increase in cadre strength of Additional DistrictJudges for absorbing the direct recruits of the FTC Scheme byway of regularisation.143. In terms of Articles 141 and 144 of the Constitution, thelaw declared by the Supreme Court of India is binding on allCourts and all authorities which are to act in aid of the law sodeclared. The framers of the Constitution, in no uncertainterms, declared that the judgments of this Court are binding onall. In fact, there is a duty upon the Authorities and allother Courts to act in aid of such decisions. In the case ofBrij Mohan Lal (supra), this Court vide its judgment dated 6thMay, 2002 after noticing various judgments of this Court, issued 125number of directions in relation to establishment andfunctioning of the FTCs. It referred to the Report of theEleventh Finance Commission. While repelling the challenge tothe FTC Scheme, this Court directed that steps should be takenwithin three months from the date of that judgment. The modesof appointment of Judges to the FTCs were also provided in thisjudgment. The judgment itself said that no right will beconferred on the Judicial Officers in service for claiming anyregular promotion on the basis of serving as FTC Judges. Whilestating the order of preference for appointment to these Courts,this Court held that the first preference would be given tojudges from amongst the eligible judicial officers by ad hocpromotion, the second preference would be given to the retiredjudges with good service records and the third preference wouldbe given to the members of the Bar by direct recruitment.144. Thereafter, this Court passed a detailed order in thecase of Madhumita Das (supra), finding some substance in theplea that while assessing the performance, there cannot bedifferent yardsticks, i.e. the same parameters have to beadopted while judging the performance of the petitioners viz-a-viz. those which are recruited from another source, i.e. from

amongst the Judicial Officers. However, in the interim order,this Court made a specific direction that the petitioners will 126continue to hold the post until further orders, which itdirected the High Court to pass. It was also stated thereinthat as and when regular vacancies would arise, the cases of thepetitioners shall be duly considered and there shall not be anyneed for them to appear in any examination meant for recruitmentto the cadre of District Judge.145. Thus, these two orders must be seen in light of the factthat the Union of India, as well as the State Governments oftheir own, extended the FTC Scheme for another five years i.e.till 2010 and thereafter, by another year. The CentralGovernment ultimately took the decision not to finance the FTCScheme with effect from 30th March, 2011. Even thereafter, anumber of States have taken the decision to continue the FTCScheme while retaining the appointees thereto till 2012, 2013and even till 2016. The State of Haryana has even thought ofmaking it as a permanent feature of dispensation of justice inthe State. The cumulative effect of all these factors is thatthe petitioners had a legitimate expectation that either theirservices would be continued as the FTC Scheme would be made apermanent feature of the justice administration in the concernedState or they would be absorbed in the regular cadre. But mereexpectation or even legitimate expectation of absorption cannotbe a cause of action for claiming the relief of regularization, 127particularly when the same is contrary to the Rules and lettersof appointment. In Madhumita Das (supra), the protection wasgranted in an interim order and we also feel that suchdirections cannot be issued, if they are contrary to the enactedstatute. When all these facts, circumstances and the judgmentsof this Court are harmoniously construed with an intention to docomplete justice as well as to protect the fundamental rights

and protections available to the public at large, it wouldappear necessary that this Court passes certain directions.146. Without any intent to interfere with the policy decisiontaken by the Governments but, unmistakably, to protect theguarantees of Article 21 of the Constitution, improve theJustice Delivery System and fortify the independence ofjudiciary, while ensuring attainment of constitutional goals aswell as to do complete justice to the lis before us, in terms ofArticle 142 of the Constitution, we pass the following ordersand directions :1. Being a policy decision which has already taken effect, we decline to strike down the policy decision of the Union of India vide letter dated 14th September, 2010 not to finance the FTC Scheme beyond 31st March, 2011.2. All the States which have taken a policy decision to continue the FTC Scheme beyond 31st March 2011 shall adhere 128 to the respective dates as announced, for example in the cases of States of Orissa (March 2013), Haryana (March 2016), Andhra Pradesh (March 2012) and Rajasthan (February 2013).3. The States which are in the process of taking a policy decision on whether or not to continue the FTC Scheme as a permanent feature of administration of justice in the respective States are free to take such a decision.4. It is directed that all the States, henceforth, shall not take a decision to continue the FTC Scheme on ad hoc and temporary basis. The States are at liberty to decide but only with regard either to bring the FTC Scheme to an end or to continue the same as a permanent feature in the State.5. The Union of India and the State Governments shall re- allocate and utilize the funds apportioned by the Thirteenth Finance Commission and/or make provisions for such additional funds to ensure regularization of the FTC

judges in the manner indicated and/or for creation of additional courts as directed in this judgment.6. All the decisions taken and recommendations made at the Chief Justices and Chief Ministers Conference shall be placed before the Cabinet of the Centre or the State, as the case may be, which alone shall have the authority to finally accept, modify or decline, implementation of such 129 decisions and, that too, upon objective consideration and for valid reasons. Let the Minutes of the Conference of 2009, at least now, be placed before the Cabinet within three months from the date of pronouncement of this judgment for its information and appropriate action.7. No decision, recommendation or proposal made by the Chief Justices and Chief Ministers Conference shall be rejected or declined or varied at any bureaucratic level, in the hierarchy of the Governments, whether in the State or the Centre.8. We hereby direct that it shall be for the Central Government to provide funds for carrying out the directions contained in this judgment and, if necessary, by re- allocation of funds already allocated under the 13th Finance Commission for Judiciary. We further direct that for creation of additional 10 per cent posts of the existing cadre, the burden shall be equally shared by the Centre and the State Governments and funds be provided without any undue delay so that the courts can be established as per the schedule directed in this judgment.9. All the persons who have been appointed by way of direct recruitment from the Bar as Judges to preside over the FTCs under the FTC Scheme shall be entitled to be appointed to 130the regular cadre of the Higher Judicial Services of the

respective State only in the following manner :(a) The direct recruits to the FTCs who opt for regularization shall take a written examination to be conducted by the High Courts of the respective States for determining their suitability for absorption in the regular cadre of Additional District Judges.(b) Thereafter, they shall be subjected to an interview by a Selection Committee consisting of the Chief Justice and four senior-most Judges of that High Court.(c) There shall be 150 marks for the written examination and 100 marks for the interview. The qualifying marks shall be 40 per cent aggregate for general candidates and 35 per cent for SC/ST/OBC candidates. The examination and interview shall be held in accordance with the relevant Rules enacted by the States for direct appointment to Higher Judicial Services.(d) Each of the appointees shall be entitled to one mark per year of service in the FTCs, which shall form part of the interview marks.(e) Needless to point out that this examination and interview should be conducted by the respective High Courts keeping in mind that all these applicants have put in a number of years as FTC Judges and have served 131 the country by administering Justice in accordance with law. The written examination and interview module, should, thus, be framed keeping in mind the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases. (f) The candidates who qualify the written examination and obtain consolidated percentage as afore-indicated shall be appointed to the post of Additional District Judge in the regular cadre of the State. (g) If, for any reason, vacancies are not available in the regular cadre, we hereby direct the State Goverments

to create such additional vacancies as may be necessary keeping in view the number of candidates selected. (h) All sitting and/or former FTC Judges who were directly appointed from the Bar and are desirous of taking the examination and interview for regular appointment shall be given age relaxation. No application shall be rejected on the ground of age of the applicant being in excess of the prescribed age.10. The members of the Bar who have directly been appointed but whose services were either dispensed with or terminated on the ground of doubtful integrity, unsatisfactory work or against whom, on any other ground, disciplinary action had 132 been taken, shall not be eligible to the benefits stated in clause 5 of the judgment.11. Keeping in view the need of the hour and the Constitutional mandate to provide fair and expeditious trial to all litigants and the citizens of the country, we direct the respective States and the Central Government to create 10 per cent of the total regular cadre of the State as additional posts within three months from today and take up the process for filling such additional vacancies as per the Higher Judicial Service and Judicial Services Rules of that State, immediately thereafter.12. These directions, of course, are in addition to and not in derogation of the recommendations that may be made by the Law Commission of India and any other order which may be passed by the Courts of competent jurisdiction, in other such matters.13. The candidates from any State, who were promoted as FTC Judges from the post of Civil Judge, Senior Division having requisite experience in service, shall be entitled to be absorbed and remain promoted to the Higher Judicial

Services of that State subject to : (a) Such promotion, when effected against the 25 per cent quota for out-of-turn promotion on merit, in accordance with the judgment of this Court in the case 133 of All India Judges' Association (2002) (supra), by taking and being selected through the requisite examination, as contemplated for out-of-turn promotion. (b) If the appointee has the requisite seniority and is entitled to promotion against 25 per cent quota for promotion by seniority-cum-merit, he shall be promoted on his own turn to the Higher Judicial Services without any written examination. (c) While considering candidates either under category (a) or (b) above, due weightage shall be given to the fact that they have already put in a number of years in service in the Higher Judicial Services and, of course, with reference to their performance. (d) All other appointees in this category, in the event of discontinuation of the FTC Scheme, would revert to their respective posts in the appropriate cadre.147. In view of these orders, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 152 of2011 has been rendered infructuous and is dismissed as such.148. We appreciate the valuable and able assistance renderedby learned Amicus Curiae and all other senior counsel andassisting counsel appearing in the present writ petition. 134149. All interim orders passed in any of the above petitionsshall automatically stand vacated in terms of this order. Withthe above directions, all the appeals and other writ petitionsare partially allowed while leaving the parties to bear theirown costs.

...................,J. [A.K. Patnaik] ...................,J. [Swatanter Kumar]New Delhi;April 19, 2012 135

sITEM NO.1 COURT NO.10 SECTIONS XVIA,PIL,IX,PART HEARD X & XIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) NO.22 OF 2001BRIJ MOHAN LAL Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)(Office report with quarterly/status reports received fromHigh Courts and State Governments, directions/intervention/impleadment, exemption from filing O.T. and office report)WithTransferred Case (C) No.23 of 2001Writ Petition (C) No.140 of 2005(With appln. for interim directions)Writ Petition (C) No.28 of 2011(With appln. for permission and office report)Writ Petition (C) No.152 of 2011II. [Regarding Service Matters - Absorption against the regularvacancies][State of Orissa]Writ Petition (C) No.250 of 2008(With appln. for stay, directions, direction/stay, vacatingstay and office report)Writ Petition (C) No.254 of 2008(With appln. for stay, directions, direction/stay and officereport)Writ Petition (C) No.261 of 2008(With appln. for ex-parte stay and office report)[For Final Disposal]III. [Challenging Termination and Continuation][State of Gujarat]S.L.P. (C) No.26148 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.26209 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report) ...2/- - 2 -S.L.P. (C) No.26318 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.26363 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.26364 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.26432 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)

S.L.P. (C) No.26444 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.26446 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.26448 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.26634 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.26660 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.27437 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.27682 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.28019 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.28130 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.28353 of 2010(With office report)S.L.P. (C) No.30500 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.30577 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report) ...3/- - 3 -S.L.P. (C) No.30599 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.30912 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.31485 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.2485 of 2011(With office report)S.L.P. (C) No.1412-1413 of 2011(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.32624-32627 of 2011(With prayer for interim relief and office report)IV. [Filling up Posts through limited Competitive ExaminationProcess][State of Rajasthan]Writ Petition (C) No.203 of 2010(With appln(s) for stay)C.A. No. 1276 of 2005(With appln. For stay and permission to file additional documentsand bringing on record the additional facts and early hearing andintervention and directions and office report)

[FOR DIRECTIONS]Date: 12/01/2012 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATNAIK HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SWATANTER KUMAR Mr. P.S. Narasimha,Sr.Adv. (A.C.)For Appearing parties:In TC 22/01 Mr. A. Mariaputham, Sr.Adv. Mr. T.S. Doabia,Sr.Adv. Mr. Ashok Bhan, Sr.Adv. Mr. S.W.A. Qadri,Adv. Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed,Adv. Ms. Sunita Sharma,Adv. Mr. S.K.Mishra,Adv. Mr. B.V. Balramdas,Adv. ...4/- : 4 : Mr. Satya Siddiqui,Adv. Mr. Shailendra Kr. Mishra,Adv Mr. S.S. Rawat,Adv. Moh. Khairati,Adv. Mr. DS Mehra,Adv. Ms. Rekha Pandey,Adv. Mr. Ashwani Garg,Adv. Mr. Zaid Ali,Adv.for State of Sikkim: Mr. A.Mariarputha,Sr.Adv. Ms. Aruna Mathur,Adv. Mr. Yusf Khan,Adv. Mr. Kaustabh Sinha,Adv. Mr. S.K.Dwivedi,Adv. Mr. R.P.Mehrotra,Adv. Ms. Vandana Mishra,Adv. Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri,Adv.For States of Ms. Rachana Srivastava,Adv.Uttrakhand & in wp Ms. Ranchi Daga,Adv.250&254/08In SLP 1412-13/11 Mr. Kishor M Paul,Adv. Ms. Abha R Sharma,Adv. Mr. Ajai Bhalla,Adv. Mr. Nitin Bhardwaj, Adv.In SLP 30912/10 Mr. Hemal K. Sheth,Adv. Mr. A Venayagam Balan,Adv. Mr. Nagendra Rao,Sr. Adv. Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma,Adv. Mr. Ankit Shah,Adv. Mr. M.K. Shah,Adv. Mrs. Abhinandini Sharma,Adv. Mr. Sitesh Narayan Singh,Adv.In SLP 26209/10 Mr. Manoj K Mishra,Adv.With 27437/10 Mr. V.K. Mishra,Adv. Mr. Shiv Pati B Pandey,Adv. Mr. V. Shekar,Sr. Adv.

Mr. R. Santhan Krishnan,Adv. Mr. C.S.N. Mohan Rao,Adv.In WP 152/11 Mr. D.N. Ray,Adv. Mr. Lokesh K Choudhary,Adv. Ms. Sumita Ray,Adv. ...5/- : 5 :In SLP 2485/11 Mr. Satish Chand Gupta,Adv. Mr. Sarbendra Kumar,Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal,Adv. Mr. Haresh Raichura,Adv. Ms. Saroj Raichura,Adv. Mr. A.D.N. Rao,Adv. Mr. D. Mahesh Babu,Adv. Mr. P. Parmeswaran,Adv. Ms. Kamini Jaiswal,Adv.In SLP 26148/10 Ms. H. Wahi,Adv. Mr. Rojalin Pradhan,Adv. Ms. Jesal,Adv. Mr. Suveni Banerjee,Adv. Mr. V.N. Raghupathy,Adv.For St. Of Manipur Mr. KH. Nobin Singh,Adv.For HC of Jharkhand Mr. Ashok Mathur,Adv.And Himachal Pd. Mr. Anshul Narayan,Adv. Mr. Javed Mahmud Rao,Adv. Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh,Adv.For St. Of Kerala Mr. T.G.N. Nair,Adv. Mr. K.N. Madhusoodanan,Adv. Mr. T.V. Ratnam,Adv. Mr. Prashant Bhushan,Adv. Mr. K. Ram Kumar,Adv.For St. Of Bihar Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar,Adv. Mr. Chandan Kumar,Adv.For St. Of Tripura Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv. Mr. Rituraj Biswas,Adv. ...6/- -6-For St. Arunachal Pd. Mr. Anil Shrivastav,Adv.

Mr. Rituraj Biswas,Adv. Mr. Anis Suhrawardy,Adv. Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde,Adv.For State of Meghalya:Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee,Adv. Mr. S.Bhowmick,Adv. Mr. S.C.Ghosh,Adv.For St. Assam Ms. Deepika Ghatowar,Adv. Ms. Vartika Sahay,Adv. for M/s. Corporate Law Group,Advs. Mr. J.P. Dhanda,Adv. Mr. Vikas Upadhyay,Adv. Mr. B.S. Banthia,Adv. Ms. V.D. Khanna,Adv. Mr. T.C. Sharma,Adv.For St. Puducherry Mr. V.G. Pragasam,Adv. Mr. S.J. Aristotle,Adv. Mr. Prabu Ramasubramanian,Adv.In TC 22/2001 Mr. C.S. Rajan,Sr.Adv. Mr. M.T. George,Adv. Mrs. Kavita K.T., Adv. Mr. Raj Kumar Mehta,Adv. Ms. Revathy Raghavan,Adv.For St. Goa Ms. A. Subhashini,Adv. Mr. Radha Shyam Jena,Adv. Mr. Mukesh K. Giri,Adv. Mr. Dilip Kr Sharma,Adv. Mr. Vishwajit Singh,Adv. ...7/- -7- Mr. Rajesh Srivastava,Adv. Mr. Anil K. Jha,Adv. Mr. Arun K.Sinha,Adv. Mr. G.S.Chatterjee,Adv.For HC of Calcutta Mr. Jaydeep Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. G.S. Chatterjee,Adv. Mr. Raja Chatterjee,Adv. Mr. Sachin Das,Adv. Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain,Adv.

Mr. Janaranjan Das,Adv.For HC of M.P. Mr. C.D. Singh,Adv. Mr. Abhinanya Singh,Adv. Mr. Sunny Choudhary,Adv.For HC of Guwahati Mr. P.I. Jose,Adv. Ms. Sneha Kalita,Adv.For HC of Orissa Mr. Siba Sanker Mishra,Adv.For HC of Patna Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha,Adv. Mr. Pradeep Misra,Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar Saran,Adv. Mr. G. Prakash,Adv. Mr. Sameer Parekh,Adv. for M/s. Parekh and Co.,Advs.For St. Of Jharkhand: Mr. Gopal Prasad,Adv. Mr. Naresh K. Sharma,Adv. Mr. P.V. Yogeshwaran,Adv. Mr. C.S. Rajan,Sr.Adv. Mr. S. Sukumaran,Adv. Mr. Anand Sukumar,Adv. Mr. Bhupesh Kumar Pathak,Adv. Ms. Meera Mathur,Adv. ...8/- -8- Mr. S.M. Jadhav,Adv. Mr. Ashok K. Srivastava,Adv. Mr. Kuldip Singh,Adv.For H.C. Of Gujarat: Mr. Jayesh Gaurav,Adv.For State of W.B. Mr. Soumitro G Choudhury,ADv. Mr. Abhijit Sengupta,Adv. Mr. B.P. Yadav,Adv. Ms. Anima Kujur,Adv. Ms. Sampa Sengupta,Adv.For State of Rajasthan:Dr. Manish Singhvi,AAG, Mr. A Ramakrishna,Adv. Mr. Irshad Ahmad,Adv.For State of J & K Mr. Sunil Fernandes,Adv. Mr. Krishanu Adhikary,Adv. Ms. Astha Sharma,Adv.For State of Nagaland: Ms. K. Enatoli Sema,Adv. Mr. Edward Belho,Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Singh,Adv.For State of Andhra: Mr. G.N. Reddy,Adv.Pradesh Mr. C. Kannan, Adv.

Mr. Ravi Shankar,Adv.For State of Mizoram: Mr. K.N. Madhusoodhanan,Adv. Mr. R. Sathish,Adv.For State Haryana: Mr. Tarjit Singh,Adv. Mr. Manjit Singh,AAG. Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta,Adv.For State of Maharashtra:Mr. Sanjay Kharde,Adv. Ms. Asha G. Nair,Adv.In IA 12 in CA 1276/05:Mr. Venkateswara Rao Anumolu,Adv. Mr. Prabhakar Parnam,Adv. Mr. AVS Raju,Adv. Ms. T. Kanaka Durga,Adv. ...9/- : 9 :For State of U.P. Mr. T.N. Singh,Adv. Mr. Rajeev Dubey,Adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra,Adv. Mr. Anil K Jha,Adv.For HC of Gujarat Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr.Adv. Mr. Sunil Kr. Jain,Adv. Mr. Parmatma Singh,Adv.H.C. of A.P. Mr. B.Sridhar,Adv. Mr. K.Ram Kumar,Adv.For State of Mr. Atul Jha,Adv.Chattisgarh Mr. Sandeep Jha,Adv. Mr. D.K. Sinha,Adv.H.C. of M.P. Mr. Arvind Varma,Sr.Adv. Mr. C.D.Singh,Adv. Mr. Sunny Chaudhary,Adv. Mr. Abhimanyu Singh,Adv.For State of Punjab: Mr. Anil Grover,AAG Ms. Noopur Singhal,Adv. Mr. Jayesh Gaurav,Adv. Mr. T. Mahipal,Adv. Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta,Adv. Mr. Manish Raghav,Adv. Mr. Nikhil Singh,Adv. Ms. T. Kanaka Durga,Adv.In CA 1276/05 Mr. Raju Ramachandran,Sr.Adv. Mr. Gaichang Pou Gangmei,Adv. Ms. D. Siri Rao,Adv. Mr. Sridhar Potaraju,Adv.In CA 1276/05 Mr. G.Ramakrishna Prasad,Adv. Mr. B.Suyodhan,Adv. Mr. Bharat J.Joshi,Adv. Mr. Shibashish Misra,Adv. Mr. P.S. Sudheer,Adv.

Mr. Rishi Maheshwari,Adv. ...10/- -10- Mr. Shiv Ram Sharma,Adv. Mrs. D.Bharthi Reddy,Adv. Mr. Jagjit Singh Chhabra,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard the parties. Arguments concluded. Judgment reserved. (N.K. Goel) (O.P. Sharma) (M.S. Negi) Court Master Court Master Court Master

èlITEM NO.1 COURT NO.12 SECTIONS XVIA,PIL,IX, X & XIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) NO.22 OF 2001BRIJ MOHAN LAL Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)(Office report with quarterly/status reports received fromHigh Courts and State Governments, directions/intervention/impleadment, exemption from filing O.T. and office report)WithTransferred Case (C) No.23 of 2001Writ Petition (C) No.140 of 2005(With appln. for interim directions)Writ Petition (C) No.28 of 2011(With appln. for permission and office report)Writ Petition (C) No.152 of 2011II. [Regarding Service Matters - Absorption against the regularvacancies][State of Orissa]Writ Petition (C) No.250 of 2008(With appln. for stay, directions, direction/stay, vacatingstay and office report)Writ Petition (C) No.254 of 2008(With appln. for stay, directions, direction/stay and officereport)Writ Petition (C) No.261 of 2008(With appln. for ex-parte stay and office report)[For Final Disposal]III. [Challenging Termination and Continuation][State of Gujarat]S.L.P. (C) No.26148 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.26209 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report) ...2/- - 2 -S.L.P. (C) No.26318 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.26363 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.26364 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.26432 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)

S.L.P. (C) No.26444 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.26446 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.26448 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.26634 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.26660 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.27437 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.27682 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.28019 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.28130 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.28353 of 2010(With office report)S.L.P. (C) No.30500 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.30577 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report) ...3/- - 3 -S.L.P. (C) No.30599 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.30912 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.31485 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.2485 of 2011(With office report)S.L.P. (C) No.1412-1413 of 2011(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.32624-32627 of 2011(With prayer for interim relief and office report)IV. [Filling up Posts through limited Competitive ExaminationProcess][State of Rajasthan]Writ Petition (C) No.203 of 2010(With appln(s) for stay)C.A. No. 1276 of 2005(With appln. For stay and permission to file additional documentsand bringing on record the additional facts and early hearing andintervention and directions and office report)

[FOR DIRECTIONS]Date: 11/01/2012 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATNAIK HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SWATANTER KUMAR Mr. P.S. Narasimha,Sr.Adv. (A.C.)For Appearing parties:In TC 22/01 Mr. A.Mariarputham,Sr.Adv. Mr. Satya Siddiqui,Adv. Mr. S.K.Mishra,Adv. Ms. Rekha Pandey,Adv. Mr. SWA Qadri,Adv. Mr. Zaid Ali,Adv. Mr. B.V.Balramdas,Adv. ...4/- -4-for State of Sikkim:Mr. A.Mariarputha,Sr.Adv. Ms. Aruna Mathur,Adv. Mr. Yusf Khan,Adv. Mr. S.K.Dwivedi,Adv. Mr. R.P.Mehrotra,Adv. Ms. Vandana Mishra,Adv. Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri,Adv.For States of Ms. Rachana Srivastava,Adv.Uttrakhand & in wp Ms. Ranchi Daga,Adv.250&254/08In SLP 1412-13/11 Mr. Kishor M Paul,Adv. Ms. Abha R Sharma,Adv. Mr. Ajai Bhalla,Adv. Mr. Nitin Bhardwaj, Adv.In SLP 30912/10 Mr. Hemal K. Sheth,Adv. Mr. A Venayagam Balan,Adv. Mr. Nagendra Rao,Sr. Adv. Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma,Adv. Mr. Ankit Shah,Adv. Mr. M.K. Shah,Adv. Mrs. Abhinandini Sharma,Adv. Mr. Sitesh Narayan Singh,Adv.In SLP 26209/10 Mr. Manoj K Mishra,Adv.With 27437/10 Mr. V.K. Mishra,Adv. Mr. Shiv Pati B Pandey,Adv. Mr. V. Shekar,Sr. Adv. Mr. R. Santhan Krishnan,Adv. Mr. C.S.N. Mohan Rao,Adv.In WP 152/11 Mr. D.N. Ray,Adv. Mr. Lokesh K Choudhary,Adv. Ms. Sumita Ray,Adv.In SLP 2485/11 Mr. Satish Chand Gupta,Adv. Mr. Sarbendra Kumar,Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal,Adv.

Mr. H.A. Raichura,Adv. Ms. Saroj Raichura,Adv. Mr. A.D.N. Rao,Adv. ...5/ -5- Mr. D. Mahesh Babu,Adv. Mr. P. Parmeswaran,Adv. Ms. Kamini Jaiswal,Adv.In SLP 26148/10 Ms. H. Wahi,Adv. Mr. Rojalin Pradhan,Adv. Ms. Jesal,Adv. Mr. V.N. Raghupathy,Adv.For St. Of Manipur Mr. KH. Nobin Singh,Adv. Mr. Sapam Biswajit Meitei,Adv.For HC of JharkhandMr. Ashok Mathur,Adv.And Himachal Pd. Mr. Anshul Narayan,Adv. Ms. Kanika Singh,Adv. Mr. Javed Mahmud Rao,Adv. Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh,Adv.For St. Of Kerala Mr. T.G.N. Nair,Adv. Mr. K.N. Madhusoodanan,Adv. Mr. T.V. Ratnam,Adv. Mr. Prashant Bhushan,Adv. Mr. K. Ram Kumar,Adv.For St. Of Bihar Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar,Adv.For St. Of Tripura Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv. Mr. Rituraj Biswas,Adv.For St. Arunachal Pd.Mr. Anil Shrivastav,Adv. Mr. Rituraj Biswas,Adv. Mr. Anis Suhrawardy,Adv. Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde,Adv. ...6/- -6-For State of Meghalya:Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee,Adv. Mr. S.Bhowmick,Adv. Mr. S.C.Ghosh,Adv.For St. Assam Mr. Riku Sharma,Adv. Ms. Vartika Sahay,Adv.

for M/s. Corporate Law Group,Advs. Mr. J.P. Dhanda,Adv. Mr. Vikas Upadhyay,Adv. Mr. B.S. Banthia,Adv. Ms. V.D. Khanna,Adv. Mr. T.C. Sharma,Adv.For St. Puducherry Mr. V.G. Pragasam,Adv. Mr. S.J. Aristotle,Adv. Mr. Prabu Ramasubramanian,Adv. Mr. Mukund Yadav,Adv.In TC 22/2001 Mr. M.T. George,Adv. Mrs. Kavita K.T., Adv. Mr. Raj Kumar Mehta,Adv. Ms. Revathy Raghavan,Adv.For St. Goa Ms. A. Subhashini,Adv. Mr. Radha Shyam Jena,Adv. Mr. Mukesh K. Giri,Adv. Mr. Dilip Kr Sharma,Adv. Mr. Vishwajit Singh,Adv. Mr. Rajesh Srivastava,Adv. Mr. Anil K. Jha,Adv. Mr. Arun K.Sinha,Adv. Mr. G.S.Chatterjee,Adv. ...7/- -7-For HC of Calcutta Mr. Jaydeep Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. G.S. Chatterjee,Adv. Mr. Raja Chatterjee,Adv. Mr. Sachin Das,Adv. Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain,Adv. Mr. Janaranjan Das,Adv.For HC of M.P. Mr. S.K. Dubey,Sr.Adv. Mr. C.D. Singh,Adv. Mr. Abhinanya Singh,Adv.For HC of Guwahati Mr. P.I. Jose,Adv. Ms. S Kalita,Adv.For HC of Orissa Mr. Siba Sanker Mishra,Adv.For HC of Patna Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha,Adv. Ms. Pallavi Sharma,Adv. Mr. Pradeep Misra,Adv.

Mr. Manish Kumar Saran,Adv. Mr. G. Prakash,Adv. Mr. Sameer Parekh,Adv. for M/s. Parekh and Co.,Advs.For St. Of Jharkhand:Mr. Gopal Prasad,Adv. Mr. Naresh K. Sharma,Adv. Mr. P.V. Yogeshwaran,Adv. Mr. C.S. Rajan,Sr.Adv. Mr. S. Sukumaran,Adv. Mr. Anand Sukumar,Adv. Mr. Bhupesh Kumar Pathak,Adv. Ms. Meera Mathur,Adv. Mr. S.M. Jadhav,Adv. Mr. Ashok K. Srivastava,Adv. Mr. Kuldip Singh,Adv. ...8/- -8- Mr. T.S. Doabia,Sr.Adv. Mr. Ashok Bhan, Sr.Adv. Mr. S.W.A. Qadri,Adv. Ms. Sunita Rani Sharma,Adv. Mr. B.V. Balramdas,Adv. Mr. Satya Siddiqui,Adv. Mr. S.S. Rawat,Adv. Mr. DS Mehra,Adv. Ms. Rekha Pandey,Adv. Mr. Ashwani Garg,Adv.For H.C. Of Gujarat:Mr. Jayesh Gaurav,Adv.For State of W.B. Mr. Soumitro G Choudhury,ADv. Mr. Abhijit Sengupta,Adv. Mr. B.P. Yadav,Adv. Ms. Anima Kujur,Adv. Ms. Sampa Sengupta,Adv.For State of Rajasthan:Dr. Manish Singhvi,AAG, Mr. Abhinav Ram Krishna,Adv. Mr. Irshad Ahmad,Adv.For State of J & K Mr. Sunil Fernandes,Adv. Mr. Krishanu Adhikary,Adv. Ms. Astha Sharma,Adv.For State of Nagaland: Ms. K. Enatoli Sema,Adv. Ms. Rokokieno Mor,Adv.For State of Andhra:Mr. G.N. Reddy,Adv.Pradesh Mr. C. Kannan, Adv. Mr. Ravi Shankar,Adv.For State of Mizoram:Mr. K.N. Madhusoodhanan,Adv. Mr. R. Sathish,Adv.

For State Haryana: Mr. Tarjit Singh,Adv. Mr. Manjit Singh,AAG. Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta,Adv.For State of Maharashtra:Mr. Sanjay Kharde,Adv. Ms. Asha G. Nair,Adv.In IA 12 in CA 1276/05:Mr. Venkateswara Rao Anumolu,Adv. Mr. Prabhakar Parnam,Adv. Mr. AVS Raju,Adv. Ms. T. Kanaka Durga,Adv. ...9/- -9-For State f U.P. Mr. Ratnakar Dash,Sr.Adv. Mr. T.N. Singh,Adv. Mr. Rajeev Dubey,Adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra,Adv.For HC of Gujarat Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr.Adv. Mr. Sunil Kr. Jain,Adv. Mr. Parmatma Singh,Adv.H.C. of A.P. Mr. B.Sridhar,Adv. Mr. K.Ram Kumar,Adv.For State of Mr. Atul Jha,Adv.Chattisgarh Mr. Sandeep Jha,Adv. Mr. D.K. Sinha,Adv.H.C. of M.P. Mr. Arvind Varma,Sr.Adv. Mr. C.D.Singh,Adv. Mr. Sunny Chaudhary,Adv. Mr. Abhimanyu Singh,Adv.For State of Punjab:Mr. Anil Grover,AAG Ms. Noopur Singhal,Adv. Mr. T. Mahipal,Adv. Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta,Adv. Mr. Manish Raghav,Adv. Mr. Nikhil Singh,Adv. Ms. T. Kanaka Durga,Adv.In CA 1276/05 Mr. Raju Ramachandran,Sr.Adv. Mr. Gaichang Pou Gangmei,Adv. Ms. D. Siri Rao,Adv. Mr. Sridhar Potaraju,Adv.In CA 1276/05 Mr. G.Ramakrishna Prasad,Adv. Mr. B.Suyodhan,Adv. Mr. Bharat J.Joshi,Adv. Mr. Shibashish Misra,Adv. Mr. P.S. Sudheer,Adv. Mr. Rishi Maheshwari,Adv. Mr. Shiv Ram Sharma,Adv. Mrs. D.Bharthi Reddy,Adv. ...10/-

-10- UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List all the matters tomorrow i.e. 12/1/2012 as part-heard. (N.K. Goel) (Suman Wadhwa) (M.S. Negi) Court Master Court Master Court Master

VlITEM NO.1 COURT NO.12 SECTIONS XVIA,PIL,IX, X & XIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) NO.22 OF 2001BRIJ MOHAN LAL Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)(Office report with quarterly/status reports received fromHigh Courts and State Governments, directions/intervention/impleadment, exemption from filing O.T. and office report)WithTransferred Case (C) No.23 of 2001Writ Petition (C) No.140 of 2005(With appln. for interim directions)Writ Petition (C) No.28 of 2011(With appln. for permission and office report)Writ Petition (C) No.152 of 2011II. [Regarding Service Matters - Absorption against the regularvacancies][State of Orissa]Writ Petition (C) No.250 of 2008(With appln. for stay, directions, direction/stay, vacatingstay and office report)Writ Petition (C) No.254 of 2008(With appln. for stay, directions, direction/stay and officereport)Writ Petition (C) No.261 of 2008(With appln. for ex-parte stay and office report)[For Final Disposal]III. [Challenging Termination and Continuation][State of Gujarat]S.L.P. (C) No.26148 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.26209 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report) ...2/- - 2 -S.L.P. (C) No.26318 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.26363 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.26364 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.26432 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)

S.L.P. (C) No.26444 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.26446 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.26448 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.26634 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.26660 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.27437 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.27682 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.28019 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.28130 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.28353 of 2010(With office report)S.L.P. (C) No.30500 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.30577 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report) ...3/- - 3 -S.L.P. (C) No.30599 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.30912 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.31485 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.2485 of 2011(With office report)S.L.P. (C) No.1412-1413 of 2011(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.32624-32627 of 2011(With prayer for interim relief and office report)IV. [Filling up Posts through limited Competitive ExaminationProcess][State of Rajasthan]Writ Petition (C) No.203 of 2010(With appln(s) for stay)C.A. No. 1276 of 2005(With appln. For stay and permission to file additional documentsand bringing on record the additional facts and early hearing andintervention and directions and office report)

[FOR DIRECTIONS]Date: 10/01/2012 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATNAIK HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SWATANTER KUMAR Mr. P.S. Narasimha,Sr.Adv. (A.C.)For Appearing parties: Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri,Adv.For States of Ms. Rachana Srivastava,Adv.Uttrakhand & Orissa Ms. Ranchi Daga,Adv.In SLP 1412-13/11 Mr. Kishor M Paul,Adv. Ms. Abha R Sharma,Adv. Mr. Ajai Bhalla,Adv. ...4/- : 4 : Mr. Nitin Bhardwaj, Adv.In SLP 30912/10 Mr. Hemal K. Sheth,Adv. Mr. A Venayagam Balan,Adv. Mr. Nagendra Rao,Sr. Adv. Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma,Adv. Mr. Ankit Shah,Adv. Mr. M.K. Shah,Adv. Mrs. Abhinandini Sharma,Adv. Mr. Sitesh Narayan Singh,Adv.In SLP 26209/10 Mr. Manoj K Mishra,Adv.With 27437/10 Mr. V.K. Mishra,Adv. Mr. Shiv Pati B Pandey,Adv. Mr. V. Shekar,Sr. Adv. Mr. R. Santhan Krishnan,Adv. Mr. C.S.N. Mohan Rao,Adv.In WP 152/11 Mr. D.N. Ray,Adv. Mr. Lokesh K Choudhary,Adv. Ms. Sumita Ray,Adv.In SLP 2485/11 Mr. Satish Chand Gupta,Adv. Mr. Sarbendra Kumar,Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal,Adv. Mr. H.A. Raichura,Adv. Ms. Saroj Raichura,Adv. Mr. A.D.N. Rao,Adv. Mr. D. Mahesh Babu,Adv. Mr. P. Parmeswaran,Adv. Ms. Kamini Jaiswal,Adv. Ms. Rachna Gupta,Adv. Ms. Rachna Srivastava,Adv. Mr. R.P. Mehrotra,Adv.

In SLP 26148/10 Mr. Preetish Kupur,Adv. Ms. H. Wahi,Adv. Mr. V.N. Raghupathy,Adv.For St. Of Manipur Mr. KH. Nobin Singh,Adv. Mr. Sapam Biswajit Meitei,Adv. ...5/- : 5 :For HC of Jharkhand Mr. Ashok Mathur,Adv.And Himachal Pd. Mr. Anshul Narayan,Adv. Ms. Kanika Singh,Adv. Mr. Javed Mahmud Rao,Adv. Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh,Adv.For St. Of Kerala Mr. T.G.N. Nair,Adv. Mr. K.N. Madhusoodanan,Adv. Mr. T.V. Ratnam,Adv. Mr. Prashant Bhushan,Adv. Mr. K. Ram Kumar,Adv.For St. Of Bihar Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar,Adv.For St. Of Tripura Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv. Mr. Rituraj Biswas,Adv.For St. Arunachal Pd. Mr. Anil Shrivastav,Adv. Mr. Rituraj Biswas,Adv. Mr. Anis Suhrawardy,Adv. Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde,Adv. Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee,Adv.For St. Assam Mr. Riku Sarma,Adv. Ms. Vartika Sahay,Adv. for M/s. Corporate Law Group,Advs. Mr. J.P. Dhanda,Adv. Mr. Ashok Mathur,Adv. Mr. Vikas Upadhyay,Adv. Mr. B.S. Banthia,Adv. Ms. V.D. Khanna,Adv. Mr. T.C. Sharma,Adv.For St. Puducherry Mr. V.G. Pragasam,Adv. Mr. S.J. Aristotle,Adv. Mr. Prabu Ramasubramanian,Adv. ....6/- : 6 :In TC 22/2001 Mr. M.T. George,Adv. Mrs. Kavita K.T., Adv.

Mr. Raj Kumar Mehta,Adv.For St. Sikkim Mr. A. Mariarputham,Adv.Genl.,Sikkim. Ms. Aruna Mathur,Adv. Mr. Yusuf Khan,Adv. Mr. Kaustubh Sinha,Adv. M/s. Arputham, Aruna and Co.,Advs. Ms. Revathy Raghavan,Adv.For St. Goa Ms. A. Subhashini,Adv. Mr. Radha Shyam Jena,Adv. Mr. Mukesh K. Giri,Adv. Mr. Dilip Kr Sharma,Adv. Mr. Vishwajit Singh,Adv. Mr. Rajesh Srivastava,Adv. Mr. Anil K. Jha,Adv.For HC of Calcutta Mr. Jaydeep Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. G.S. Chatterjee,Adv. Mr. Raja Chatterjee,Adv. Mr. Sachin Das,Adv. Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain,Adv. Mr. Janaranjan Das,Adv.For HC of M.P. Mr. S.K. Dubey,Sr.Adv. Mr. C.D. Singh,Adv. Mr. Abhinanya Singh,Adv.For HC of Guwahati Mr. P.I. Jose,Adv. Ms. S Kalita,Adv.For HC of Orissa Mr. Siba Sanker Mishra,Adv.For HC of Patna Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha,Adv. Ms. Pallavi Sharma,Adv. Mr. Pradeep Misra,Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar Saran,Adv. ....7/- : 7 : Mr. Anil Kumar Jha,Adv. Mr. G. Prakash,Adv. Mr. Sameer Parekh,Adv. for M/s. Parekh and Co.,Advs.For St. Of Jharkhand Mr. Gopal Prasad,Adv. Mr. Naresh K. Sharma,Adv. Mr. P.V. Yogeshwaran,Adv. Mr. C.S. Rajan,Sr.Adv. Mr. S. Sukumaran,Adv. Mr. Anand Sukumar,Adv. Mr. Bhupesh Kumar Pathak,Adv.

Ms. Meera Mathur,Adv. Mr. S.M. Jadhav,Adv. Mr. Ashok K. Srivastava,Adv. Mr. Kupdip Singh,Adv. Mr. T.S. Doabia,Sr.Adv. Mr. Ashok Bhan, Sr.Adv. Mr. S.W.A. Qadri,Adv. Ms. Sunita Rani Sharma,Adv. Mr. B.V. Balramdas,Adv. Mr. Satya Siddiqui,Adv. Mr. S.S. Rawat,Adv. Mr. DS Mehra,Adv. Ms. Rekha Pandey,Adv. Mr. Ashwani Garg,Adv.For H.C. Of Gujarat Mr. Jayesh Gaurav,Adv.For State of W.B. Mr. Soumitro G Choudhury,ADv. Mr. Abhijit Sengupta,Adv. Mr. B.S. Yadav,Adv.For State of Rajasthan:Dr. Manish Singhvi,AAG, Mr. Abhinav Ram Krishna,Adv. Mr. Irshad Ahmad,Adv.For State of J & K Mr. Sunil Fernandes,Adv. Mr. Krishanu Adhikary,Adv. Ms. Astha Sharma,Adv. ....8/- : 8 :For State of Nagaland:Mr. Edward Belho,Adv. Ms. K. Enatoli Sema,Adv. Ms. Amit Kr. Singh,Adv.For State of Andhra Mr. G.N. Reddy,Adv.Pradesh Mr. C. Kannan, Adv. Mr. Ravi Shankar,Adv.For State of Mizoram Mr. K.N. Madhusoodhanan,Adv. Mr. R. Sathish,Adv.For State Haryana: Mr. Tarjit Singh,Adv. Mr. Manjit Singh,AAG. Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta,Adv.For State of Maharashtra:Ms. Asha G. Nair,Adv.In IA 12 in CA 1276/05:Mr. Venkateswara Rao Anumolu,Adv. Mr. Prabhakar Parnam,Adv. Mr. AVS Raju,Adv. Ms. T. Kanaka Durga,Adv.For State f U.P. Mr. P.N. Misra,Sr.Adv. Mr. T.N. Singh,Adv. Mr. Rajeev Dubey,Adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra,Adv.For HC of Gujarat Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr.Adv. Mr. Sunil Kr. Jain,Adv. Mr. Parmatma Singh,Adv.

For State of Mr. Atul Jha,Adv.Chattisgarh Mr. Sandeep Jha,Adv. Mr. D.K. Sinha,Adv.For State of Punjab Mr. Anil Grover,AAG Ms. Noopur Singhal,Adv. Mr. T. Mahipal,Adv. Mr. Haresh Raichura,Adv. Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta,Adv. Mr. G. Ramakrishna Prasad,Adv. Ms. T. Kanaka Durga,Adv. ...9/- : 9 : Mr. Raju Ramachandran,Sr.Adv. Mr. Gaichang Pou Gangmei,Adv. Ms. D. Siri Rao,Adv. Mr. Sridhar Potaraju,Adv. Mr. Shibashish Misra,Adv. Mr. P.S. Sudheer,Adv. Mr. Shiv Ram Sharma,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Writ Petition (c) No. 28/2011 Issue notice returnable within four weeks. Ms. Noopur Singhal, learned counsel appearing for the State of Punjab, Ms. Rekha Pandey, learned counsel appearing for Union of India accept notice. Notice be served on respondent No. 3 by registered post as well as by Dasti. Petitioner is permitted to file additional affidavit/additional documents, if any.List all the matters tomorrow i.e. 11/01/2012 asPart Heard. (N.K. Goel) (Suman Wadhwa) (M.S. Negi) Court Master Court Master Court Master

ITEM NO.26 COURT NO.2 SECTION X S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSIA 2/2011 in WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 28 OF 2011ROSHAN LAL AHUJA Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)(for directions and office report)Date: 06/06/2011 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE B.S. CHAUHAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SWATANTER KUMAR [VACATION BENCH]For Petitioner(s) Mr. Shiv Ram Sharma,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R This matter is to be heard by a Bench presided over by Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India. List this application in the second week of July, 2011 before the Chief Justice's Court. (Parveen Kr. Chawla) (Indu Satija ) Court Master Court Master

ITEM NO.9 COURT NO.14 SECTION X S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 28 OF 2011 (FOR PREL. HEARING)ROSHAN LAL AHUJA Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)(With office report )Date: 31/01/2011 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVEFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Shyam Diwan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shiv Ram Sharma,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Adjourn for two weeks. (NEELAM GULATI) (RENU DIWAN) SR.P.A. COURT MASTER

¼_ITEM NO.5 COURT NO.1 SECTIONS XVIA,PIL,IX, X,XVII & XIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) NO.22 OF 2001BRIJ MOHAN LAL Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)(Office report with quarterly/status report received fromHigh Courts and State Governments, directions/intervention/impleadment, exemption from filing O.T. and office report) [Regarding continuation and functioning of Fast Track Courts][For further directions]With Transferred Case (C) No.23 of 2001Writ Petition (C) No.140 of 2005(With appln. for interim directions)II. [Regarding Service Matters - Absorption against the regularvacancies][State of Orissa]Writ Petition (C) No.250 of 2008(With appln. for stay, directions, direction/stay, vacatingstay and office report)Writ Petition (C) No.254 of 2008(With appln. for stay, directions, direction/stay and officereport)Writ Petition (C) No.261 of 2008(With appln. for ex-parte stay and office report)[For Final Disposal]III. [Challenging Termination and Continuation][State of Gujarat]S.L.P. (C) No.26148 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.26209 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report) ...2/- - 2 -S.L.P. (C) No.26318 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.26363 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.26364 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.26432 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.26444 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.26446 of 2010

(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.26448 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.26634 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.26660 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.27437 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.27682 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.28019 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.28130 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.28353 of 2010(With office report)S.L.P. (C) No.30500 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.30577 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report) ...3/- - 3 -S.L.P. (C) No.30599 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.30912 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.31485 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)IV. [Filling up Posts through limited Competitive ExaminationProcess][State of Jharkhand]S.L.P. (C) No.9883 of 2009(With appln. for directions, c/delay in filing SLP, permissionto file addl. documents, impleadment, exemption from filing O.T.,modification, directions, with prayer for interim relief andoffice report)[State of Rajasthan]Writ Petition (C) No.203 of 2010(With appln(s) for stay)[State of Andhra Pradesh]With Civil Appeal No.1276 of 2005(With appln(s) for stay, permission to file additional documents,bringing on record the additional facts and early hearing,intervention, directions and office report)Date: 13/01/2011 These Matters were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. PANICKER RADHAKRISHNAN

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SWATANTER KUMAR Mr. P.S. Narasimha,Sr.Adv. (A.C.)For Petitioner(s) Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri,Adv. Mr. S. Ravi Shankar,Adv. Ms. Rachana Srivastava,Adv. Mr. Praveen Kumar Pandeya,Adv. Mr. R. Santhan Krishnan,Adv. Mr. P.V. Vijay Kumar,Adv. Mr. C.S.N. Mohan Rao,Adv. ...4/- - 4 - Mr. R.K. Abichandani,Sr.Adv.(In SLP 26318/10 Ms. Laxmi Abichandani,Adv. and 26446/2010) Mr. D.N. Ray,Adv. Mr. Lokesh K Choudhary,Adv. Ms. Sumita Ray,Adv. Mr. Paresh Upadhyay,Adv. Mr. Manoj K. Mishra,Adv. Ms. Rati Gupta,Adv. Ms. Saroj Raichura,Adv. Mr. H.A. Raichura,Adv. Mr. Nilesh A. Pandya,Adv. Mr. Hemal K. Sheth,Adv. Mr. A. Venayagam Balan,Adv. Mr. Sanjoy Ghose,Adv. Mr. Nitin Bhardwaj,Adv. Mr. P.S. Sudheer,Adv. Mr. Ranjit Kumar,Sr.Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar,Adv. Mr. Ritesh Ratnam,Adv. Mr. A.D.N. Rao,Adv. Mr. D. Mahesh Babu,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. P. Parmeswaran,Adv. Ms. Kamini Jaiswal,Adv. Ms. Rachna Gupta,Adv. Mr. H.N. Salve,Sr.Adv. Ms. Rachna Srivastava,Adv. Mr. R.P. Mehrotra,Adv. Ms. H. Wahi,Adv. Ms. Jesal,Adv. Mr. V.N. Raghupathy,Adv. Mr. KH. Nobin Singh,Adv. Mr. Sapam Biswajit Meitei,Adv. ...5/- - 5 -

Mr. Javed Mahmud Rao,Adv.Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh,Adv.Mr. T.G.N. Nair,Adv.Mr. A.D.N. Rao,Adv.Mr. T.V. Ratnam,Adv.Mr. Prashant Bhushan,Adv.Mr. K. Ram Kumar,Adv.Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv.Mr. Manish Kumar,Adv.Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv.Mr. Rituraj Biswas,Adv.Mr. Anil Shrivastav,Adv.Mr. Rituraj Biswas,Adv.Mr. Anis Suhrawardy,Adv.Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde,Adv.Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee,Adv.Mr. S. Bhowmick,Adv.Mr. S.C. Ghosh,Adv.Mr. Riku Sarma,Adv.for M/s. Corporate Law Group,Advs.Mr. J.P. Dhanda,Adv.Mr. Ashok Mathur,Adv.Mr. B.S. Banthia,Adv.Ms. V.D. Khanna,Adv.Mr. Bhaskar P. Gupta,Sr.Adv.Mr. T.C. Sharma,Adv.Ms. Neelam Sharma,Adv.Mr. V.G. Pragasam,Adv.Mr. S.J. Aristotle,Adv.Mr. Prabu Ramasubramanian,Adv. ...6/- - 6 - Mr. Raj Kumar Mehta,Adv. Mr. A. Mariarputham,Adv.Genl.,Sikkim. Ms. Aruna Mathur,Adv. Mr. Yusuf Khan,Adv. Mr. Avneesh Arputham,Adv. Ms. Megha Gour,Adv. M/s. Arputham, Aruna and Co.,Advs. Ms. Revathy Raghavan,Adv. Ms. A. Subhashini,Adv. Mr. Radha Shyam Jena,Adv. Mr. Mukesh K. Giri,Adv.

Mr. Vishwajit Singh,Adv. Mr. Rajesh Srivastava,Adv. Mr. Shyam Divan,Sr.Adv. Mr. Shiv Ram Sharma,Adv. Mr. Anil K. Jha,Adv. Mr. G.S. Chatterjee,Adv. Mr. Raja Chatterjee,Adv. Mr. Sachin Das,Adv.For Gujarat High Mr. Ranjit Kumar,Sr.Adv.Court: Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain,Adv. Mr. Aneesh Mittal,Adv. Mr. Parmatma Singh,Adv.For Rajasthan Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain,Adv.High Court: Mr. Aneesh Mittal,Adv. Mr. Parmatma Singh,Adv. Mr. C.D. Singh,Adv. Mr. Sunny Chaudhary,Adv. Mr. P.I. Jose,Adv. Mr. Satish C. Joshi,Adv. Mr. B.K. Mishra,Adv. ...7/- - 7 - Mr. Pradeep Misra,Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar Saran,Adv. Mr. Anil Kumar Jha,Adv. Mr. Manoranjan K. Jha,Adv. Mr. G. Prakash,Adv. Mr. V. Senthil,Adv.For Patna High Court: Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha,Adv. Ms. Pallavi Sharma,Adv. Mr. Sameer Parekh,Adv. for M/s. Parekh and Co.,Advs. Mr. Gopal Prasad,Adv. Mr. Naresh K. Sharma,Adv. Mr. Pragyan P. Sharma,Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Lodha,Adv. Mr. P.V. Yogeshwaran,Adv. Mr. C.S. Rajan,Sr.Adv. Mr. S. Sukumaran,Adv. Mr. Anand Sukumaran,Adv. Ms. Meera Mathur,Adv. Mr. S.M. Jadhav,Adv. Mr. Ashok K. Srivastava,Adv. Mr. Shaiwal Srivastava,Adv. Ms. C.K. Sucharita,Adv. Ms. Nirada Das,Adv. Ms. D. Bharathi Reddy,Adv. Mr. Ashok Bhan,Adv. Ms. Sunita Sharma,Adv.

Mr. D.S. Mahra,Adv. Mr. Arun K. Sinha,Adv. Mr. Rakesh Singh,Adv. Mr. Sumit Sinha,Adv. ...8/- - 8 -Mr. Mohan Jain,ASG.Mr. T.S. Doabia,Sr.Adv.Mr. S.W.A. Qadri,Adv.Ms. Sunita Rani,Adv.Mr. T.A. Khan,Adv.Mr. D.K. Thakur,Adv.Ms. Satya Siddiqui,Adv.Mr. Shailendra Kumar Mishra,Adv.Ms. Saima Bakshi,Adv.Ms. Anil Katiyar,Adv.Mr. Shibashish Misra,Adv.Mr. Jayesh Gaurav,Adv.Mr. T. Mahipal,Adv.Mr. Shiv Ram Sharma,Adv.Mr. Abhijit Sengupta,Adv.Dr. Manish Singhvi,AAG, Rajasthan.Mr. D.K. Devesh,Adv.Mr. Irshad Ahmad,Adv.Mr. Milind Kumar,Adv.Mr. Sunil Fernandes,Adv.Ms. Renu Gupta,Adv.Mr. Sidhan Goel,Adv.Mr. Vikrant Nagpal,Adv.Mr. Edward Belho,Adv.Ms. K. Enatoli Sema,Adv.Mr. Sanjay V. Kharde,Adv.Ms. Asha G. Nair,Adv.Mr. B. Sridhar,Adv.Mr. K. Ram Kumar,Adv.Mr. G.N. Reddy,Adv.Mr. Pattabhiram Vadrevu,Adv.Mr. K.N. Madhusoodhanan,Adv.Mr. R. Sathish,Adv.Mr. Manjit Singh,AAG.Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta,Adv. ...9/- - 9 -Mr. T. Harish Kumar,Adv.Mr. Prasanth P.,Adv.Mr. V. Vasudevan,Adv.Mr. S.R. Singh,Sr.Adv.Mr. D.N. Dubey,Adv.Ms. Sunita Pandit,Adv.Mr. Ankur Yadav,Adv.Ms. Asha G. Nair,Adv.Mr. G. Ramakrishna Prasad,Adv.

Mr. Venkateswara Rao Anumolu,Adv.Ms. T. Kanaka Durga,Adv.Mr. Dipankar Gupta,Sr.Adv.Mr. Sridhar Potaraju,Adv.Mr. Gaichangpou Gangmai,Adv.Mr. P.N. Misra,Sr.Adv.Mr. T.N. Singh,Adv.Mr. Rajeev Dubey,Adv.Mr. Kamlendra Mishra,Adv.Mr. Ajay Bansal,AAG.Mr. Devender Singh,Adv.Mr. Sumit Pargal,Adv.Mr. Ajay Choudhary,Adv.Mr. Nagendra Rai,Sr.Adv.Mr. Ankit Shah,Adv.Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma,Adv.Mr. Pragyan P. Sharma,Adv.Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran,Adv.Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha,Adv.Mr. Ambhoj Kumar Sinha,Adv.Ms. Jayshree Anand,Adv.Mr. K.K. Mahalik,Adv.Mr. Ajay Pal,Adv.Mr. Atul Jha,Adv.Mr. D.K. Sinha,Adv. ...10/- - 10 -For RG, Madras Mr. R. Nedumaran,Adv.High Court: Mr. Vimal Dubey,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Place these matters on 20th January, 2011, subject to part-heard matter, if any. [ T.I. Rajput ] [ Madhu Saxena ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar

øMITEM NO.39 COURT NO.1 SECTIONS XVIA,PIL,IX,X & XVII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) NO.22 OF 2001BRIJ MOHAN LAL Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)(Office report with quarterly/status report received fromHigh Courts and State Governments, directions/intervention/impleadment, exemption from filing O.T. and office report)With Transferred Case (C) No.23 of 2001Writ Petition (C) No.140 of 2005(With appln. for interim directions)I. [Regarding continuation and functioning of Fast Track Courts][For further directions]Writ Petition (C) No.250 of 2008(With appln. for stay, directions, direction/stay, vacatingstay and office report)Writ Petition (C) No.254 of 2008(With appln. for stay, directions, direction/stay and officereport)Writ Petition (C) No.261 of 2008(With appln. for ex-parte stay and office report)[For Final Disposal]II. [Regarding Service Matters - Absorption against the regularvacancies][State of Orissa]S.L.P. (C) No.26148 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.26209 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.26318 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report) ....2/- - 2 -S.L.P. (C) No.26363 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.26364 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.26432 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.26444 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.26446 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)

S.L.P. (C) No.26448 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.26634 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.26660 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.27437 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.27682 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.28019 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.28130 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.28353 of 2010(With office report)S.L.P. (C) No.30500 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.30577 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.30599 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.30912 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report) ....3/- - 3 -S.L.P. (C) No.31485 of 2010(With appln(s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugnedjudgment, prayer for interim relief and office report)III. [Challenging Termination and Continuation][State of Gujarat]S.L.P. (C) No.9883 of 2009(With appln. for directions, c/delay in filing SLP, permissionto file addl. documents, impleadment, exemption from filing O.T.,modification, directions, with prayer for interim relief andoffice report)IV. [Filling up Posts through limited Competitive ExaminationProcess][State of Jharkhand]Writ Petition (C) No.203 of 2010(With appln(s) for stay)[State of Rajasthan]Date: 03/12/2010 These Matters were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. PANICKER RADHAKRISHNAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SWATANTER KUMAR Mr. P.S. Narasimha,Sr.Adv. (A.C.)

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri,Adv. Mr. S. Ravi Shankar,Adv. Mr. H.N. Salve,Sr.Adv. Ms. Rachana Srivastava,Adv. Mr. C.S.N. Mohan Rao,Adv. Mr. R.K. Abichandani,Sr.Adv.(In SLP 26318/10 Ms. Laxmi Abichandani,Adv. and 26446/2010) Mr. D.N. Ray,Adv. Mr. Lokesh K Choudhary,Adv. Ms. Sumita Ray,Adv. Mr. Paresh Upadhyay,Adv. Mr. Manoj K. Mishra,Adv. Mr. Vaibhav A. Vyas,Adv. ....4/- - 4 - Ms. Saroj Raichura,Adv. Mr. H.A. Raichura,Adv. Mr. Aniruddha Rajput,Adv. Mr. Apoorv Shukla,Adv. Mr. A. Venayagam Balan,Adv. Mr. Sanjoy Ghose,Adv. Mr. Anuj Agrawal,Adv. Mr. Nitin Bhardwaj,Adv. Mr. P.S. Sudheer,Adv. Mr. Ranjit Kumar,Sr.Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar,Adv. Mr. Somesh Chandra Jha,Adv. Mr. Jawahar Lal,Adv. Mr. A.D.N. Rao,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. P. Parmeswaran,Adv. Ms. Kamini Jaiswal,Adv. Ms. Rachna Gupta,Adv. Mr. H.N. Salve,Sr.Adv. Ms. Rachna Srivastava,Adv. Mr. R.P. Mehrotra,Adv. Ms. H. Wahi,Adv. Ms. Jesal,Adv. Mr. V.N. Raghupathy,Adv. Mr. KH. Nobin Singh,Adv. Mr. Sapam Biswajit Meitei,Adv. Mr. Javed Mahmud Rao,Adv. Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh,Adv. Mr. T.G.N. Nair,Adv. Mr. A.D.N. Rao,Adv.

Mr. T.V. Ratnam,Adv. ....5/- - 5 -Mr. Prashant Bhushan,Adv.Mr. K. Ram Kumar,Adv.Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv.Mr. Manish Kumar,Adv.Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv.Mr. Rituraj Biswas,Adv.Mr. Anil Shrivastav,Adv.Mr. Rituraj Biswas,Adv.Mr. Anis Suhrawardy,Adv.Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde,Adv.Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee,Adv.Mr. S. Bhowmick,Adv.Mr. S.C. Ghosh,Adv.Mr. Riku Sarma,Adv.for M/s. Corporate Law Group,Advs.Mr. J.P. Dhanda,Adv.Mr. Ashok Mathur,Adv.Mr. B.S. Banthia,Adv.Ms. V.D. Khanna,Adv.Mr. Bhaskar P. Gupta,Sr.Adv.Mr. T.C. Sharma,Adv.Ms. Neelam Sharma,Adv.Mr. Raj Kumar Mehta,Adv.Mr. V.G. Pragasam,Adv.Mr. S.J. Aristotle,Adv.Mr. Prabu Ramasubramanian,Adv.Mr. L.A.J. Selvam,Adv.Mr. A. Mariarputham,Adv.Genl.,Sikkim.Ms. Aruna Mathur,Adv.Mr. Yusuf Khan,Adv.M/s. Arputham, Aruna and Co.,Advs.Ms. Revathy Raghavan,Adv. ....6/- - 6 -Ms. A. Subhashini,Adv.Mr. Radha Shyam Jena,Adv.Mr. Mukesh K. Giri,Adv.Mr. Vishwajit Singh,Adv.Mr. Rajesh Srivastava,Adv.

Mr. Anil K. Jha,Adv.Mr. Santosh Kumar,Adv.Mr. Raja Chatterjee,Adv.Mr. Sachin Das,Adv.Mr. G.S. Chatterjee,Adv.Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain,Adv.Mr. Aneesh Mittal,Adv.Mr. Parmatma Singh,Adv.Mr. Janaranjan Das,Adv.Mr. Swetaketu Mishra,Adv.Mr. P.P. Nayak,Adv.Mr. C.D. Singh,Adv.Mr. Sunny Chaudhary,Adv.Mr. Shashank S. Parihar,Adv.Ms. Sakshi Kakkar,Adv.Mr. P.I. Jose,Adv.Mr. B.K. Mishra,Adv.Mr. Satish C. Joshi,Adv.Mr. Pradeep Misra,Adv.Mr. Manish Kumar Saran,Adv.Mr. Anil Kumar Jha,Adv.Mr. Manoranjan K. Jha,Adv.Mr. G. Prakash,Adv.Mr. V. Senthil,Adv.for M/s. Parekh and Co.,Advs.Mr. Gopal Prasad,Adv.Mr. Naresh K. Sharma,Adv. ....7/- - 7 -Mr. Pragyan P. Sharma,Adv.Mr. Siddhartha Lodha,Adv.Mr. P.V. Yogeshwaran,Adv.Mr. C.S. Rajan,Sr.Adv.Mr. S. Sukumaran,Adv.Mr. Anand Sukumaran,Adv.Ms. Meera Mathur,Adv.Mr. S.M. Jadhav,Adv.Mr. Ashok K. Srivastava,Adv.Mr. Shaiwal Srivastava,Adv.Ms. C.K. Sucharita,Adv.Ms. Nirada Das,Adv.Ms. D. Bharathi Reddy,Adv.Mr. S.S. Rawat,Adv.Mr. D.S. Mahra,Adv.Mr. Arun K. Sinha,Adv.Mr. Mohan Jain,ASG.Mr. S.W.A. Qadri,Adv.Mr. D.K. Thakur,Adv.

Mr. Ch. Shamsuddin Khan,Adv.Mr. Ashok Bhan,Adv.Mr. Anurag Kishore,Adv.Mr. Rohtash Nagar,Adv.Ms. Anjani Aiyagari,Adv.Ms. Anil Katiyar,Adv.Mr. Shibashish Misra,Adv.Mr. Jayesh Gaurav,Adv.Mr. T. Mahipal,Adv.Mr. Shiv Ram Sharma,Adv.Mr. Abhijit Sengupta,Adv.Mr. Irshad Ahmad,Adv.Dr. Manish Singhvi,AAG, Rajasthan.Mr. D.K. Devesh,Adv.Mr. Sahil S. Chauhan,Adv.Mr. Irshad Ahmad,Adv. ....8/- - 8 - Mr. Sunil Fernandes,Adv. Ms. Renu Gupta,Adv. Mr. Sidhan Goel,Adv. Mr. Vikrant Nagpal,Adv. Mr. Edward Belho,Adv. Ms. K. Enatoli Sema,Adv. Mr. Sanjay V. Kharde,Adv. Ms. Asha G. Nair,Adv. Mr. B. Sridhar,Adv. Mr. K. Ram Kumar,Adv. Mr. Pattabhiram Vadrevu,Adv. Mr. G.N. Reddy,Adv. Mr. K.N. Madhusoodhanan,Adv. Mr. R. Sathish,Adv. Mr. Manjit Singh,AAG. Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta,Adv. Mr. T. Harish Kumar,Adv. Mr. Prasanth P.,Adv. Mr. V. Vasudevan,Adv. Mr. S.R. Singh,Sr.Adv. Ms. Sunita Pandit,Adv. Mr. Avnish Singh,Adv. Mr. R.S. Yadav,Adv. Ms. Asha G. Nair,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Place these matters on 13th January, 2011,for final hearing. [ Alka Dudeja ] [ Madhu Saxena ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar

´ITEM NO.27 COURT NO.1 SECTION IX S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).28353/2010(From the judgement and order dated 11/08/2010 in SCA No.1627/2010of The HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD)CHANDRAPRAKASH HARILAL KOSHTI Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF GUJARAT & ANR Respondent(s)With office report)Date: 29/10/2010 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SWATANTER KUMARFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Sanjoy Ghose,Adv. Mr. Nitin Bhardwaj,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Place this petition on 3rd December, 2010, along with the special leave petitions relating to State of Gujarat, which have been tagged along with T.C. (C) No.22 of 2001. [ Alka Dudeja ] [ Madhu Saxena ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar

\200;ITEM NO.44 COURT NO.1 SECTIONS XVIA,PIL,IX & XVII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) NO.22 OF 2001BRIJ MOHAN LAL Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)(Office report with quarterly/status report received fromHigh Courts and State Governments, directions/intervention/impleadment, exemption from filing O.T. and office report)With Transferred Case (C) No.23 of 2001Writ Petition (C) No.140 of 2005(with appln. for interim directions)S.L.P. (C) No.26148 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.26209 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.26318 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.26363 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.26364 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.26432 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.26444 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.26446 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.26448 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.26634 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report) ....2/- - 2 -S.L.P. (C) No.26660 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P. (C) No.9883 of 2009(With appln. for directions, c/delay in filing SLP, permissionto file addl. documents, impleadment, exemption from filing O.T.,modification, directions, with prayer for interim relief andoffice report)Date: 25/10/2010 These Matters were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SWATANTER KUMAR Mr. P.S. Narasimha,Sr.Adv. (A.C.)For Petitioner(s) Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri,Adv. Mr. S. Ravi Shankar,Adv. Mr. R.K. Abichandani,Sr.Adv. Ms. Laxmi Abichandani,Adv. Mr. D.N. Ray,Adv. Mr. Lokesh K Choudhary,Adv. Ms. Sumita Ray,Adv. Mr. Paresh Upadhyay,Adv. Mr. Manoj K. Mishra,Adv. Ms. Saroj Raichura,Adv. Mr. H.A. Raichura,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. P. Parmeswaran,Adv. Ms. Kamini Jaiswal,Adv. Ms. Rachna Gupta,Adv. Ms. Rachna Srivastava,Adv. Mr. R.P. Mehrotra,Adv. ....3/- - 3 -Ms. H. Wahi,Adv.Ms. Nupur Kanungo,Adv.Ms. Renuka Sahu,Adv.Mr. V.N. Raghupathy,Adv.Mr. KH. Nobin Singh,Adv.Mr. Sapam Biswajit Meitei,Adv.Mr. Javed Mahmud Rao,Adv.Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh,Adv.Mr. T.G.N. Nair,Adv.Mr. K.N. Madhusoodhanan,Adv.Mr. A.D.N. Rao,Adv.Mr. T.V. Ratnam,Adv.Mr. Prashant Bhushan,Adv.Mr. K. Ram Kumar,Adv.Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv.Mr. Manish Kumar,Adv.Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv.Mr. Rituraj Biswas,Adv.Mr. Anil Shrivastav,Adv.Mr. Rituraj Biswas,Adv.Mr. Anis Suhrawardy,Adv.

Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde,Adv.Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee,Adv.Mr. S. Bhowmick,Adv.Mr. S.C. Ghosh,Adv.Mr. Riku Sarma,Adv.Mr. Keshav Roy Chaudhury,Adv.for M/s. Corporate Law Group,Advs.Mr. J.P. Dhanda,Adv.Mr. Ashok Mathur,Adv.Mr. B.S. Banthia,Adv.Ms. V.D. Khanna,Adv. ....4/- - 4 -Mr. T.C. Sharma,Adv.Ms. Neelam Sharma,Adv.Mr. Kishan Datta,Adv.Mr. Raj Kumar Mehta,Adv.Mr. V.G. Pragasam,Adv.Mr. S.J. Aristotle,Adv.Mr. Prabu Ramasubramanian,Adv.Mr. L.A.J. Selvam,Adv.Mr. A. Mariarputham,Adv.Genl.,Sikkim.Ms. Aruna Mathur,Adv.Mr. Amarjeet Singh Girsa,Adv.Mr. Yusuf Khan,Adv.M/s. Arputham, Aruna and Co.,Advs.Ms. Revathy Raghavan,Adv.Ms. A. Subhashini,Adv.Mr. Radha Shyam Jena,Adv.Mr. Mukesh K. Giri,Adv.Mr. Vishwajit Singh,Adv.Mr. Rajesh Srivastava,Adv.Mr. Anil K. Jha,Adv.Mr. Santosh Kumar,Adv.Mr. Raja Chatterjee,Adv.Mr. Sachin Das,Adv.Mr. G.S. Chatterjee,Adv.Mr. Ranjit Kumar,Sr.Adv.Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain,Adv.Mr. Aneesh Mittal,Adv.Mr. Janaranjan Das,Adv.Mr. Swetaketu Mishra,Adv.Mr. C.D. Singh,Adv.Mr. P.I. Jose,Adv.Mr. B.K. Mishra,Adv.Mr. Satish C. Joshi,Adv.

Mr. Pradeep Misra,Adv. ....5/- - 5 -Mr. Manish Kumar Saran,Adv.Mr. Anil Kumar Jha,Adv.Mr. G. Prakash,Adv.Mr. V. Senthil,Adv.for M/s. Parekha and Co.,Advs.Mr. Gopal Prasad,Adv.Mr. Naresh K. Sharma,Adv.Mr. P.V. Yogeshwaran,Adv.Mr. C.S. Rajan,Sr.Adv.Mr. B. Sukumaran,Adv.Mr. Anand Sukumaran,Adv.Mr. Bhupesh Kumar Pathak,Adv.Ms. Meera Mathur,Adv.Mr. S.M. Jadhav,Adv.Mr. Ashok K. Srivastava,Adv.Mr. Amit Sthalekar,Adv.Mr. Shaiwal Srivastava,Adv.Ms. C.K. Sucharita,Adv.Ms. Nirada Das,Adv.Ms. D. Bharathi Reddy,Adv.Mr. S.S. Rawat,Adv.Ms. Sunita Sharma,Adv.Mr. D.S. Mahra,Adv.Mr. Arun K. Sinha,Adv.Mr. Mohan Jain,ASG.Mr. S.W.A. Qadri,Adv.Mr. D.K. Thakur,Adv.Mr. Ch. Shamsuddin Khan,Adv.Mr. Rohtash Nagar,Adv.Mr. Minnatullah,Adv.Ms. Anil Katiyar,Adv.Mr. B.S. Banthia,Adv.Mr. Atul Jha,Adv.Mr. D.K. Sinha,Adv. ....6/- - 6 - Mr. K.N. Madhusoodhanan,Adv. Mr. R. Sathish,Adv. Mr. B. Sridhar,Adv. Mr. K. Ram Kumar,Adv. Mr. Edward Belho,Adv. Ms. K. Enatoli Sema,Adv. Mr. Rituraj Biswas,Adv. Dr. Manish Singhvi,AAG, Rajasthan.

Mr. D.K. Devesh,Adv. Mr. Sahil S. Chauhan,Adv. Mr. Milind Kumar,Adv. Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha,Adv. Mr. Somandri Goud,Adv. Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha,Adv. Mr. Ambhoj Kumar Sinha,Adv. Mr. C.D. Singh,Adv. Ms. Sakshi Kakkar,Adv. Mr. Shashank S. Parihar,Adv. Mr. P.N. Mishra,Sr.Adv. Mr. T.N. Singh,Adv. Mr. Rajeev Dubey,Adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra,Adv. Mr. Manjit Singh,AAG,Haryana. Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta,Adv. Mr. T. Harish Kumar,Adv. Mr. Prasanth P.,Adv. Mr. V. Vasudevan,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Despite the order passed in S.L.P. (C)No.27437 of 2010, on 4th October, 2010, let all thematters be placed before this Bench for the timebeing so that State wise classification of matterscould be done by the Office. ....7/- - 7 - Place these matters on 3rd December, 2010,for further directions, as last Item on the Board. Parties are given liberty to complete thepleadings as well as to file list of cases Statewise. [ Alka Dudeja ] [ Madhu Saxena ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar

ITEM NO.10 COURT NO.1 SECTION IX S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).28353/2010(From the judgement and order dated 11/08/2010 in SCA No.1627/2010of The HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD)CHANDRAPRAKASH HARILAL KOSHTI Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF GUJARAT & ANR Respondent(s)With office report)Date: 22/10/2010 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SWATANTER KUMARFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Nitin Bhardwaj,Adv. (N/P)For Respondent(s) Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The special leave petition shall stand over for one week. [ T.I. Rajput ] [ Madhu Saxena ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar N.B.: The lady advocate, who appeared, did not give appearance.

;ITEM NO.51 + 59 COURT NO.1 SECTION XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) NO.22 OF 2001BRIJ MOHAN LAL Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)(Office report with quarterly/status report received fromHigh Court, State Governments for directions, directions,intervention, impleadment and exemption from filing O.T.)With T.C. (C) No.23 of 2001T.C. 407-410/01 (with appln. for ex-parte stay)W.P.(C) 140/05 (with appln. for interim directions)SLP(C) 26148/10 (With prayer for interim relief & Office Report)SLP(C) 26209/10 (With prayer for interim relief & Office Report)SLP(C) 26318/10 (With prayer for interim relief & Office Report)SLP(C) 26363/10 (With prayer for interim relief & Office Report)SLP(C) 26364/10 (With prayer for interim relief & Office Report)SLP(C) 26432/10 (With prayer for interim relief & Office Report)SLP(C) 26444/10 (With prayer for interim relief & Office Report)SLP(C) 26446/10 (With prayer for interim relief & Office Report)SLP(C) 26448/10 (With prayer for interim relief & Office Report)SLP(C) 26634/10 (With prayer for interim relief & Office Report)SLP(C) 26660/10 (With prayer for interim relief & Office Report)SLP(C) 9883/09 (With appln. for directions and c/delay in filing SLPand permission to file addl. documents and exem. from filing O.T.and modification and direction and with prayer for interim relief &Office Report)Date: 27/09/2010 These Matters were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SWATANTER KUMAR Mr. P.S. Narasimha,Sr.Adv. (A.C.)For Petitioner(s) Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri,Adv. ...2/- 2. Mr. P. Parmeswaran, Adv. Mr. S. Ravi Shankar, Adv. Mr. R.K. Abichandani,Sr. Adv. Mrs. Laxmi Abichandani, Adv. Mr. D.N. Ray, Adv. Mr. Lokesh K. Choudhary, Adv. Mrs. Sumita Ray, Adv. Mr. D.N. Ray, Adv. Mr. Lokesh K. Choudhary, Adv. Ms. Sumita Sray, Adv. Mrs. Saroj Raichura, Adv.

Mr. H.A. Raichura, Adv. Mr. J.L. Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. D.P. Singh, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv. Mr. Paresh Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Manoj K. Mishra, Adv. Mr. Jagdish Chander, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Mohan Parasaran, ASG Mr. D.K. Thakur, Adv. Mr. S.W.A. Qadri, Adv. Mr. Ashok Bhan, Adv. Mr. Anil Katiyar, Adv. Ms. Sunita Sharma, Adv. Mr. H.S. Sachdeva, Adv. Mr. D.S. Mehra, Adv. Mr. S.S. Rawat, Adv. Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv. Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Adv. Mr. Riku Sharma, Adv. Ms. Vartika Sahai, Adv. Mr. T. Harish Kumar, Adv. Mr. P. Prasanth, Adv. Mr. V. Vasudevan, Adv. Dr. Manish Singhvi, AAG Mr. D.K. Devesh, Adv. Mr. Sahil S. Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Milind Kumar, Adv. ...3/- 3.Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Adv.Mr. S.J. Aristotle, Adv.Mr. L.A.J. Selvan, Adv.Mr. S. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv.Mr. J. Das, Adv.Mr. Swetaketu Mishra, Adv.Mr. P.P. Nayak, Adv.Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Adv.Ms. Renu Gupta, Adv.Mr. Vikrant Nagpal, Adv.Mr. Sidhan Goel, Adv.Mr. Pragya P. Sharma, Adv.Mr. H. Wahi, Adv.Mr. Jesal, Adv.Ms.Nupur Kanungo, Adv.Mr. Edward Belho, Adv.Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, Adv.Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Adv.Mr. G. Prakash, Adv.Ms. C.K. Sucharita, Adv.Ms. Nirada Das, Adv.Mr. B. Sridhar, Adv.Mrs. Avtar Kaur Dhingra, Adv.

Mr. K. Ram Kumar, Adv.Mr. Atul Jha, Adv.Mr. D.K. Sinha, Adv.Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv.Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv.Mr. C.S. Rajan, Sr. Adv.Mr. S. Sukumaran, Adv.Mr. Anand Sukumar, Adv.Mr. Bhupesh Kumar Pathak, Adv.Mr. Anil Shrivastav, Adv.Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Adv.Mr. Ashok K. Srivastava, Adv.Mr. Shaiwal Srivastava, Adv. ...4/- 4.Mr. K.H. Nobin Singh, Adv.Mr. Bhaskar P. Gupta, Sr. Adv.Mr. T.C. Sharma, Adv.Mr. Krishan, Adv.Ms. Neelam Sharma, Adv.Mr. P.N. Mishra, Sr. Adv.Mr. S.K. Dwivedi, AAGMr. T.N. Singh, Adv.Mr. Rajeev Dubey, Adv.Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, Adv.Mrs. Jayshree Anand, Adv.Mr. K.K. Mahalik, Adv.Mr. Ajay Pal, Adv.Mr. Manjit Singh, Adv.Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta, Adv.Mr. Sanjay V. Kharde, Adv.Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Adv.Mr. TGN Nair, Adv.Mr. K.N. Madhusoodanan, Adv.Mr. K.N. Madhusoodanan, Adv.Mr. R. Sathish, Adv.Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv.Mr. S. Bhowmick, Adv.Mr. S.C. Ghosh, Adv.Mr. C.D. Singh, Adv.Mr. Sunny Chaudhary, Adv.Mr. SS Parihar, Adv.Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, Adv.Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Adv.Mr. Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, Adv.Mr. A. Mariarputham, AGMrs. Aruna Mathur, Adv.Mr. Amarjeet Singh Girsa, Adv.Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha, Adv.Mr. Somanth, Adv.

-Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Adv.-Ms. Rachna Gupta, Adv. ...5/- 5. -Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Adv. -Mr. R.P. Mehrotra, Adv. -Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, Adv. -Mr. J.M. Rao, Adv. -Mr. A.K. Singh, Adv. -Mr. C.S. Ashri, Adv. -Mr. ADN Rao, Adv. -Mr. T.V. Ratnam, Adv. -Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Adv. -Mr. K. Ram Kumar, Adv. -Mr. Anis Suhrawardy, Adv. -Mr. S.R. Hegde, Adv. -Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv. -M/s. Navneet Kr. for M/s. Corporate Law Group. -Mr. J.P. Dhanda, Adv. -Mr. Ashok Mathur, Adv. -Mr. B.S. Banthia, Adv. -Mrs. VD Khanna, Adv. -Mr. R.K. Mehta, Adv. -Ms. Revathy Raghavan, Adv. -Ms. A. Subhashini, Adv. -Mr. R.S. Jena, Adv. -Mr. M.K. Giri, Adv. -Mr. Viswajit Singh, Adv. -Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain, Adv -Mr. C.D. Singh, Adv. -Mr. P.I. Jose, Adv. -Mr. Pradeep Misra, Adv. -Mr. Manish Kumar Saran, Adv. -Mr. Mr. N.K. Sharma, Adv. -Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran, Adv. -Ms. Meera Mathur, Adv. -Mr. Parekh, Adv. for M/s. Parekh & Co. -Mr. S.M. Jadhav, Adv. -Mr. A.K. Srivastava, Adv. -Mr. T.V. Ratnam, Adv. -Mr. K. Ram Kumar, Adv. -Ms. D. Bharathi Reddy, Adv. -Mr. S.R. Sharma, aDv. -Mr. Abhijit Sengupta, Adv.UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Stand over for four weeks. [ Kanchan Jain ] [ Madhu Saxena ]Assistant Registrar Assistant Registrar

&,ITEM NO.36 COURT NO.1 SECTION XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) NO.22 OF 2001BRIJ MOHAN LAL Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)(Office report with quarterly/status report received fromHigh Court, State Governments for directions, directions,intervention, impleadment and exemption from filing O.T.)With T.C. (C) No.23 of 2001Date: 30/08/2010 These Matters were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SWATANTER KUMAR Mr. P.S. Narasimha,Sr.Adv. (A.C.)For Petitioner(s)In TC 22/2001: Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri,Adv.In TC 23/2001: Ms. D. Bharathi Reddy,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Gopal Subramanium,SG. Mr. A. Mariarputham,Sr.Adv. Mr. D.K. Thakur,Adv. Mr. Ashok Bhan,Adv. Ms. Sunita Sharma,Adv. Ms. Gargi Khanna,Adv. Ms. Anil Katiyar,Adv. Mr. P. Parmeswaran,Adv. Ms. Kamini Jaiswal,Adv. Ms. Rachna Gupta,Adv. Mr. Rajesh Srivastava,Adv. ....2/- - 2 -Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra,Adv.Ms. Hemantika Wahi,Adv.Ms. Nupur Kanungo,Adv.Mr. V.N. Raghupathy,Adv.Mr. Khwairakpam Nobin Singh,Adv.Mr. Sapam Biswajit Meitei,Adv.Mr. Javed Mahmud Rao,Adv.Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh,Adv.Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri,Adv.

Mr. Annam D.N. Rao,Adv.Mr. T.V. Ratnam,Adv.Mr. Prashant Bhushan,Adv.Mr. K. Ram Kumar,Adv.Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv.Mr. Manish Kumar,Adv.Mr. Rituraj Biswas,Adv.Mr. Anil Shrivastav,Adv.Mr. Rituraj Biswas,Adv.Mr. Anis Suhrawardy,Adv.Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde,Adv.Mr. Ramesh Kumar Mishra,Adv.Mr. Krutin Joshi,Adv.Mr. Ramesh S. Jadhav,Adv.Mr. Vikrant Yadav,Adv.Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee,Adv.Mr. S. Bhowmick,Adv.Mr. S.C. Ghosh,Adv.Mr. Navneet Kumar,Adv.for M/s. Corporate Law Group,Advs.Mr. J.P. Dhanda,Adv.Mr. Ashok Mathur,Adv. ....3/- - 3 -Mr. B.S. Banthia,Adv.Ms. V.D. Khanna,Adv.Mr. Bhaskar Gupta,Sr.Adv.Mr. T.C. Sharma,Adv.Ms. Neelam Sharma,Adv.Mr. Kishan Datta,Adv.Mr. Raj Kumar Mehta,Adv.Mr. V.G. Pragasam,Adv.Mr. S.J. Aristotle,Adv.Mr. Prabu Ramasubramanian,Adv.Ms. Aruna Mathur,Adv.Mr. Amarjeet Singh Girsa,Adv.for M/s. Arputham,Aruna & Co.,Advs.Ms. Revathy Raghavan,Adv.Ms. A.Subhashini,Adv.Mr. Radha Shyam Jena,Adv.Mr. Mukesh K. Giri,Adv.Mr. Vishwajit Singh,Adv.Mr. Anil K. Jha,Adv.Mr. G.S. Chatterjee,Adv.

Mr. Raja Chatterjee,Adv.Mr. Sachin Das,Adv.Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain,Adv.Mr. Janaranjan Das,Adv.Mr. Swetaketu Mishra,Adv.Mr. P.P. Nayak,Adv.Mr. C.D. Singh,Adv.Mr. Sunny Chaudhary,Adv.Ms. Sakshi Kakkar,Adv.Mr. Shashank Parihar,Adv.Mr. P.I. Jose,Adv.Mr. B.K. Mishra,Adv.Mr. Vivek Kandari,Adv.Ms. Anupam Mishra,Adv. ....4/- - 4 -Mr. Pradeep Misra,Adv.Mr. Manish Kumar Saran,Adv.Mr. Gopal Prasad,Adv.Mr. Naresh K. Sharma,Adv.Mr. T.G. Narayanan Nair,Adv.Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran,Adv.Mr. C.S. Rajan,Sr.Adv.Mr. S. Sukumaran,Adv.Mr. Anand Sukumar,Adv.Ms. Meera Mathur,Adv.Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav,Adv.Mr. Ashok K. Srivastava,Adv.Mr. Shailwal Srivastava,Adv.Mr. Edward Belho,Adv.Ms. K. Enaloli Sema,Adv.Mr. Rituraj Biswas,Adv.Mr. Atul Jha,Adv.Mr. D.K. Sinha,Adv.Mr. K. Ram Kumar,Adv.Mr. B. Sridhar,Adv.for M/s. K. Ram Kumar and Associates,Advs.Mr. Sanjay Kharde,Adv.Ms. Asha G. Nair,Adv.Mr. Ajay Bansal,Addl.Adv.Genl.Mr. Devender Singh Nagar,Adv.Mr. Sumit Pargal,Adv.Mr. Ajay Pal,Adv.Mr. Manjit Singh,Adv.Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta,Adv.Mr. P.N. Mishra,Sr.Adv.Mr. T.N. Singh,Adv.Mr. Rajeev Dubey,Adv.Mr. Kamlendra Mishra,Adv.

....5/- - 5 -Mr. K.N. Madhusoodhanan,Adv.Mr. R. Sathish,Adv.Dr. Manish Singhvi,AAGMr. Devanshu Kumar Devesh,Adv.Mr. Milind Kumar,Adv.Mr. Sahil S. Chauhan,Adv.Mr. Sudarshan Singh Rawat,Adv.Mr. D.S. Mahra,Adv.Ms. C.K. Sucharita,Adv.Ns. Nirada Das,Adv.Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha,Adv.Mr. T. Harish Kumar,Adv.Mr. Prasanth P.,Adv.Mr. V. Vasudevan,Adv.Mr. Pragyan P. Sharma,Adv.Mr. P.Y. Yogeshwaran,Adv.Mr. Edward Belho,Adv.Mr. P. Athuimei R. Naga,Adv.Ms. Enatoli Sema,Adv.Mr. Rituraj Biswas,Adv.Mr. A. Mariarputham,Adv.Genl.,SikkimMs. Aruna Mathur,Adv.Mr. Amarjeet Singh Girsa,Adv.Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv.Mr. Manish Kumar,Adv.Mr. Rituraj Biswas,Adv.Ms. Rachana Srivastava,Adv.Mr. Sunil Fernandes,Adv.Mr. Vikrant Nagpal,Adv.Ms. Renu Gupta,Adv.Dr. Manish Singhvi,AAG.Mr. R Gopala Krishnan,Adv.Mr. Bhaskar P. Gupta,Sr.Adv.Mr. T.C. Sharma,Adv.Ms. Neelam Sharma,Adv. ....6/- - 6 - Mr. G. Prakash,Adv. Mr. Beena Prakash,Adv. Mr. V. Senthail,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The transferred cases shall stand over forfour weeks.

[ Alka Dudeja ] [ Madhu Saxena ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar

ô,ITEM NO.47 COURT NO.1 SECTION XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) NO.22 OF 2001BRIJ MOHAN LAL Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)(Office report with quarterly/status report received fromHigh Court, State Governments for directions, directions,intervention, impleadment and exemption from filing O.T.)With T.C. (C) No.23 of 2001Date: 09/08/2010 These Matters were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SWATANTER KUMAR Mr. Gopal Subramanium,SG.(A.C.) (N/P) Mr. Gaurav Khanna,Adv. Mr. P.S. Narasimha,Sr.Adv. (A.C.)For Petitioner(s)In TC 22/2001: Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri,Adv.In TC 23/2001: Ms. D. Bharathi Reddy,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Mohan Jain,ASG Mr. H.P. Raval,ASG Mr. Ashok K. Srivastava,Adv. Mr. D.K. Thakur,Adv. Ms. Jaspreet Aulakh,Adv. Ms. Yogita Yadav,Adv. Ms. Anjani Aiyagari,Adv. Mr. Ashok Bhan,Adv. Mr. C.K. Sharma,Adv. Ms. Sunita Sharma,Adv. Ms. Anil Katiyar,Adv. Mr. P. Parmeswaran,Adv. ....2/- - 2 -Ms. Kamini Jaiswal,Adv.Ms. Rachna Gupta,Adv.Mr. Rajesh Srivastava,Adv.Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra,Adv.Ms. Hemantika Wahi,Adv.Ms. Jesal,Adv.Mr. V.N. Raghupathy,Adv.Mr. Khwairakpam Nobin Singh,Adv.

Mr. Javed Mahmud Rao,Adv.Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh,Adv.Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri,Adv.Mr. Annam D.N. Rao,Adv.Mr. T.V. Ratnam,Adv.Mr. Prashant Bhushan,Adv.Mr. K. Ram Kumar,Adv.Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv.Mr. Manish Kumar,Adv.Mr. Rituraj Biswas,Adv.Mr. Anil Shrivastav,Adv.Mr. Rituraj Biswas,Adv.Mr. Anis Suhrawardy,Adv.Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde,Adv.Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee,Adv.Mr. S. Bhowmick,Adv.Mr. S.C. Ghosh,Adv.Mr. Riku Sarma,Adv.Mr. Navneet Kumar,Adv.for M/s. Corporate Law Group,Advs.Mr. J.P. Dhanda,Adv.Mr. Ashok Mathur,Adv. ....3/- - 3 -Mr. B.S. Banthia,Adv.Ms. V.D. Khanna,Adv.Mr. Bhaskar Gupta,Sr.Adv.Mr. T.C. Sharma,Adv.Ms. Neelam Sharma,Adv.Mr. Kishan Datta,Adv.Mr. Raj Kumar Mehta,Adv.Mr. V.G. Pragasam,Adv.Mr. S.J. Aristotle,Adv.Mr. Prabu Ramasubramanian,Adv.Ms. Aruna Mathur,Adv.Mr. Amarjeet Singh Girsa,Adv.for M/s. Arputham,Aruna & Co.,Advs.Ms. Revathy Raghavan,Adv.Ms. A.Subhashini,Adv.Mr. Radha Shyam Jena,Adv.Mr. Mukesh K. Giri,Adv.Mr. Vishwajit Singh,Adv.

Mr. Anil K. Jha,Adv.Mr. G.S. Chatterjee,Adv.Mr. Raja Chatterjee,Adv.Mr. Sachin Das,Adv.Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain,Adv.Mr. Janaranjan Das,Adv.Mr. Swetaketu Mishra,Adv.Mr. P.P. Nayak,Adv.Mr. C.D. Singh,Adv.Mr. Bhupendra Pratap Singh,Adv.Mr. Sunny Chaudhary,Adv.Ms. Jinu Merlyn Abraham,Adv.Ms. Sakshi Kakkar,Adv. ....4/- - 4 -Mr. V.J. Francis,Adv.Mr. P.I. Jose,Adv.Mr. B.K. Mishra,Adv.Mr. Vivek Kandari,Adv.Ms. Anupam Mishra,Adv.Mr. Pradeep Misra,Adv.Mr. Manish Kumar Saran,Adv.Mr. Gopal Prasad,Adv.Mr. Naresh K. Sharma,Adv.Mr. T.G. Narayanan Nair,Adv.Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran,Adv.Mr. C.S. Rajan,Sr.Adv.Mr. S. Sukumaran,Adv.Mr. Anand Sukumar,Adv.Mr. Bhupesh Kumar Pathak,Adv.Ms. Meera Mathur,Adv.Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav,Adv.Mr. Ashok K. Srivastava,Adv.Mr. Shailwal Srivastava,Adv.Mr. Edward Belho,Adv.Ms. K. Enaloli Sema,Adv.Mr. Rituraj Biswas,Adv.Mr. Atul Jha,Adv.Mr. Rajesh Srivastava,Adv.Mr. B. Sridhar,Adv.Mr. K. Ram Kumar,Adv.for M/s. K. Ram Kumar and Associates,Advs.Mr. Sanjay Kharde,Adv.Ms. Asha G. Nair,Adv.Mr. Ajay Bansal,Adv.Mr. Devender Singh Nagar,Adv.Mr. Ajay Pal,Adv.

Mr. Manjit Singh,Adv.Mr. Kamlendra Mishra,Adv. ....5/- - 5 -Mr. K.N. Madhusoodhanan,Adv.Mr. R. Sathish,Adv.Dr. Manish Singhvi,AAGMr. Devanshu Kumar Devesh,Adv.Mr. Milind Kumar,Adv.Mr. T.S. Doabia,Sr.Adv.Mr. Sudarshan Singh Rawat,Adv.Mr. Manpreet Singh Doabia,Adv.Mr. D.S. Mahra,Adv.Ms. C.K. Sucharita,Adv.Ns. Nirada Das,Adv.Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha,Adv.Mr. Somandri Goud,Adv.Mr. T. Harish Kumar,Adv.Mr. Prasanth P.,Adv.Mr. V. Vasudevan,Adv.Mr. Pragyan P. Sharma,Adv.Mr. P.Y. Yogeshwaran,Adv.Mr. Edward Belho,Adv.Mr. P. Athuimei R. Naga,Adv.Ms. Enatoli Sema,Adv.Mr. Rituraj Biswas,Adv.Ms. Aruna Mathur,Adv.Mr. Amarjeet Singh Girsa,Adv.Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv.Mr. Rituraj Biswas,Adv.Ms. Rachana Srivastava,Adv.Mr. Sunil Fernandes,Adv.Mr. Vikrant Nagpal,Adv.Ms. Renu Gupta,Adv.Dr. Manish Singhvi,AAG.Mr. R Gopala Krishnan,Adv.Mr. Bhaskar P. Gupta,Sr.Adv.Mr. T.C. Sharma,Adv.Ms. Neelam Sharma,Adv. ....6/- - 6 - Mr. G. Prakash,Adv. Mr. Prem Prakash,Adv. Mr. V. Senthail,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The transferred cases shall stand over for

three weeks. [ Alka Dudeja ] [ Madhu Saxena ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar

4+ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.1 SECTION XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) NO.22 OF 2001BRIJ MOHAN LAL Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)(Office report with quarterly/status report received fromHigh Court and State Governments for directions)With T.C. (C) No.23 of 2001Date: 19/07/2010 These Matters were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SWATANTER KUMAR Mr. Gopal Subramanium,SG.(A.C.) (N/P) Mr. P.S. Narasimha,Sr.Adv. (A.C.)For Petitioner(s)In TC 22/2001: Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri,Adv.In TC 23/2001: Ms. D. Bharathi Reddy,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Mohan Jain,ASG Mr. H.P. Raval,ASG mr. Ashok K. Srivastava,Adv. Mr. R. Balasubramaniam,Adv. Mr. D.K. Thakur,Adv. Ms. Jaspreet Aulakh,Adv. Ms. Rohini Mukherjee,Adv. Ms. Anjani Aiyagari,Adv. Mr. Ashok Bhan,Adv. Ms. Anil Katiyar,Adv. Mr. P. Parmeswaran,Adv. ....2/- - 2 -Ms. Kamini Jaiswal,Adv.Ms. Rachna Gupta,Adv.Mr. Rajesh Srivastava,Adv.Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra,Adv.Ms. Hemantika Wahi,Adv.Ms. Jesal,Adv.Mr. V.N. Raghupathy,Adv.Mr. Khwairakpam Nobin Singh,Adv.Mr. Javed Mahmud Rao,Adv.

Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh,Adv.Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri,Adv.Mr. Annam D.N. Rao,Adv.Mr. T.V. Ratnam,Adv.Mr. Prashant Bhushan,Adv.Mr. K. Ram Kumar,Adv.Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv.Mr. Manish Kumar,Adv.Mr. Anil Shrivastav,Adv.Mr. Rituraj Biswas,Adv.Mr. Anis Suhrawardy,Adv.Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde,Adv.Mr. Ramesh Kumar Mishra,Adv.Mr. K. Joshi,Adv.Mr. Ramesh S. Jadhav,Adv.Mr. Vikrant Yadav,Adv.Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee,Adv.Mr. S. Bhowmick,Adv.Mr. S.C. Ghosh,Adv.Mr. Riku Sarma,Adv.for M/s. Corporate Law Group,Advs.Mr. J.P. Dhanda,Adv. ....3/- - 3 -Mr. Ashok Mathur,Adv.Mr. B.S. Banthia,Adv.Ms. V.D. Khanna,Adv.Mr. Bhaskar Gupta,Sr.Adv.Mr. T.C. Sharma,Adv.Ms. Neelam Sharma,Adv.Mr. Kishan Datta,Adv.Mr. Raj Kumar Mehta,Adv.Mr. V.G. Pragasam,Adv.Mr. S.J. Aristotle,Adv.Mr. Prabu Ramasubramanian,Adv.for M/s. Arputham,Aruna & Co.,Advs.Ms. Revathy Raghavan,Adv.Ms. A.Subhashini,Adv.Mr. Radha Shyam Jena,Adv.Mr. Mukesh K. Giri,Adv.Mr. Vishwajit Singh,Adv.Mr. Anil K. Jha,Adv.

Mr. Raja Chatterjee,Adv.Mr. Sachin Das,Adv.Mr. G.S. Chatterjee,Adv.Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain,Adv.Mr. Janaranjan Das,Adv.Mr. Swetaketu Mishra,Adv.Mr. P.P. Nayak,Adv.Mr. C.D. Singh,Adv.Mr. P.I. Jose,Adv.Ms. Anupam Mishra,Adv.Mr. B.K. Mishra,Adv.Mr. Vivek Kankari,Adv.Mr. Pradeep Misra,Adv. ....4/- - 4 -Mr. Manish Kumar Saran,Adv.Mr. Gopal Prasad,Adv.Mr. Naresh K. Sharma,Adv.Mr. T.G. Narayanan Nair,Adv.Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran,Adv.Mr. C.S. Rajan,Sr.Adv.Mr. S. Sukumaran,Adv.Mr. Anand Sukumar,Adv.Mr. Bhupesh Kumar Pathak,Adv.Ms. Meera Mathur,Adv.Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav,Adv.Mr. Ashok K. Srivastava,Adv.Mr. Shailwal Srivastava,Adv.Mr. Edward Belho,Adv.Ms. K. Enaloli Sema,Adv.Mr. Rituraj Biswas,Adv.Mr. Atul Jha,Adv.Mr. D.K. Sinha,Adv.Mr. B. Sridhar,Adv.Mr. K. Ram Kumar,Adv.for M/s. K. Ram Kumar and Associates,Advs.Mr. Sanjay Kharde,Adv.Ms. Asha G. Nair,Adv.Ms. Jayshree Anand,Adv.Mr. K.K. Mahalik,Adv.Mr. Ajay Pal,Adv.Mr. P.N. Misra,Sr.Adv.Mr. Shail Kumar Dwivedi,AAGMr. Satish Misra,Adv.Mr. T.N. Singh,Adv.Mr. Kamlendra Mishra,Adv.Mr. K.N. Madhusoodhanan,Adv.Mr. R. Sathish,Adv.

....5/- - 5 - Dr. Manish Singhvi,AAG Mr. Devanshu Kumar Devesh,Adv. Mr. Milind Kumar,Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra,Adv. Ms. Sunita Sharma,Adv. Ms. C.K. Sucharita,Adv. Ns. Nirada Das,Adv. Mr. Sameer Parekh,Adv. Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha,Adv. Mr. Arjun Garg,Adv. Mr. Ashish Wad,Adv. Mr. T. Harish Kumar,Adv. Mr. Prasanth P.,Adv. Mr. V. Vasudevan,Adv. Mr. Pragyan P. Sharma,Adv. Mr. P.Y. Yogeshwaran,Adv. Mr. Edward Belho,Adv. Mr. P. Athuimei R. Naga,Adv. Ms. Enatoli Sema,Adv. Mr. Rituraj Biswas,Adv. Mr. A. Mariarputham,Sr.Adv. Ms. Aruna Mathur,Adv. Mr. Amarjeet Singh Girsa,Adv. Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv. Mr. Rituraj Biswas,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The transferred cases shall stand over forthree weeks. [ T.I. Rajput ] [ Madhu Saxena ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar

P4 1ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.1 SECTION XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSTRANSFER CASE (CIVIL.) NO. 22 OF 2001BRIJ MOHAN LAL Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for directions,Intervention/Impleadment and officereport )WITH SLP(C) NO. 10645 of 2001(With office report)W.P(C) NO. 140 of 2005(With office report)T.C.(C) NO. 23 of 2001(With office report)T.P.(C) NO. 407-410 of 2001(With office report)SLP(C) NO. 7870 of 2001(With office report)Date: 10/05/2010 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK VERMA HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE B.S. CHAUHAN Mr. P.S. Narasimha, Sr. Adv. (A.C.)For Petitioner(s) Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Gopal Subramanium, SG Mr. Mohan Jain, ASG Mr. S.W.A. Qadri, Adv. Mr. D.K. Thakur, Adv. Ms. Gargi Khanna, ADv. Ms. Saima Bakshi, Adv. Ms. Anjani Aiyangari, Adv. Mrs. Sunita Sharma, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv. Mr. P. Parmeswaran,Adv. (N.P.) 2 Ms. A.Subhashini ,Adv Mrs. Shobha Dixit, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajeev K. Dubey, Adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, Adv. Mr. Ashok Mathur ,Adv Mr. S. Mehdi Imam, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Parvez Dabas, Adv. Mr. Tabrez Ahmad, Adv. Mr. Wahid Kassana, Adv. For Mr. Anis Suhrawardy ,Adv

Mr. B.B. Singh ,Adv (N.P.) Mr. Raja Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. Sachin Das, Adv. Mr. G.S. Chatterjee ,Adv Mr. G. Prakash ,AdvState of Bihar Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv. For Mr. Gopal Singh ,AdvState of Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Adv.Tripura For Mr. Gopal Singh ,Adv Ms. Hemantika Wahi ,Adv Ms. Nupur, Adv. Mr. Somanath Padhan, Adv. Ms. Jesal, Adv Mr. Janaranjan Das ,Adv Mr. Swetaketu Mishra, Adv. Mr. P.P. Nayak, Adv. Ms. Kamini Jaiswal ,Adv Mr. B. Sridhar, Adv. Mr. K. Ram Kumar ,Adv Mr. Pradeep Misra ,Adv Mr. Prashant Bhushan ,Adv Mr. Raj Kumar Mehta ,Adv 3 Mrs Rachna Gupta ,Adv. Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain ,Adv Mr. T.G. Narayanan Nair ,Adv Mr. Bhaskar P. Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Tara Chander Sharma, Adv. Ms. Neelam Sharma, Adv. Mr. T.V. Ratnam ,Adv Mrs V.D. Khanna ,AdvState & H.C. of Mrs. Aruna Mathur, Adv.Sikkim Mr. Amarjit Singh, Adv. For M/S Arputham,Aruna & Co. ,Adv Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Adv. Mr. Gopal Prasad, Adv. Mr. C.D. Singh, Adv. Mr. Sunny Choudhary, Adv. Ms. Merlyn Abraham, Adv., Ms. Sukanya, Adv. Mr. Vishal P., Adv., Ms. K. Enatali Sema, Adv. Mr. Edward Belho, Adv. Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Adv.

M/s. Parekh & Co., Advs. Mr. K. Nobin Singh, Adv. Mr. Sapam Biswajit Meitei, Adv. Mr. P.I. Jose, Adv. Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, Adv. Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Adv. Mr. S. J. Aristotle, Adv. Mr. Prabu Rama Subramanian, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kharde, Adv. Ms. Asha G. Nair, Adv. 4Mr. Anil Shrivastav, Adv.Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Adv.Mr. V.N. Raghupaty, Adv.Mr. Javed Mahmud Rao, Adv.Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Adv.Mr. C.S. Ashri, Adv.Mr. Annam D.N. Rao, Adv.Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv.Mr. Rituwik Panda, Adv.Mr. Riku Sarma, Adv.For M/s. Corporate Law Group, Advs.Mr. J.P. Dhanda, Adv.Mr. B.S. Banthia, Adv.Mrs. Revathy Raghavan, Adv.Mr. R.S. Jena, Adv.Mr. Mukesh K. Giri, Adv.Mr. Vishwajit Singh, Adv.Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, Adv.Mr. Manish Kumar Saran, Adv.Mr. K.N. Madhusoodhanan, Adv.Mr. R. Satish, Adv.Mr. P.V. Yogeshwaran, Adv.Mr. T. Harish Kumar, Adv.Mr. P. Prasanth, Adv.Mr. V. Vasudevan, Adv.Mrs. Jayshree Anand, Adv.Mr. K.K. Mahalik, Adv.Mr. Ajay Pal, Adv.Mr. R. Nedumaran, Adv. 5 Mr. S. Sukumaran, Adv.

Mr. Anand Sukumarn, Adv. Mr. Bhupesh Kumar Pathak, Adv. For Ms.Meera Mathur, Adv. Mr. Manjit Singh, AAG Ms. Shivani P. Sharma, Adv. For Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta, Adv. Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, Adv. Mr. Ashk K. Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Shaiwal Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Adv. Mr. A. Rohan Singh, Adv. Dr. Manish Singhvi, AAG Mr. Devanshu Kumar Devesh, Adv. Mr. Milind Kumar, Adv. Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav, Adv. Mr. Atul Jha, Adv. Mr. D.K. Sinha, Adv. Ms. Anuradha Rustogi, Adv. Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Learned Solicitor General makes statement as regards theFast Track Courts that the necessary steps would be taken by theGovernment of India within a short time. Learned counsel appearingfor the State of U.P. submitted that the Fast Track Court Judges arenot being paid salary. We hope that the arrangements would be madeby the Union of India shortly. List in the 3rd week of July, 2010. (R.K.Dhawan) (Veera Verma) AR-cum-PS Assistant Registrar

Ð4 1ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.1 SECTION XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGST.C.(C) NO.22/2001BRIJ MOHAN LAL Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)(Status report fr the Quarter ending March, 2009 as per directiondated 6.5.2009 and office report)Date: 19/03/2010 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK VERMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.K. PRASAD Mr. P.S. Narasimha, Sr. Adv. (A.C.)For Petitioner(s) Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Gopal Subramanium, SG Mr. Mohan Jain, ASG Mr. S.W.A. Qadri, Adv. Mr. Prabhal Kumar, Adv. Mr. D.K. Thakur, Adv. Ms. Rohini Mukherjee, Adv. Ms. Anjani Aiyangari, Adv. Mr. Ashok Bhan, Adv. Ch. Shamsuddin Khan, Adv. Mr. S.S. Rawat, Adv. Mrs. Sunita Sharma, adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv. Mr. P. Parmeswaran,Adv. (N.P.) Ms. A.Subhashini ,Adv Mr. Shail K. Dwivedi, AAG Mrs. Shobha Dixit, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajeev K. Dubey, Adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, Adv. Mr. Ashok Mathur ,Adv 2 Mr. S. Mehdi Imam, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Parvez Dabas, Adv. Mr. Tabrez Ahmad, Adv. For Mr. Anis Suhrawardy ,Adv Mr. B.B. Singh ,Adv (N.P.) Mr. L.N. Rao, Sr. Adv. Mr. Raja Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. Sachin Das, Adv. Mr. G.S. Chatterjee ,Adv Mr. G. Prakash ,AdvState of Bihar Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv.

For Mr. Gopal Singh ,AdvState of Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Adv.Tripura For Mr. Gopal Singh ,Adv Ms. Hemantika Wahi ,Adv Ms. Nupur, Adv. Mr. Janaranjan Das ,Adv Mr. Swetaketu Mishra, Adv. Mr. P.P. Nayak, Adv. Ms. Kamini Jaiswal ,Adv Mr. B. Sridhar, Adv. Mr. K. Ram Kumar ,Adv Mr. Pradeep Misra ,Adv Mr. Prashant Bhushan ,Adv Mr. Raj Kumar Mehta ,Adv Mrs Rachna Gupta ,Adv. Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain ,Adv Mr. T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, Sr. Adv. Mr. T.G. Narayanan Nair ,Adv Mr. K.N. Madhussodanan, Adv. Mr. Bhaskar P. Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Tara Chander Sharma, Adv. Ms. Neelam Sharma, Adv. Mr. T.V. Ratnam ,Adv 3Mrs V.D. Khanna ,AdvMrs. Aruna Mathur, Adv.Mr. Vimal Dubey, Adv.Mr. Amarjit Singh, Adv.For M/S Arputham,Aruna & Co. ,AdvMs. Rachana Srivastava, Adv.Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Adv.Mr. Gopal Prasad, Adv.Dr. N.M. Ghatate, Sr.Adv.Mr. C.D. Singh, Adv.Mr. Sunny Choudhary, Adv.Ms. K. Enatali Sema, Adv.Mr. Edward Belho, Adv.Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Adv.Mr. C.M. Kennedy, Adv.Mr. P.H. Parekh, Sr. Adv.Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha, Adv.Mr. Sameer Parekh, Adv.Mr. Somanadri Goud K., Adv.Mr. Vishal Prasad, Adv.M/s. Parekh & Co., Advs.Mr. K. Nobin Singh, Adv.

Mr. P.I. Jose, Adv.Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, Adv.Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Adv.Mr. S. J. Aristotle, Adv.Mr. Prabu Rama Subramanian, Adv.Mr. Sanjay Kharde, Adv.Ms. Asha G. Nair, Adv.Mr. Anil Shrivastav, Adv.Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Adv.Mr. V.N. Raghupaty, Adv.Mr. Javed Mahmud Rao, Adv.Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Adv.Mr. C.S. Ashri, Adv. 4Mr. Annam D.N. Rao, Adv.Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv.Mr. Riku Sarma, Adv.Mr. Navneet, Adv.For M/s. Corporate Law Group, Advs.Mr. J.P. Dhanda, Adv.Mr. B.S. Banthia, Adv.Mrs. Revathy Raghavan, Adv.Mr. R.S. Jena, Adv.Mr. Mukesh K. Giri, Adv.Mr. Vishwajit Singh, Adv.Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, Adv.Mr. Manish Kumar Saran, Adv.Mr. K.N. Madhusoodhanan, Adv.Mr. R. Satish, Adv.Mr. Pragyan P. Sharma, Adv.Mr. P.V. Yogeshwaran, Adv.Mr. T. Harish Kumar, Adv.Mr. P. Prasanth, Adv.Mr. V. Vasudevan, Adv.Mrs. Jayshree Anand, Adv.Mr. K.K. Mahalik, Adv.Mr. Ajay Pal, Adv.Mr. R. Nedumaran, Adv.Mr. C.S. Rajan, Sr. Adv.Mr. S. Sukumaran, Adv.Mr. Anand Sukumarn, Adv.Mr. Bhupesh Kumar Pathak, Adv.For Ms.Meera Mathur, Adv.

Mr. Manjit Singh, AAGFor Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta, Adv.Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha, Adv.Mr. Ashk K. Srivastava, Adv. 5 Mr. Amit Sthalekar, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Trivedi, Adv. Mr. S. Srivastava, Adv. M/s. Sanjay R. Hegde, A. Rohan Singh, Mr. Ramesh Mishra, Advs. Mr. Devanshu Kumar Devesh, Adv. Mr. Milind Kumar, Adv. Mr. Vinay Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. S. Bhowmick, Adv. Mr. Sunil K. Jain, Adv. Mr. Ajay K. Bhatia, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Jain, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R At present 1562 Fast Track Courts are functioning invarious States though initially there was proposal to start 1734Fast Track Courts. This year a sum of Rs.75.00 crores have beensanctioned. Earlier a sum of Rs.145/- crores remained unspent.The Authorities will see that this amount is not elapsed and itis allocated for the year 2010-11 financial year. As per thepresent direction, the Fast Track Courts would function by theend of March, 2010. The Fast Track Courts may continue tofunction with funds available from the Union of India. TheStates and the High Courts shall also endeavor to see that vacantposts are filled up at the earliest. List in the 2nd week of May, 2010. (R.K. Dhawan) (Veera Verma) Court Master Court Master

ì, 1ITEM NO.49 COURT NO.1 SECTION XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGST.C.(C) NO.22/2001BRIJ MOHAN LAL Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)(Status report fr the Quarter ending March, 2009 as perdirections dated 6.5.2009 and appln.for directions and officereport)Date: 26/02/2010 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK VERMA Mr. P.S. Narasimha, Sr. Adv. (A.C.)For Petitioner(s) Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Mohan Jain, ASG Mr. S.W.A. Qadri, Adv. Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Adv. Ms. Rohini Mukherjee, Adv. Ms. Anjani Aiyangari, Adv. Ms.Jaspreet Aulakh, Adv. Mr. Ashok Bhan, Adv. Ch.Shamshuddin Khan, Adv. Mrs.Sunita Sharma, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv. Mr. P. Parmeswaran,Adv. (N.P.) Ms. A.Subhashini ,Adv Mr. S.C.Mishra, Sr. Adv. Ms.Shobha Dixit, Sr.Adv. Mr.Shail Kr.Dwivedi, AAG Mr.Rajeev K.Dubey, Adv. Mr.Kapil Mishra, Adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, Adv. Mr. Ashok Mathur ,Adv(NP) Mr. Anis Suhrawardy ,Adv Mr. S. Mehdi Imam, Adv. Mr.Parvez Dabas, Adv. 2 Mr. B.B. Singh ,Adv(NP) Mr.L.Nageswara Rao, Sr.Adv. Mr. Raja Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. G.S. Chatterjee ,Adv Mr. G. Prakash ,AdvState of Bihar & Mr. Gopal Singh ,AdvTripura Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv. Ms. Hemantika Wahi ,Adv Mr. Somnath Padhan, Adv.

Mr. Janaranjan Das ,Adv Ms. Kamini Jaiswal ,Adv Mr. B. Sridhar, Adv. For Mr. K. Ram Kumar ,Adv Mr. Pradeep Misra ,Adv(NP) Mr. Prashant Bhushan ,Adv(NP) Mr. Raj Kumar Mehta ,Adv(NP) Mrs Rachna Gupta ,Adv.(NP) Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain ,Adv(NP) Mr. T.G. Narayanan Nair ,Adv Mr. K.N. Madhussodanan, Adv. Mr. Bhaskar P. Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Tara Chander Sharma, Adv. Ms. Neelam Sharma, Adv. Mr. T.V. Ratnam ,Adv Mrs V.D. Khanna ,Adv(NP) Mrs. Aruna Mathur, Adv. Mr. Vimal Dubey, Adv. Mr. Amarjit Singh, Adv. For M/S Arputham,Aruna & Co. ,Adv Mr. A.P. Sahay, Adv. Ms.Nishtha Jain, Adv. For Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Adv.(NP) 3Mr. Gopal Prasad, Adv.Mr. C.D. Singh, Adv.Mr.Shashank S.Parihar, Adv.Mr.P.H.Parekh, Sr.Adv.Mr.Ajay Kr.Jha, Adv.Mr.Arjun Garg, Adv.Mr.Vishal Prasad, Adv.For M/s. Parekh & Co., Advs.Mr. K. Nobin Singh, Adv.Mr. P.I. Jose, Adv.Mr. Vivek Kandari, Adv.Mr.B.K.Mishra, Adv.Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, Adv.(NP)Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Adv.Mr. Prabu Rama Subramanian, Adv.Mr. Sanjay Kharde, Adv.Ms. Asha G. Nair, Adv.Mr. Anil Shrivastav, Adv.Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Adv.Mr. V.N. Raghupaty, Adv.(NP)

Mr. Javed Mahmud Rao, Adv.(NP)Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Adv.(NP)Mr. Annam D.N. Rao, Adv.Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv.Mr. Navneet, Adv.Mr.Ranjan Mazumdar, Adv.For M/s. Corporate Law Group, Advs.Mr. J.P. Dhanda, Adv.(NP)Mr. B.S. Banthia, Adv.Mrs. Revathy Raghavan, Adv.(NP)Mr. R.S. Jena, Adv.Mr. Mukesh K. Giri, Adv. 4 Mr. Vishwajit Singh, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, Adv.(NP) Mr. Manish Kumar Saran, Adv.(NP) Mr. K.N. Madhusoodhanan, Adv. Mr. R. Satish, Adv. Mr. Pragyan P. Sharma, Adv. Dr. R.N. Upadhyay, Adv. For Mr. P.V. Yogeshwaran, Adv. Mr. T. Harish Kumar, Adv. Mr. P. Prasanth, Adv. Mr. V. Vasudevan, Adv. Mrs.Jayshree Anand, AAG Mr. K.K. Mahalik, Adv. Mr. Ajay Pal, Adv. Noorjahan, Adv. Mr. R. Nedumaran, Adv. Mr. Manjit Singh, AAG For Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta, Adv. Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha, Adv. Mr. Ashok K. Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Shaiwal Srivastava, Adv. M/s. Sanjay R. Hegde, A. Rohan Singh, Ramesh S. Pradhan, Vikrant Yadav, Mr. Ramesh Mishra, Advs. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Learned A.S.G. submits that already funds have beenreleased for the Fast Track Courts to function upto 31.03.2010and further allocation, if any, could be made in the presentbudget. List on 19.3.2010.

(G.V.Ramana) (Veera Verma) Court Master Court Master

X3 1ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.1 SECTION XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGST.C.(C) NO.22/2001BRIJ MOHAN LAL Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)(Status report fr the Quarter ending March, 2009 as per directiondated 6.5.2009 and office report)Date: 22/02/2010 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK VERMA HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE B.S. CHAUHAN Mr. P.S. Narasimha, Sr. Adv. (A.C.)For Petitioner(s) Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Mohan Jain, ASG Mr. S.W.A. Qadri, Adv. Mr. Prabhal Kumar, Adv. Ms. Rohini Mukherjee, Adv. Ms. Anjani Aiyangari, Adv. Mr. Ashok Bhan, Adv. Ch. Shamsuddin Khan, Adv. Mrs. Sunita Sharma, adv. Mr. S.S. Rawat, Adv. For Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv. Mr. P. Parmeswaran,Adv. (N.P.) Ms. A.Subhashini ,Adv Mr. Ratnakar Dash, Sr. Adv. Ms. Priyanka Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, Adv. Mr. Ashok Mathur ,Adv 2 Mr. S. Mehdi Imam, Adv. Mr. Tabrez Ahmad, Adv. For Mr. Anis Suhrawardy ,Adv Mr. B.B. Singh ,Adv Mr. Raja Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. G.S. Chatterjee ,Adv Mr. G. Prakash ,AdvState of Bihar Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv.& Tripura For Mr. Gopal Singh ,Adv

Ms. Hemantika Wahi ,Adv Mr. Somnath Padhan, Adv. Mr. Janaranjan Das ,Adv Mr. Swetaketu Mishra, Adv. Mr. P.P. Nayak, Adv. Ms. Kamini Jaiswal ,Adv Mr. B. Sridhar, Adv. Mr. K. Ram Kumar ,Adv Mr. Pradeep Misra ,Adv Mr. Prashant Bhushan ,Adv Mr. Raj Kumar Mehta ,Adv Mrs Rachna Gupta ,Adv. Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain ,Adv Mr. T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, Sr. Adv. Mr. T.G. Narayanan Nair ,Adv Mr. K.N. Madhussodanan, Adv. Mr. Bhaskar P. Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Tara Chander Sharma, Adv. Ms. Neelam Sharma, Adv. Mr. T.V. Ratnam ,Adv Mrs V.D. Khanna ,Adv Mrs. Aruna Mathur, Adv. Mr. Vimal Dubey, Adv. Mr. Amarjit Singh, Adv. For M/S Arputham,Aruna & Co. ,Adv 3Mr. A.P. Sahay, Adv.Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Adv.Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Adv.Mr. Gopal Prasad, Adv.Mr. C.D. Singh, Adv.Mr. Sunny Choudhary, Adv.Mr. Aditya Singh, Adv.Ms. K. Enatali Sema, Adv.Mr. Edward Belho, Adv.Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Adv.M/s. Parekh & Co., Advs.Mr. K. Nobin Singh, Adv.Mr. P.I. Jose, Adv.Mr. Vivek Kandari, Adv.Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, Adv.Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Adv.Mr. S. J. Aristotle, Adv.Mr. Prabu Rama Subramanian, Adv.

Mr. Sanjay Kharde, Adv.Ms. Asha G. Nair, Adv.Mr. Anil Shrivastav, Adv.Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Adv.Mr. V.N. Raghupaty, Adv.Mr. Javed Mahmud Rao, Adv.Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Adv.Mr. C.S. Ashri, Adv.Mr. Annam D.N. Rao, Adv.Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv.Mr. Riku Sarma, Adv.For M/s. Corporate Law Group, Advs.Mr. J.P. Dhanda, Adv. 4 Mr. B.S. Banthia, Adv. Mrs. Revathy Raghavan, Adv. Mr. R.S. Jena, Adv. Mr. Mukesh K. Giri, Adv. Mr. Vishwajit Singh, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar Saran, Adv. Mr. K.N. Madhusoodhanan, Adv. Mr. R. Satish, Adv. Mr. Pragyan P. Sharma, Adv. Mr. P.V. Yogeshwaran, Adv. Dr. R.N. Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. T. Harish Kumar, Adv. Mr. P. Prasanth, Adv. Mr. V. Vasudevan, Adv. Mr. K.K. Mahalik, Adv. Mr. Ajay Pal, Adv. Mr. R. Nedumaran, aDv. Mr. Manjit Singh, AAG For Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta, Adv. Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha, Adv. Mr. Vishal Prasad, Adv. Mr. Ashk K. Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Trivedi, Adv. Mr. S. Srivastava, Adv. M/s. Sanjay R. Hegde, A. Rohan Singh, Ramesh S. Pradhan, Vikrant Yadav, Mr. Ramesh Mishra, Advs. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R The Fast Tract Courts are functioning in all the Statesand are funded by the Union of India. It is brought to ournotice that they are functioning upto 28th February, 2010. 5Learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for Union of Indiato take further steps/instructions from the Union of India It is also brought to our notice that in some of theStates, the vacancies in the Fast Track Courts are not filled upespecially in the State of Gujarat, West Bengal, Andra Pradesh,Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, U.P. etc. The States are directed tofile a statement as to why these posts are not filled up. TheRegistrars of the respective High Courts are also directed tofile the statement as to why no steps were taken up to fill ofthese vacancies. The statements to be filed within four weeks. A copy of this Order be sent to the Registrar Generalsof various High Courts and also to the Chief Secretaries. List on 26.2.2010. (R.K. Dhawan) (Veera Verma) Court Master Court Master

\236" 1ITEM NO.3 COURT NO.1 SECTION XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSTRANSFER CASE (CIVIL.) NO. 22 OF 2001BRIJ MOHAN LAL Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)(Status report for the quarter ending March, 2009 as perdirections dated 6.5.2009 and office report )I.A.No.24 (Appln.(s) for directions)Date: 18/01/2010 This Petition was called on for hearingtoday.CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.RAVEENDRAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK VERMAFor Petitioner(s) Mr.P.S.Narasimha,Sr.Adv. Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri,Adv. Ms.Anuradha Rustagi,Adv. For Mrs.D. Bharathi Reddy, Adv. Mr. S. Ravi Shankar, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr.Gopal Subramanium,Sol.Genl.of India Mr.Ashok Bhan,Adv. Ms.Sadhna Sandhu, Adv. Mr.S.S.Rawat, Adv. For Mrs.Anil Katiyar, Adv For Mr. P. Parmeswaran,Adv. Ms. A.Subhashini ,Adv Mr.Ajay Kr.Jha, Adv. Mr.Arjun Garg, Adv. For M/s.Parekh & Co.,Advs. Mr. Anil K. Jha ,Adv(NP) Mr. Ashok Mathur ,Adv(NP) Mr. Anis Suhrawardy ,Adv(NP) 2Mr. B.B. Singh ,Adv(NP)Mr. G.S. Chatterjee ,AdvMr. G. Prakash ,AdvMr.Manish Kumar, Adv.for Mr. Gopal Singh ,AdvMr.Rituraj Biswas, Adv.For Mr.Gopal Singh, Adv.Ms. Hemantika Wahi ,Adv

Ms.Jesal,Adv.Mr. Janaranjan Das ,AdvMs. Kamini Jaiswal ,Adv(NP)Mr.B.Sreedhar, Adv.For Mr. K. Ram Kumar ,AdvMr. Naresh K. Sharma ,AdvMr. Pradeep Misra ,Adv(NP)Mr. Prashant Bhushan ,Adv(NP)Mr. Raj Kumar Mehta ,Adv(NP)Mrs Rachna Gupta ,AdvMr.Aneesh Mittal,Adv.Mr.Akarsh Garg, Adv.for Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain ,AdvMr. T.G. Narayanan Nair ,AdvMr.K.N.Madhusoodanan, Adv.Mr. T.C. Sharma ,AdvMiss Neelam Sharma,Adv.Mr. T.V. Ratnam ,AdvMrs V.D. Khanna ,Adv(NP)Mrs.Aruna Mathur, Adv.Mr.Amarjeet Singh Girsa, Adv.Mr.Vimal Dubey, Adv.For M/S Arputham,Aruna & Co. ,AdvsMr. Ranjan Mukherjee ,Adv 3Mr. V.G. Pragasam ,AdvMr.S.J.Aristotle, Adv.Mr. Annam D.N. Rao ,AdvMrs.Revathy Raghavan ,Adv(NP)Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh ,AdvMr. J.P. Dhanda ,Adv(NP)Mr. B.S. Banthia ,AdvMr. Mukesh K. Giri ,Adv(NP)Mr.Khwairakpam Nobin Singh ,AdvMr. Radha Shyam Jena ,AdvMr. Anil Shrivastav ,AdvMr. Sanjay R. Hegde ,Adv(NP)Mr. P.I. Jose ,AdvMr.Vivek Kanduri, Adv.Mr. Vishwajit Singh ,Adv(NP)

Mr. Gopal Prasad ,AdvMr. Javed Mahmud Rao ,Adv(NP)Mr. V.N. Raghupathy ,Adv(NP)Ms. Rachana Srivastava ,AdvMr.Riku Sarma, Adv.for M/S Corporate Law Group ,AdvsMr. Rajesh Srivastava ,AdvMr. C.D. Singh ,Adv(NP)Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra ,Adv(NP)Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran ,AdvMr.Manish Kumar Saran ,AdvMr.T.Harish Kumar, Adv.Mr.Prasanth P.,Adv. 4 Mr.Ajay Pal, Adv. Mr.Rajeev K.Dubey, Adv. For Mr.Kamlendra Mishra,Adv. Mr.K.N.Madhusoodanan, Adv. Mr.R.Sathish, Adv. Mr.Ashok K.Srivastava, Adv. Mr.Sanjay V.Kharde, Adv. Ms.Asha G.Nair, Adv. Mr.Milind Kumar, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The Secretary General will get information as to howmany is the sanctioned strength of the Fast Track Courts andhow many are working under each High Court from the RegistrarGenerals of each High Court. A copy of the order may be sentto Registrar Generals of each High Court and the respectiveRegistrar Generals to furnish the information sought within twoweeks to the Secretary General. List in the last week of February, 2010. (G.V.Ramana) (Veera Verma) Court Master Court Master

F! 1ITEM NO.1 COURT NO.1 SECTION XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGST.C.(C) NO.22/2001BRIJ MOHAN LAL Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)(Status report fr the Quarter ending March, 2009 as per directiondated 6.5.2009 and office report)Date: 14/12/2009 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. PANCHAL HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE B.S. CHAUHANFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. S.W.A. Qadri, Adv. Ms. Anjani Aiyangari, Adv. Mr. R. Bastion, Adv. Mr. S.S. Rawat, Adv. For Mr. D.S. Mahra, Adv. Mr. P. Parmeswaran,Adv. (N.P.) Ms. A.Subhashini ,Adv Mrs. Shobha Dixit, Sr. Adv. Mr. T.N. Singh, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Dubey, Adv. Mr. Anil K. Jha ,Adv Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, Adv. Mr. Ashok Mathur ,Adv Mr. S. Mehdi Imam, Adv. Mr. Tabrez Ahmad, Adv. For Mr. Anis Suhrawardy ,Adv 2 Mr. B.B. Singh ,Adv Mr. Raja Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. G.S. Chatterjee ,Adv Mr. G. Prakash ,AdvState of Bihar Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Adv.& Tripura For Mr. Gopal Singh ,Adv Ms. Hemantika Wahi ,Adv

Mr. Somnath Padhan, Adv. Mr. Janaranjan Das ,Adv Mr. Swetaketu Mishra, Adv. Mr. P.P. Nayak, Adv. Ms. Kamini Jaiswal ,Adv Mr. B. Sridhar, Adv. Mr. K. Ram Kumar ,Adv Mr. Pradeep Misra ,Adv Mr. Prashant Bhushan ,Adv Mr. Raj Kumar Mehta ,Adv Mrs Rachna Gupta ,Adv. Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain ,Adv Mr. Siddharth Jain, Adv. Mr. T.G. Narayanan Nair ,Adv Mr. Bhaskar P. Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Tara Chander Sharma, Adv. Ms. Neelam Sharma, Adv. Mr. T.V. Ratnam ,Adv Mrs V.D. Khanna ,AdvState & H.C. Mr. A. Mariarputham, Sr. Adv. Mrs. Aruna Mathur, Adv. Mr. Amarjit Singh, Adv. For M/S Arputham,Aruna & Co. ,Adv Mr. A.P. Sahay, Adv. Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Adv. 3Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Adv.Mr. Gopal Prasad, Adv.Mr. C.D. Singh, Adv.Mr. Sunny Choudhary, Adv.Mr. Aditya Singh, Adv.Mr. Shashank Parihar, Adv.Ms. K. Enatali Sema, Adv.Mr. P.H. Parekh, Sr. Adv.Mr. Arjun Garg, Adv.For M/s. Parekh & Co., Advs.Mr. K. Nobin Singh, Adv.Mr. P.I. Jose, Adv.Mr. Vivek Kandari, Adv.Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, Adv.Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Adv.Mr. S. J. Aristotle, Adv.Mr. Prabu Rama Subramanian, Adv.Mr. Sanjay Kharde, Adv.

Ms. Asha G. Nair, Adv.Mr. Anil Shrivastav, Adv.Mr. V.N. Raghupaty, Adv.Mr. Javed Mahmud Rao, Adv.Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Adv.Mr. C.S. Ashri, Adv.Mr. Annam D.N. Rao, Adv.Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Adv.Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv.Ms. Momota Oinam, Adv.Mr. Riku Sarma, Adv.For M/s. Corporate Law Group, Advs.Mr. J.P. Dhanda, Adv. 4 Mr. B.S. Banthia, Adv. Mrs. Revathy Raghavan, Adv. Mr. R.S. Jena, Adv. Mr. Mukesh K. Giri, Adv. Mr. Vishwajit Singh, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar Saran, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List in the 3rd week of January, 2010.(R.K. Dhawan) (Veera Verma)Court Master Court Master

À*ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.1 SECTION XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGST.C.(C) NO.22/2001BRIJ MOHAN LAL Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)(Office report with status/quarterly report received from High Courtand State Governments for direction)Date: 07/09/2009 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAM Mr. P. Narasimha, Sr. Adv. (A.C.)For Petitioner(s) Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Gopal Subramanium, SG Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, Adv. Mr. S.W.A. Qadri, Adv. For Mr. P. Parmeswaran,Adv. Ms. A.Subhashini ,Adv Mrs. Sobha Dixit, Sr. Adv. Mr. Manoj K. Mishra, Adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Dubey, Adv. Mr. Anil K. Jha ,Adv Mr. Ashok Mathur ,Adv Mr. Anis Suhrawardy ,Adv Mr. B.B. Singh ,Adv Mr. Raja Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. G.S. Chatterjee ,Adv Mr. G. Prakash ,Adv -2-State of Bihar Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv. For Mr. Gopal Singh ,AdvState of Tripura Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv. For Mr. Gopal Singh ,Adv Ms. Hemantika Wahi ,Adv Ms. Pinky, Adv. Mr. Somanath Padhan, Ad. Mr. Janaranjan Das ,Adv Mr. Swetaketu Mishra, Adv.

Mr. P.P. Nayak, Adv. Ms. Kamini Jaiswal ,Adv Mr. K. Ram Kumar ,Adv Mr. Pradeep Misra ,Adv Mr. Prashant Bhushan ,Adv Mr. Raj Kumar Mehta ,Adv Mrs Rachna Gupta ,Adv Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain ,Adv Mr. T.G. Narayanan Nair ,Adv Mr. T.V. Ratnam ,Adv Mrs V.D. Khanna ,AdvState of Sikkim & Mr. A. Mariarputham, Sr. Adv.H.C.of Sikkim Mrs. Aruna Mathur, Adv. Mr. Vimal Dubey, Adv. For M/S Arputham,Aruna & Co. ,AdvPatna H.C. Mr. P.H. Parekh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha, Adv. For M/s. Parekh & Co., Advs. Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Adv. Mr. S.J. Aaaaristotle, Adv. Mr. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv.State of T.N. Mr. T. Harish Kumar, Adv. Mr. Prasanth P., Adv. Mr. V. Vasudevan, Adv.State of U.K. Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Adv. Mr. A.P. Sahay, Adv. Mr. Noorullah, Adv.State of Raj. Mr. Devanshu Kumar Devesh, Adv. Mr. Milind Kumar, Adv. -3- Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Adv. Mr. Amit K. Chawla, Adv. Mr. A. Rohen Singh, Adv. Mr. Govind Goel, Adv. Mr. Nitin Singh, Adv. Mr. Ambuj Agarwal, Adv. Mr. C.D. Singh, Adv.State of Mizoram Mr. K.N. Madhusoodhanan, Adv. Mr. R. Sathish, Adv.State of Nagaland Mr. Edward Belho, Adv. Mr. P. Athuimei R. Naga, Adv.State of Arunachal Mr. Anil Shrivastav, Adv.Pradesh Mr. Riku Sarma, Adv. For M/s. Corporate Law Group, Adv.S.O Maharashtra Mr. Sanjay V. Kharde, Adv. Mrs. Asha Gopalan Nair, Adv.Allahabad H.C. Mr. Ashok K. Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Shaiwal Srivastava, Adv.State of W.B. Mr. Bhaskar Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma, Adv.

Ms. Neelam Sharma, Adv.State of Haryana Mr. Manjit Singh, AAG For Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta, Adv.State of Pb. Mr. K.K. Mahalik, Adv. For Mr. Ajay Pal, Adv.S.O. Manipur Mr. Khawairakpam Nobin Singh, Adv. Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Adv. Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, Adv. Mr. Javed Mahmud Rao, Adv. Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Annam D.N. Rao, Adv. Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. J.P. Dhanda, Adv. -4- Mr. B.S. Banthia, Adv. Mrs. Revathy Raghavan, Adv. Mr. Radha Shyam Jena, Adv. Mr. Mukesh K. Giri, Adv. Mr. Vishwajit Singh, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, Adv. Mr. P.I. Jose, Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar Saran, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Post in the 1st week of December, 2009.(R.K. Dhawan) (Veera Verma)Court Master Court Master

<M 1ITEM NO.3 COURT NO.5 SECTION XVIA SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A.NO. 21 in I.A.NO. 13 in TRANSFER CASE (CIVIL) NO.22 OF 2001BRIJ MOHAN LAL Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)(For impleadment and office report)Date: 02/09/2008 These matters were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.B. SINHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CYRIAC JOSEPHFor Petitioner(s) Mr. P.S. Narasimha,Adv. (A.C.) Mr. Somiran Sharma,Adv. Mr. P.P. Rao, Sr.Adv. Ms. A. Suathi,Adv. Ms. Smitasani,Adv. Mr. Venkateshwara Rao Anumolu,Adv. Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri,Adv. Mr. Rohit Mammen Alex,Adv. Ms. Anne Mathew,Adv. Mr. P.S. Sudheer,Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Sachdeva,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. G.E. Vahanvati, SG Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari,Adv. Mr. B.K. Prasad,Adv. Mr. P. Parmeswaran,Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra,Adv.For High Court of Gujarat Mr. P.I. Jose,Adv. Mr. K.S.Bhati,Adv. Mr. B.K. Mishra,Adv. Mr. Vivek Kandari,Adv. Mr. Anupam Mishra,Adv. Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta,Adv. Mr. Sheo Kumar Gupta,Adv. 2 Mr. Bhanu Pratap Gupta,Adv. Mr. A.N. Bhardaiyar,Adv.For State of Haryana Mr. Manjit Singh,Adv. Mr. T.V. George,Adv.For State of Maharashtraand Bombay High Court Mr. S.S. Shinde,Adv. Mr. A.P. Mayee,Adv. Mrs. Asha G. Nair,Adv.

For the State of Punjab Mrs. Jayshree Anand,Adv. Mr. K.K. Mahalik,Adv. Mr. Ajay Pal,Adv.For State of Arunachal Pradesh Mr. Anil Shrivastav,Adv. Mr. Ritu Raj,Adv.For State of Goa Ms. A. Subhashini,Adv.For the State of Kerala Mr. G. Prakash,Adv. Ms. Beena Prakash,Adv. Mr. P.K. Jayakrishnan,Adv.For State of Manipur Mr. KH. Nobin Singh,Adv. Mr. Tarun Jamwal,Adv. Mr. S. Biswajit Meitei,Adv.For A.P. High Court Mr. B. Sridhar,Adv. Mr. R. Ramkumar,Adv. for M/s. K. Ram Kumar & Associates,Advs.For High Court of Patna Mr. Ajay K. Jha,Adv. Somanadri Goud,Adv. Ms. Ayesha Chawdhry,Adv. for Parekh & Co.,Advs.For Calcutta High Court Mr. L. Nageshwara Rao, Sr.Adv. Mr. Raja Chatterjee,Adv. Mr. G.S. Chatterjee,Adv.For State of U.P. Ms. Shobha Dikshit, Sr.Adv. Mr. Mohd. Fuzail Khan,Adv. Mr. Anil Kumar Jha,Adv. Dr. Indra Pratap Singh,Adv. Mr. Pradeep Mishra,Adv.State of Chhattisgarh Ms. Suparna Srivastava,Adv. Mr. Neeraj Gupta,Adv. Mr. Rajesh Srivastava,Adv. Ms. Nidhi Minocha,Adv.State of M.P. Mr. Govind Goel,Adv. 3 Mr. C.D. Singh,Adv. Mr. Sunny Chowdhary,Adv. Mr. Kamal Kumar,Adv. Mr. B.S. Banthia,Adv. Mr. Vikas Upadhyay,Adv.For State of Rajasthan Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta,Addl. Adv. Genl. Mr. Naveen Kumar Singh,Adv. Mr. Shashwat Gupta,Adv.For Orissa High Court Mr. Janaranjan Das,Adv. Mr. Swetaketu Mishra,Adv.For State of Mizoram Mr. K.N. Madhusoodhanan,Adv. Mr. R. Satish,Adv.For State of H.P. Mr. Naresh K. Sharma,Adv. Mr. Vivek Singh Attri,Adv.

For U.T. of Chandigarh Ms. Kamini Jaiswal,Adv. Mr. S. Datta,Adv.For State of Karnataka Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde,Adv. Mr. Vikrant Yadav,Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Chawla,Adv. Mr. Atul Varma,Adv. Mr. Amit Kr. Chawla,Adv.For High Court of J & K Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma,Adv. Miss Neelam Sharma,Adv. Mr. Kishan Datta,Adv.For State of West Bengal Mr. Bhaskar P. Gupta, Sr.Adv. Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma,Adv. Mr. Krishan Datta,Adv. Miss Neelam Sharma,Adv.For Allahabad High Court Mr. Ashok K. Srivastava,Adv. Mr. Shairwal Srivastava,Adv. Mr. Indrajeet Das,Adv. Mr. Saurabh Trivedi,Adv.For State of Uttarakhand Ms. Rachana Srivastava,Add.Adv.Gen. Mr. A.P. Sahay,Adv.For Rajasthan High Court Mr. Sunil Kr. Jain,Adv.For State of Tamil Nadu Mr. Subramanium Prasad,Adv. Mr. R. Gopal Krishan,Adv.For State of Sikkim & Mr. Sonam P. Wangdi, S.G.,SikkimHigh Court of Sikkim Mr. A. Mariarputham,Ad. 4 Ms. Aruna Mathur,Adv. for M/S. Arputham,Aruna & Co.,Advs.For Govt. of Pondicherry Mr. V.G. Pragasam,Adv. Mr. S. Joseph Aristotle,Adv. Mr. S. Prabu Ramasubramanian,Adv.For State of Nagaland Mr. U. Hazarika,Adv. Mr. Satya Mitra,Adv. Ms. Sumita Hazarika,Adv.For NCT of Delhi Mr. Ashok Bhan,Adv. Ms. Suita Sharma,Adv. Mr. R.C. Kathia,Adv. Ms. Anil Katiyar,Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra,Adv.For State of Assam Mr. Riku Sarma,Adv. Mr. Ranjan Mazumdar,Adv. for M/S Corporate Law Group,Advs.For State of Meghalaya Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee,Adv. Mr. S.C. Ghosh,Adv.For State of Tripura Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar,Adv. Mr. Rituraj Biswas,Adv.For State of Bihar Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv. Mr. Anukul Raj,Adv.For State of Gujarat Mrs. Hemantika Wahi,Adv. Ms. Pinky,Adv.

Ms. Sangeeta Singh,Adv.For State of Jharkhand Mr. Manish Kumar Saran,Adv. Mr. Nirmal Kumar Ambastha,Adv.For State of A.P. Mrs. D. Bharati Reddy,Adv. Mr. Ashok Mathur,Adv.For State of J & K Mr. Anis Suhrawardy,Adv. Mrs. Shamama Anis,Adv. Mr. S. Mehdi Imam,Adv. Mr. Amit Anand,Adv. Mr. B.B. Singh,Adv. Mr. Prashant Bhushan ,Adv Mr. Raj Kumar Mehta ,Adv Mrs. Rachna Gupta ,Adv 5 Mrs. V.D. Khanna,Adv. Mr. M.N. Sharma,Adv. Mr. Annam D.N. Rao,Adv. Mrs. Revathy Raghavan,Adv. Mr. J.P. Dhanda,Adv. Mr. Mukesh K. Giri,Adv. Mr. Radha Shyam Jena ,Adv Mr. Vishwajit Singh,Adv. Mr. T.V. Ratnam,Adv.UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following ORDER One of the questions which arises for consideration is as to whether the appointees in the Fast Track Courts would be entitled to regular scale of pay on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. This Bench has been constituted to monitor the working of the Fast Track Courts. We do not think that such a question should be determined by this Bench. It has been pointed out that implementation of the judgment of this Court in All India Judges' Association & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. [2002 (4) SCC 247], is pending before a three-Judge Bench of this Court. We, therefore, are of the opinion that interest of justice would be subserved if the applicants are given liberty to file an appropriate application to intervene in the said case. Liberty to mention. I.A. is disposed of on the above terms. (A.S. BISHT) (VIJAY DHAWAN) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

ÌMentioned matter COURT NO.5 SECTION XVIA SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. NO. 21 in I.A. NO. 13 in TRANSFER CASE (CIVIL) NO.22 OF 2001BRIJ MOHAN LAL Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)WITHT.C.(C) No.23/2001, SLP(C) No.7870/2001, SLP(C) No.10645/2001T.P.(C) Nos.407-410/2001WITHW.P.(C) No.140/2005Date: 28/08/2008 These matters were mentioned today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.B. SINHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CYRIAC JOSEPHFor Petitioner(s) Mr. P.S.Narasimha,Adv. (A.C.) Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri,Adv. Mr. Venkateshwara Rao Anumolu,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. P. Parmeswaran,Adv. Mr. P.I. Jose,Adv. Mr. A.N. Bhardaiyar,Adv. etc. etc. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following ORDER List the matter on Tuesday, 2nd September, 2008. (A.S. BISHT) (PUSHAP LATA BHARDWAJ) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

>ITEM No.1 Court No.5 SECTION -XVIA SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSI.A.No. 21 in I.A.13 in T.C.(C) No. 22/2001Brij Mohan Lal Petitioner VERSUSUnion of India & Ors. Respondents(for impleadment and office report)Date: 6.8.2008 :This matter was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.B.SINHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CYRIAC JOSEPHFor Petitioner(s)/ Mr. P.S. Narasimha, A.C.Respondent(s) Mr. P.S.Narasimha, Adv.for M/s P.S.N. & Co.in I.A.13 Mr. P.S. Narasimha, Adv. Mr. Venkteshwara Rao Anumolu, Adv. Mr.Chander Shekhar Ashri, Adv. Mr. P.P.Rao, Sr. Adv. Mr. A.Sumathi,Adv.Patna High Court Mr.Ajay Kumar Jha, Adv. Ms.Divya Sinha, Adv. for M/s P.H. Parekh & Co.High Court of A.P. Mr. B.Sridhar, Adv. Mr. K. Ram Kumar, Adv.,UOI Mr.Ashok K.Srivastava, Adv. Mr. B.K. Prasad, Adv. Mr.P. Parmeswaran, Adv. Ms. Sunita Sharma, Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra, Adv.UOI/NCT Delhi Mr. D.S.Mahra, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv.Allahabad High Court Mr.Ashok K.Srivastava, Adv. Mr.Saurabh Trivedi, Adv.Intervenor Mr. Viswajit Singh,Adv. -1-State of Tripura Mr.Gopal Singh, Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv. Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Adv.State of Bihar Mr.Gopal Singh, Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv. Mr.Rituraj Biswas, Adv.State of H.P. Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, Adv.State of Goa Ms.A.Subhashini, Adv.State of Gujarat Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Adv.

Ms.Pinky, Adv. Ms. K.Enatoli Sema, Adv. Mr. Somnath,Adv. Mr.G. Prakash, Adv. Mr. K.S. Bhati, Adv. Ms. D. Bharathi Reddy, Adv.(NP) Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Adv. Mrs.Rachna Gupta, Adv. Mr.Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Adv. Mr.Javed Mahmud Rao, Adv.(NP) Mr.Ashok Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr.A.D.N.Rao, Adv. Mr. T.V.Ratnam, Adv. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Adv. Mr.Anil Shrivastav, Adv. Mr.Anis Suhrawardy, Adv.(NP) Mr.Sanjay R. Hegde, Adv. Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv.State of Assam Mr.Riku Sarma,Adv. M/s Corporate Law Group Mr. B.B. Singh, Adv.(NP) Mr. J.P.Dhanda, Adv.(NP) Mr.Ashok Mathur, Adv. -2- Mr.Govind Goel, Adv. Mr.C.D.Singh, Adv. Mr.Ram Naresh Yadav,Adv. Mr.Miten Mahapatra, Adv. Mr.B.S.Banthia, Adv. Mr.Vikas Upadhyay,Adv. Mrs. V.D. Khanna, Adv.State of West Bengal Mr. T.C.Sharma, Adv. Ms. Neelam Sharma, Adv. Mr.T.C.Sharma, Adv.State of T.N. Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Adv. Mr. S. Joseph Aristotle, Adv. Mr.S. Prabu Ramasubramanian,Adv.State of U.P. Ms.Shoba Dikshit,Sr.Adv. Mr.Yunus Malik,Adv. Ms. Mohd.Fuzail Khan,Adv.

Mr.Anil Kumar Jha,Adv. Mr.Raj Kumar Mehta, Adv. Mr. M.N. Sharma, Adv. Mr. A. Mariarputham,Adv. Ms.Aruna Mathur,Adv. M/s Arputham Aruna & Co. Mrs.Revathy Raghavan, Adv.(NP) Mr. Radha Shyam Jena, Adv. Mr. Mukesh K.Giri, Adv.State of Haryana Mr. Manjit Singh, AAG Mr. T.V. George, Adv.State of Chhattisgarh Ms.Suparana Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, Adv.Calcutta High Court Mr.G.S.Chatterjee, Adv. Mr.Raja Chatterjee, Adv. Mr.Sachin Das, Adv. Mr.Sunil Kumar Jain,Adv.High Court of Orissa Mr. Janaranjan Das, Adv. Mr.Swetaketu Mishra, Adv.State of Punjab Mrs. Jayshree Anand, Adv. Mr. K.K. Mahalik, Adv. Mr. Ajay Pal, Adv. Mr. Kuldip Singh, Adv. -3-State of Manipur Mr. Kh. Nobin Singh, Adv. Mr.David Rao, Adv. Mr. S. Biswajit Meitei, Adv. Mr. Vijay Prakash, Adv.State of Jharkhand Mr. Manish Kumar Saran, Adv.State of Arunachal Mr.Anil Shrivastava, Adv.Pradesh Mr.Ritu Raj, Adv.State of Rajasthan Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, Addl.Adv. Genl. Mr. Naveen Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Shashwat Gupta, Adv.State of Mizoram Mr. K.N. Madhusoodhanan, Adv. Mr.R. Satish, Adv.State of M.P. Mr.Govind Goel, Adv. Mr.C.D.Singh, Adv. Mr.Sunney Choudhary, Adv. Mr. B.Bardan, Adv. Mr. Merusagar Samantaray, Adv. Mr.Vairagya Vardhan, Adv. Mr.Sunny Chowdhary, Adv. Mr. Ram Naresh Yadav,Adv.State of Maharashtra Mr.Sanjay Kharde, Adv. Mrs. Asha G. Nair,Adv.

Mr. V.N.Raghupathy,Adv.State of Uttranchal Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Adv. Mr.A.P. Sahay, Adv.High Court of Ms.Rachna Srivastava, Adv.Uttarakhand Mrs.Sunita Sharma, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv.State of Sikkim Mr.A. Mariarputham, Adv. Mrs.Aruna Mathur, Adv. M/s Arputham Aruna & Co.High Court of Sikkim Mr. A. Mariarputham, Adv. Ms. Aruna Mathur, Adv. For M/s Arputham Aruna & Co.State of Karnataka Mr.Sanjay R.Hegde, Adv.State of Tripura Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv. Ms. Retu Rai Biswas, Adv. -4-State of Nagaland Mr. U. Hazarika, Adv. Mr. Satya Mitra, Adv. Ms.Sumita Hazarika, Adv. Mrs.Sunita Sharma, Adv. Mr.D.S. Mahra, Adv. Ms. Malvika Trivedi,Adv. Mr.A.K.Jha, Adv. Mr. Pradeep Misra,Adv. Mr.Tarun Gupta, Adv. Mr.N.Gupta, Adv. Mr. S.Janjani, Adv.State of Chhatisgarh Mr.Atul Jha,Adv. Mr.D.K.Sinha, Adv. Mr,A.V.Rao, Adv. Mr. Prabhakar Parnam, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following ORDER List after two weeks. (Meenu Sethi) (Pushap Lata Bhardwaj) A.R.-cum-P.S. Court Master

ª9ITEM No.1 Court No.6 SECTION -XVIA SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSI.A.No. 21 in I.A.13 in T.C.(C) No. 22/2001Brij Mohan Lal Petitioner VERSUSUnion of India & Ors. Respondents(for impleadment and office report)Date: 12.5.2008 :This matter was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.B.SINHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTAFor Petitioner(s)/ Mr. P.S. Narasimha, A.C.Respondent(s) Mr. P.S.Narasimha, Adv.for M/s P.S.N. & Co. Mr.Chander Shekhar Ashri, Adv. Mr. P.P.Rao, Adv. Mr. A.Sumathi,Adv.Patna High Court Mr.Sameer Parekh,Adv. Mr.Ajay K. Jha, Adv. Ms.Diksha Rai, Adv. M/s P.H. Parekh & Co.High Court of A.P. Mr. B.Sridhar, Adv. Mr. K. Ram Kumar, Adv.,UOI Ms. A. Aiyagari, Adv. Mr.B.K. Prasad, Adv. Mr.P. Parmeswaran, Adv. Ms. Sunita Sharma, Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra, Adv.UOI/NCT Delhi Mr.Ashok Bhan, Adv. Mr. D.S.Mahra, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv.Allahabad High Court Mr.Ashok K.Srivastava, Adv. Mr.Shaiwal Shrivastava, Adv.Intervenor Mr. Vijay Kumar,Adv. Ms.Mayuri Vats, Adv. Mr. Viswajit Singh,Adv.State of Tripura Mr.Gopal Singh, Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv. Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Adv. -1-State of Bihar Mr.Gopal Singh, Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv. Mr.Anukul Raj, Adv.State of H.P. Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, Adv.

State of Goa Ms.A.Subhashini, Adv.State of Gujarat Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Adv. Ms.Jesal, Adv. Mr.G. Prakash, Adv. Mr. P.I.Jose, Adv. Mr. K.S. Bhati, Adv. Mr. Anupam Mishra, Adv. Ms. D. Bharathi Reddy, Adv.(NP) Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Adv. Mrs.Rachna Gupta, Adv. Mr.Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Adv. Mr.Javed Mahmud Rao, Adv.(NP) Mr.Ashok Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr.A.D.N.Rao, Adv. Mr. T.V.Ratnam, Adv. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Adv. Mr.Anil Shrivastav, Adv. Mr.Anis Suhrawardy, Adv.(NP) Mr.Sanjay R. Hegde, Adv. Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv.State of Assam Mr.Riku Sarma,Adv. M/s Corporate Law Group Mr. B.B. Singh, Adv.(NP) Mr. J.P.Dhanda, Adv.(NP) Mr.Ashok Mathur, Adv. Mr.Govind Goel, Adv. Mr.C.D.Singh, Adv. Mr.Ram Naresh Yadav,Adv. Mr.Miten Mahapatra, Adv. Mr.B.S.Banthia, Adv. Mr.Vikas Upadhyay,Adv. -2- Mrs. V.D. Khanna, Adv.State of West Bengal Mr. T.C.Sharma, Adv. Ms. Neelam Sharma, Adv.High Court of J&K Mr.T.C.Sharma, Adv.State of T.N. & Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Adv.U.T.of Pondicherry Mr. S. Joseph Aristotle, Adv. Mr.S. Prabu Ramasubramanian,Adv.State of U.P. Ms.Savitri Pandey, Adv. Mr.Vijay Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr.Anil Kumar Jha,Adv.

Mr.Raj Kumar Mehta, Adv. Mr. M.N. Sharma, Adv. Mr. A. Mariarputham,Adv. Ms.Aruna Mathur,Adv. M/s Arputham Aruna & Co. Mrs.Revathy Raghavan, Adv.(NP) Mr. Radha Shyam Jena, Adv. Mr. Mukesh K.Giri, Adv.State of Haryana Mr. Manjit Singh, Adv. Mr. T.V. George, Adv.State of Chhattisgarh Ms.Suparana Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Minocha, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, Adv.Calcutta High Court Mr.G.S.Chatterjee, Adv. Mr.Raja Chatterjee, Adv. Mr.Sachin Das, Adv. Mr.Sunil Kumar Jain,Adv.High Court of Orissa Mr. Janaranjan Das, Adv. Mr.Swetaketu Mishra, Adv.State of Punjab Mr. Kuldip Singh, Adv.State of Manipur Mr. Kh. Nobin Singh, Adv. Mr.David Rao, Adv. Mr.Tarun Jamwal, Adv.State of Jharkhand Mr. Manish Kumar Saran, Adv. Mr.Nirmal Kumar Ambastha, Adv.State of Arunachal Mr.Anil Shrivastava, Adv.Pradesh Mr.Ritu Raj, Adv.State of Rajasthan Mr. Naveen Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Shashwat Gupta, Adv. -3-State of Mizoram Mr. K.N. Madhusoodhanan, Adv. Mr.R. Satish, Adv.State of M.P. Mr.Govind Goel, Adv. Mr.C.D.Singh,Adv. Mr. Merusagar Samantaray, Adv. Mr.Vairagya Vardhan, Adv. Mr.Sunny Chowdhary, Adv. Mr. Ram Naresh Yadav,Adv.State of Maharashtra Mr.Sanjay Kharde, Adv. Mrs. Asha G. Nair,Adv. Mr. V.N.Raghupathy,Adv.State of Uttranchal Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Adv. Mr.A.P. Sahay, Adv.High Court of Ms.Rachna Srivastava, Adv.Uttarakhand Mr.Ashok Bhan, Adv. Mrs.Sunita Sharma, Adv.

Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv.State of Sikkim Mr.A. Mariarputham, Adv. Mrs.Aruna Mathur, Adv. M/s Arputham Aruna & Co.High Court of Sikkim Mr. A. Mariarputham, Adv. Ms. Aruna Mathur, Adv. For M/s Arputham Aruna & Co.State of Karnataka Mr.Sanjay R.Hegde, Adv.State of Tripura Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv. Ms. Retu Rai Biswas, Adv.State of Nagaland Mr. U. Hazarika, Adv. Mr. Satya Mitra, Adv. Ms.Sumita Hazarika, Adv. Mrs.Sunita Sharma, Adv. Mr.D.S. Mahra, Adv. Ms. Malvika Trivedi,Adv. Mr.A.K.Jha, Adv. Mr. Pradeep Misra,Adv.UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following ORDER List after summer-vacation. (Meenu Sethi) (Pushap Lata Bhardwaj) A.R.-cum-P.S. Court Master

úIT E M NO.MM- B COURT NO.6 S EC T I O N XVIA S UP R E M E COUR T OF I N D I A R ECO R D OF P R OC E E D I N G SI.A. No.2 2- 2 3 / 0 8 In T.C. No.2 2 / 2 0 0 1B R I J MOHAN LA L Petitioner(s) VE R S U SUNION OF INDI A & ORS. Respondent(s)Date: 2 9 / 0 4 / 2 0 0 8 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORA M : HON'B L E MR. JUS T I C E S.B. SIN H A HON'B L E MR. JUS T I C E LO K E S H W A R SING H P A N T AFor Applicant(s) Mr. R. K . Das,S r.Adv. Mr. D. Mahesh Babu,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. P.S. Nar a si mh a n,Adv. Mr. Chandra Shekh a r Ashri,Adv. Mr. P. P a r m e s w a r a n ,Adv. Mr. R.S. Jen a,Adv. Mr. Jan a rj a n Das,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following OR D E R We do not think it necessary to implead the petitioners as party respondents in this matter leaving them to resort to the remedies available to them under law. The I.As are dismissed. (Ganga Tha ku r) (Push ap Lata Bha rdwaj) P. S. to Registra r Court Master

NP 1ITEM NO.32 COURT NO.6 SECTION XVIA SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS TRANSFER CASE (CIVIL) NO.22 OF 2001BRIJ MOHAN LAL Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)(Office report with quarterly report received from High Court andState Govts.)(For directions in disposed of matter) WITHT.C.(C) No.23/2001, SLP(C) No.7870/2001, SLP(C) No.10645/2001T.P.(C) Nos.407-410/2001 WITHW.P.(C) No.140/2005(With application for interim directions)Date: 22/02/2008 These matters were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.B. SINHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.S. SIRPURKARFor Petitioner(s) Mr. P.S. Narasimha,Adv. (A.C.) Mr. Somiran Sharma,Adv. Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri,Adv. Mr. A.V. Rao,Adv. Mr. Prabhakar P.,Adv. Mr. Venkateshwara Rao Anumolu,Adv. Mr. Rohit Mammen Alex,Adv. Mr. Rishi Maheshwari,Adv. Ms. Anne Mathew,Adv. Mr. P.S. Sudheer,Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Sachdeva,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. G.E. Vahanvati, SG Mr. R. Mohan, ASG Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari,Adv. Mr. B.K. Prasad,Adv. Mr. P. Parmeswaran,Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra,Adv. 2For High Court of Gujarat Mr. P.I. Jose,Adv. Ms. Deepti,Adv. Mr. Anupam Mishra,Adv. Mr. P.P. Rao, Sr.Adv. Mrs. A. Sumathi,Adv.

Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta,Adv. Mr. Sheo Kumar Gupta,Adv. Mr. Bhanu Pratap Gupta,Adv. Mr. A.N. Bhardaiyar,Adv.For State of Haryana Mr. Manjit Singh,Adv. Mr. S. Hooda,Adv. Mr. Harikesh,Adv. Mr. T.V. George,Adv.For State of Maharashtraand Bombay High Court Mr. S.S. Shinde,Adv. Mr. A.P. Mayee,Adv. Mrs. Asha G. Nair,Adv.For the State of Punjab Mrs. Jayshree Anand,Adv. Mr. K.K. Mahalik,Adv. Mr. Ajay Pal,Adv.For State of Arunachal Pradesh Mr. Anil Shrivastav,Adv. Mr. Ritu Raj,Adv.For State of Goa Ms. A. Subhashini,Adv.For the State of Kerala Mr. G. Prakash,Adv. Ms. Beena Prakash,Adv. Mr. P.K. Jayakrishnan,Adv.For State of Manipur Mr. KH. Nobin Singh,Adv. Mr. Tarun Jamwal,Adv. Mr. S. Biswajit Meitei,Adv.For A.P. High Court Ms. G. Madhavi,Adv. Mr. B. Sridhar,Adv. M/s. K. Ram Kumar & Associates,Advs.For High Court of Patna Mr. Ajay K. Jha,Adv. Ms. Diksha Rai,Adv. for Parekh & Co.,Advs.For Calcutta High Court Mr. L. Nageshwara Rao, Sr.Adv. Mr. Raja Chatterjee,Adv. Mr. G.S. Chatterjee,Adv.For State of U.P. Ms. Shobha Dikshit, Sr.Adv. 3 Ms. Malvika Trivedi,Adv. Mr. Sandeep Singh,Adv. Mr. Anil Kumar Jha,Adv. Mr. J.M. Rao,Adv. Dr. Indra Pratap Singh,Adv. Mr. Pradeep Mishra,Adv.State of Chhattisgarh Ms. Suparna Srivastava,Adv. Mr. Neeraj Gupta,Adv. Mr. Rajesh Srivastava,Adv. Ms. Nidhi Minocha,Adv.State of M.P. Mr. Govind Goel,Adv. Mr. C.D. Singh,Adv. Mr. Marusagar Samanta Ray,Adv. Mr. Vairagya Vardhan,Adv. Mr. Sunny Chowdhary,Adv.

Mr. B.S. Banthia,Adv. Mr. Vikas Upadhyay,Adv.For State of Rajasthan Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta,Addl. Adv. Genl. Mr. Naveen Kumar Singh,Adv. Mr. Shashwat Gupta,Adv.For Orissa High Court Mr. Janaranjan Das,Adv. Mr. Swetaketu Mishra,Adv.For State of Mizoram Mr. K.N. Madhusoodhanan,Adv. Mr. R. Satish,Adv.For State of H.P. Mr. J.S. Attri,Adv. Mr. Naresh K. Sharma,Adv. Mr. Vivek Singh Attri,Adv.For U.T. of Chandigarh Ms. Kamini Jaiswal,Adv. Mr. S. Datta,Adv.For State of Karnataka Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde,Adv. Mr. Vikrant Yadav,Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Chawla,Adv. Mr. Atul Varma,Adv. Mr. Amit Kr. Chawla,Adv.For High Court of J & K Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma,Adv. Miss Neelam Sharma,Adv. Mr. Rajeev Sharma,Adv. Mr. V. Datta,Adv.For State of West Bengal Mr. Bhaskar P. Gupta, Sr.Adv. Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma,Adv. Mr. Krishan Datta,Adv. Miss Neelam Sharma,Adv. 4For Allahabad High Court Mr. Ashok K. Srivastava,Adv. Mr. Shairwal Srivastava,Adv. Mr. Indrajeet Das,Adv. Mr. Saurabh Trivedi,Adv.For State of Uttarakhand Ms. Rachana Srivastava,Add.Adv.Gen. Mr. A.P. Sahay,Adv.For Rajasthan High Court Mr. Sunil Kr. Jain,Adv.For State of Tamil Nadu Mr. Subramanium Prasad,Adv. Mr. R. Gopal Krishan,Adv.For State of Sikkim & Ms. A. Mariarputham,Adv.High Court of Sikkim Ms. Aruna Mathur,Adv. for M/S. Arputham,Aruna & Co.,Advs.For Govt. of Pondicherry Mr. V.G. Pragasam,Adv. Mr. S. Joseph Aristotle,Adv. Mr. S. Prabu Ramasubramanian,Adv.For State of Nagaland Mr. U. Hazarika,Adv. Mr. Satya Mitra,Adv. Ms. Sumita Hazarika,Adv.For NCT of Delhi Mr. Ashok Bhan,Adv. Ms. Suita Sharma,Adv. Mr. R.C. Kathia,Adv. Ms. Anil Katiyar,Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra,Adv.

For State of Assam Mr. Riku Sarma,Adv. for M/S Corporate Law Group,Advs.For State of Meghalaya Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee,Adv. Mr. S.C. Ghosh,Adv.For State of Tripura Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv. Mr. Rituraj Biswas,Adv.For State of Bihar Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv. Mr. Anukul Raj,Adv.For State of Gujarat Mrs. Hemantika Wahi,Adv. Ms. Pinky,Adv. Ms. Sangeeta Singh,Adv.For State of Jharkhand Mr. Manish Kumar Saran,Adv. Mr. Nirmal Kumar Ambastha,Adv.For State of A.P. Mrs. D. Bharati Reddy,Adv. Mr. Ashok Mathur,Adv. 5For State of J & K Mr. Anis Suhrawardy,Adv. Mrs. Shamama Anis,Adv. Mr. S. Mehdi Imam,Adv. Mr. Amit Anand,Adv. Mr. B.B. Singh,Adv. Mr. Prashant Bhushan ,Adv Mr. Raj Kumar Mehta ,Adv Mrs. Rachna Gupta ,Adv Mrs. V.D. Khanna,Adv. Mr. M.N. Sharma,Adv. Mr. Annam D.N. Rao,Adv. Mrs. Revathy Raghavan,Adv. Mr. J.P. Dhanda,Adv. Mr. Mukesh K. Giri,Adv. Mr. Radha Shyam Jena ,Adv Mr. Vijay Kumar,Adv. Ms. Mayuri Vat,Adv. Mr. Vishwajit Singh,Adv. Mr. Javed Mahmud Rao ,Adv Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra ,Adv Mr. T.V. Ratnam,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following ORDER

I.A.No.21/2008 in I.A.No.13/2005: Issue notice. Ms. G. Madhavi, Advocate appearing on behalf of K. Ramkumar & Associates, accepts notice and states that she will file response to the I.A. within four weeks. List after four weeks. The applicants may also apply for appointment to the posts 6which have been advertised. (A.S. BISHT) (PUSHAP LATA BHARDWAJ) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

\ 1IT E M NO.3 2 COUR T NO.6 S EC T I O N XVIA S UP R E M E C O UR T O F I N D I A R E CO R D OF P R OC E E D I N G S TRA N S F E R CAS E (CIVI L) NO.2 2 OF 20 0 1B R I J MOHAN LA L Petitioner(s) VE R S U SUNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)(Office report with quarterly report received from High Court andState Govts.)(For directions in disposed of matter) WI T HT.C.(C) No.2 3 / 2 0 0 1 , SL P(C) No.7 8 7 0 / 2 0 0 1 , SL P(C) No.1 0 6 4 5 / 2 0 0 1T. P.(C) Nos.4 0 7- 41 0 / 2 0 0 1 WI T HW. P .(C) No.1 4 0 / 2 0 0 5(With application for interim directions)Date: 22/ 0 2 / 2 0 0 8 These matters were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'B L E MR. JUS T I C E S.B. SIN HA HON'B L E MR. JUS T I C E V.S. SI R P U R K A RFor Petitioner(s) Mr. P. S. Narasi m h a ,Adv. (A.C.) Mr. Somira n Shar m a, Adv. Mr. Chander Shekh a r Ashri,Adv. Mr. A.V. Rao,Adv. Mr. Pr ab h a k a r P.,Adv. Mr. Venk ateshw a r a Rao Anumolu,Adv. Mr. Rohit Mam me n Alex,Adv. Mr. Rishi Maheshwa ri,Adv. Ms. Anne Mathew,Adv. Mr. P. S. Sudheer,Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Sachdeva,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. G.E. Vahanvati, SG Mr. R. Mohan, ASG Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari,Adv. Mr. B. K. Pr a s a d,Adv. Mr. P. P a r m e sw a r a n, Adv. 2 Mr. D.S. Mahra,Adv.For High Court of Gujarat Mr. P.I. Jose,Adv. Ms. Deepti,Adv. Mr. Anupam Mishra,Adv. Mr. P. P . Rao, Sr.Adv. Mrs. A. Sum athi,Adv. Mr. Raj Ku m a r Gupta,Adv. Mr. Sheo Ku m a r Gupta,Adv.

Mr. Bhan u Pr at ap Gupta,Adv. Mr. A.N. Bhard aiyar,Adv.For State of Haryan a Mr. Manjit Singh,Adv. Mr. S. Hooda,Adv. Mr. Hari kesh,Adv. Mr. T.V. George,Adv.For State of Maha r a s ht r aand Bomb ay High Court Mr. S.S. Shinde,Adv. Mr. A.P. Mayee,Adv. Mrs. Asha G. Nair,Adv.For the State of Punj ab Mrs. J ayshree Anand,Adv. Mr. K. K . Mahali k,Adv. Mr. Ajay P al,Adv.For State of Arunachal Pr adesh Mr. Anil Shrivastav,Adv. Mr. Ritu Raj,Adv.For State of Goa Ms. A. Subhas hi ni,Adv.For the State of Ker al a Mr. G. Pr a k a s h ,Adv. Ms. Beena Pr a k a s h ,Adv. Mr. P. K . J aya k ri s hn a n,Adv.For State of Manipur Mr. KH. Nobin Singh,Adv. Mr. Tarun J a m w al,Adv. Mr. S. Biswajit Meitei,Adv.For A.P. High Court Ms. G. Madhavi,Adv. Mr. B. Sridhar,Adv. M/s. K. Ra m Ku m a r & Associates,Advs.For High Court of P atn a Mr. Ajay K. Jh a,Adv. Ms. Diksh a Rai,Adv. for P a re k h & Co.,Advs.For Calcutta High Court Mr. L. Nageshwa r a Rao, Sr.Adv. Mr. Raj a Chatterjee,Adv. Mr. G.S. Chatterjee,Adv.For State of U.P. Ms. Shobha Dikshit, Sr.Adv. 3 Ms. Malvika Trivedi,Adv. Mr. Sandeep Singh,Adv. Mr. Anil Ku m a r Jh a,Adv. Mr. J.M. Rao,Adv. Dr. Indra Pr at ap Singh,Adv. Mr. Pr adeep Mishra,Adv.State of Chhattisgarh Ms. Suparn a Srivastava,Adv. Mr. Neeraj Gupta,Adv. Mr. Rajesh Srivastava,Adv. Ms. Nidhi Minocha,Adv.State of M. P. Mr. Govind Goel,Adv. Mr. C.D. Singh,Adv. Mr. Marus aga r Sam a nt a Ray,Adv. Mr. Vairagya Vardh an,Adv. Mr. Sunny Chowdhary,Adv. Mr. B.S. Banthi a,Adv. Mr. Vika s Upadhyay,Adv.

For State of Raj a sth a n Mr. Aruneshw a r Gupta,Addl. Adv. Genl. Mr. Naveen Ku m a r Singh,Adv. Mr. Shashw at Gupta,Adv.For Orissa High Court Mr. J an a r a n j a n Das,Adv. Mr. Swetaketu Mishra,Adv.For State of Mizora m Mr. K.N. Madhusoodha n a n,Adv. Mr. R. Satish,Adv.For State of H. P. Mr. J.S. Attri,Adv. Mr. Naresh K. Shar m a, Adv. Mr. Vivek Singh Attri,Adv.For U.T. of Chandigarh Ms. Ka m i ni J ai sw al,Adv. Mr. S. Datta,Adv.For State of Ka rn at a k a Mr. Sanj ay R. Hegde,Adv. Mr. Vikr ant Yadav,Adv. Mr. Amit Ku m a r Chawla,Adv. Mr. Atul Varm a, Adv. Mr. Amit Kr. Chawla,Adv.For High Court of J & K Mr. Tara Chandra Shar m a ,Adv. Miss Neelam Shar m a, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Shar m a ,Adv. Mr. V. Datta,Adv.For State of West Bengal Mr. Bha s k a r P. Gupta, Sr.Adv. Mr. Tara Chandra Shar m a ,Adv. Mr. Krish a n Datta,Adv. Miss Neelam Shar m a, Adv. 4For Allahab ad High Court Mr. Ashok K. Srivastava,Adv. Mr. Shairw al Srivastava,Adv. Mr. Indrajeet Das,Adv. Mr. Saur abh Trivedi,Adv.For State of Uttara k h a nd Ms. Rachan a Srivastava,Add.Adv.Gen. Mr. A.P. Sahay,Adv.For Raj a sth a n High Court Mr. Sunil Kr. J ai n,Adv.For State of Tamil Nadu Mr. Subra m a ni u m Pr a s a d,Adv. Mr. R. Gopal Krish a n,Adv.For State of Sikki m & Ms. A. Mari arputha m ,Adv.High Court of Sikki m Ms. Aruna Mathur,Adv. for M/S. Arputha m,A ru n a & Co.,Advs.For Govt. of Pondicherry Mr. V.G. Pr ag a s a m , Adv. Mr. S. Joseph Aristotle,Adv. Mr. S. Pr a bu Ra m a s u b r a m a n i a n, Adv.For State of Nagal and Mr. U. Hazari k a,Adv. Mr. Satya Mitra,Adv. Ms. Sumita Hazari k a,Adv.For NCT of Delhi Mr. Ashok Bhan,Adv. Ms. Suita Shar m a , Adv. Mr. R.C. Kathi a,Adv. Ms. Anil Katiyar,Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra,Adv.For State of Assa m Mr. Riku Sar m a, Adv. for M/S Corporate Law Group,Advs.

For State of Meghal ay a Mr. Ranj an Mukherjee,Adv. Mr. S.C. Ghosh,Adv.For State of Tripura Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv. Mr. Rituraj Biswa s,Adv.For State of Biha r Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv. Mr. Anukul Raj,Adv.For State of Gujar at Mrs. Hemanti k a W ahi,Adv. Ms. Pinky,Adv. Ms. Sangeeta Singh,Adv.For State of Jh a r k h a n d Mr. Manish Ku m a r Sara n,Adv. Mr. Nirm al Ku m a r Ambastha,Adv.For State of A.P. Mrs. D. Bha r ati Reddy,Adv. Mr. Ashok Mathur,Adv. 5For State of J & K Mr. Anis Suhraw a rdy,Adv. Mrs. Sha m a m a Anis,Adv. Mr. S. Mehdi Ima m,Adv. Mr. Amit Anand,Adv. Mr. B. B. Singh,Adv. Mr. Pr a s h a nt Bhush a n ,Adv Mr. Raj Ku m a r Mehta ,Adv Mrs. Rachna Gupta ,Adv Mrs. V.D. Kha nn a, Adv. Mr. M.N. Shar m a ,Adv. Mr. Anna m D.N. Rao,Adv. Mrs. Revathy Raghav an,Adv. Mr. J. P . Dhanda,Adv. Mr. Mukesh K. Giri,Adv. Mr. Radha Shyam Jena ,Adv Mr. Vijay Ku m a r, Adv. Ms. Mayuri Vat,Adv. Mr. Vishwajit Singh,Adv. Mr. J aved Mahm ud Rao ,Adv Mr. Ravi Pr a k a s h Mehrotra ,Adv Mr. T.V. Ratn a m, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R I.A.No. 2 1 / 2 0 0 8 in I.A.No. 1 3 / 2 0 0 5 : Issue notice.

Ms. G. Madhavi, Advocate appearing on behalf of K. Ra m k u m a r & Associates, accepts notice and states that she will file response to the I.A. within four weeks. List after four weeks. The applicants may also apply for appointment to the posts 6which have been advertised. (A.S. BI S H T) (PUSHA P LATA BHA R D W A J ) COURT MAS T E R COUR T MAS T E R

\ 1IT E M NO.3 2 COUR T NO.6 S EC T I O N XVIA S UP R E M E C O UR T O F I N D I A R E CO R D OF P R OC E E D I N G S TRA N S F E R CAS E (CIVI L) NO.2 2 OF 20 0 1B R I J MOHAN LA L Petitioner(s) VE R S U SUNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)(Office report with quarterly report received from High Court andState Govts.)(For directions in disposed of matter) WI T HT.C.(C) No.2 3 / 2 0 0 1 , SL P(C) No.7 8 7 0 / 2 0 0 1 , SL P(C) No.1 0 6 4 5 / 2 0 0 1T. P.(C) Nos.4 0 7- 41 0 / 2 0 0 1 WI T HW. P .(C) No.1 4 0 / 2 0 0 5(With application for interim directions)Date: 22/ 0 2 / 2 0 0 8 These matters were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'B L E MR. JUS T I C E S.B. SIN HA HON'B L E MR. JUS T I C E V.S. SI R P U R K A RFor Petitioner(s) Mr. P. S. Narasi m h a ,Adv. (A.C.) Mr. Somira n Shar m a, Adv. Mr. Chander Shekh a r Ashri,Adv. Mr. A.V. Rao,Adv. Mr. Pr ab h a k a r P.,Adv. Mr. Venk ateshw a r a Rao Anumolu,Adv. Mr. Rohit Mam me n Alex,Adv. Mr. Rishi Maheshwa ri,Adv. Ms. Anne Mathew,Adv. Mr. P. S. Sudheer,Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Sachdeva,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. G.E. Vahanvati, SG Mr. R. Mohan, ASG Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari,Adv. Mr. B. K. Pr a s a d,Adv. Mr. P. P a r m e sw a r a n, Adv. 2 Mr. D.S. Mahra,Adv.For High Court of Gujarat Mr. P.I. Jose,Adv. Ms. Deepti,Adv. Mr. Anupam Mishra,Adv. Mr. P. P . Rao, Sr.Adv. Mrs. A. Sum athi,Adv. Mr. Raj Ku m a r Gupta,Adv. Mr. Sheo Ku m a r Gupta,Adv.

Mr. Bhan u Pr at ap Gupta,Adv. Mr. A.N. Bhard aiyar,Adv.For State of Haryan a Mr. Manjit Singh,Adv. Mr. S. Hooda,Adv. Mr. Hari kesh,Adv. Mr. T.V. George,Adv.For State of Maha r a s ht r aand Bomb ay High Court Mr. S.S. Shinde,Adv. Mr. A.P. Mayee,Adv. Mrs. Asha G. Nair,Adv.For the State of Punj ab Mrs. J ayshree Anand,Adv. Mr. K. K . Mahali k,Adv. Mr. Ajay P al,Adv.For State of Arunachal Pr adesh Mr. Anil Shrivastav,Adv. Mr. Ritu Raj,Adv.For State of Goa Ms. A. Subhas hi ni,Adv.For the State of Ker al a Mr. G. Pr a k a s h ,Adv. Ms. Beena Pr a k a s h ,Adv. Mr. P. K . J aya k ri s hn a n,Adv.For State of Manipur Mr. KH. Nobin Singh,Adv. Mr. Tarun J a m w al,Adv. Mr. S. Biswajit Meitei,Adv.For A.P. High Court Ms. G. Madhavi,Adv. Mr. B. Sridhar,Adv. M/s. K. Ra m Ku m a r & Associates,Advs.For High Court of P atn a Mr. Ajay K. Jh a,Adv. Ms. Diksh a Rai,Adv. for P a re k h & Co.,Advs.For Calcutta High Court Mr. L. Nageshwa r a Rao, Sr.Adv. Mr. Raj a Chatterjee,Adv. Mr. G.S. Chatterjee,Adv.For State of U.P. Ms. Shobha Dikshit, Sr.Adv. 3 Ms. Malvika Trivedi,Adv. Mr. Sandeep Singh,Adv. Mr. Anil Ku m a r Jh a,Adv. Mr. J.M. Rao,Adv. Dr. Indra Pr at ap Singh,Adv. Mr. Pr adeep Mishra,Adv.State of Chhattisgarh Ms. Suparn a Srivastava,Adv. Mr. Neeraj Gupta,Adv. Mr. Rajesh Srivastava,Adv. Ms. Nidhi Minocha,Adv.State of M. P. Mr. Govind Goel,Adv. Mr. C.D. Singh,Adv. Mr. Marus aga r Sam a nt a Ray,Adv. Mr. Vairagya Vardh an,Adv. Mr. Sunny Chowdhary,Adv. Mr. B.S. Banthi a,Adv. Mr. Vika s Upadhyay,Adv.

For State of Raj a sth a n Mr. Aruneshw a r Gupta,Addl. Adv. Genl. Mr. Naveen Ku m a r Singh,Adv. Mr. Shashw at Gupta,Adv.For Orissa High Court Mr. J an a r a n j a n Das,Adv. Mr. Swetaketu Mishra,Adv.For State of Mizora m Mr. K.N. Madhusoodha n a n,Adv. Mr. R. Satish,Adv.For State of H. P. Mr. J.S. Attri,Adv. Mr. Naresh K. Shar m a, Adv. Mr. Vivek Singh Attri,Adv.For U.T. of Chandigarh Ms. Ka m i ni J ai sw al,Adv. Mr. S. Datta,Adv.For State of Ka rn at a k a Mr. Sanj ay R. Hegde,Adv. Mr. Vikr ant Yadav,Adv. Mr. Amit Ku m a r Chawla,Adv. Mr. Atul Varm a, Adv. Mr. Amit Kr. Chawla,Adv.For High Court of J & K Mr. Tara Chandra Shar m a ,Adv. Miss Neelam Shar m a, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Shar m a ,Adv. Mr. V. Datta,Adv.For State of West Bengal Mr. Bha s k a r P. Gupta, Sr.Adv. Mr. Tara Chandra Shar m a ,Adv. Mr. Krish a n Datta,Adv. Miss Neelam Shar m a, Adv. 4For Allahab ad High Court Mr. Ashok K. Srivastava,Adv. Mr. Shairw al Srivastava,Adv. Mr. Indrajeet Das,Adv. Mr. Saur abh Trivedi,Adv.For State of Uttara k h a nd Ms. Rachan a Srivastava,Add.Adv.Gen. Mr. A.P. Sahay,Adv.For Raj a sth a n High Court Mr. Sunil Kr. J ai n,Adv.For State of Tamil Nadu Mr. Subra m a ni u m Pr a s a d,Adv. Mr. R. Gopal Krish a n,Adv.For State of Sikki m & Ms. A. Mari arputha m ,Adv.High Court of Sikki m Ms. Aruna Mathur,Adv. for M/S. Arputha m,A ru n a & Co.,Advs.For Govt. of Pondicherry Mr. V.G. Pr ag a s a m , Adv. Mr. S. Joseph Aristotle,Adv. Mr. S. Pr a bu Ra m a s u b r a m a n i a n, Adv.For State of Nagal and Mr. U. Hazari k a,Adv. Mr. Satya Mitra,Adv. Ms. Sumita Hazari k a,Adv.For NCT of Delhi Mr. Ashok Bhan,Adv. Ms. Suita Shar m a , Adv. Mr. R.C. Kathi a,Adv. Ms. Anil Katiyar,Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra,Adv.For State of Assa m Mr. Riku Sar m a, Adv. for M/S Corporate Law Group,Advs.

For State of Meghal ay a Mr. Ranj an Mukherjee,Adv. Mr. S.C. Ghosh,Adv.For State of Tripura Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv. Mr. Rituraj Biswa s,Adv.For State of Biha r Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv. Mr. Anukul Raj,Adv.For State of Gujar at Mrs. Hemanti k a W ahi,Adv. Ms. Pinky,Adv. Ms. Sangeeta Singh,Adv.For State of Jh a r k h a n d Mr. Manish Ku m a r Sara n,Adv. Mr. Nirm al Ku m a r Ambastha,Adv.For State of A.P. Mrs. D. Bha r ati Reddy,Adv. Mr. Ashok Mathur,Adv. 5For State of J & K Mr. Anis Suhraw a rdy,Adv. Mrs. Sha m a m a Anis,Adv. Mr. S. Mehdi Ima m,Adv. Mr. Amit Anand,Adv. Mr. B. B. Singh,Adv. Mr. Pr a s h a nt Bhush a n ,Adv Mr. Raj Ku m a r Mehta ,Adv Mrs. Rachna Gupta ,Adv Mrs. V.D. Kha nn a, Adv. Mr. M.N. Shar m a ,Adv. Mr. Anna m D.N. Rao,Adv. Mrs. Revathy Raghav an,Adv. Mr. J. P . Dhanda,Adv. Mr. Mukesh K. Giri,Adv. Mr. Radha Shyam Jena ,Adv Mr. Vijay Ku m a r, Adv. Ms. Mayuri Vat,Adv. Mr. Vishwajit Singh,Adv. Mr. J aved Mahm ud Rao ,Adv Mr. Ravi Pr a k a s h Mehrotra ,Adv Mr. T.V. Ratn a m, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R I.A.No. 2 1 / 2 0 0 8 in I.A.No. 1 3 / 2 0 0 5 : Issue notice.

Ms. G. Madhavi, Advocate appearing on behalf of K. Ra m k u m a r & Associates, accepts notice and states that she will file response to the I.A. within four weeks. List after four weeks. The applicants may also apply for appointment to the posts 6which have been advertised. (A.S. BI S H T) (PUSHA P LATA BHA R D W A J ) COURT MAS T E R COUR T MAS T E R

M 1ITEM NO.5 COURT NO.6 SECTION XVIA SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS TRANSFER CASE (CIVIL) NO.22 OF 2001BRIJ MOHAN LAL Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)(Office report with quarterly report received from High Court andState Govts for directions in disposed of matter)WITHT.C.(C) No.23/2001, SLP(C) No.7870/2001, SLP(C) No.10645/2001T.P.(C) Nos.407-410/2001 WITHW.P.(C) No.140/2005(With application for interim directions)Date: 20/11/2007 These matters were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.B. SINHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. BEDIFor Petitioner(s) Mr. P.S. Narasimha,Adv. (A.C.) Mr. Somiran Sharma,Adv. Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri,Adv. Mr. A.V. Rao,Adv. Mr. Prabhakar P.,Adv. Mr. Venkateshwara Rao Anumolu,Adv. Mr. Rohit Mammen Alex,Adv. Mr. Rishi Maheshwari,Adv. Ms. Anne Mathew,Adv. Mr. P.S. Sudheer,Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Sachdeva,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. G.E. Vahanvati, SG Mr. R. Mohan, ASG Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari,Adv. Mr. P. Parmeswaran,Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra,Adv.For High Court of Gujarat Mr. P.I. Jose,Adv. 2 Ms. Deepti,Adv. Mr. Anupam Mishra,Adv. Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta,Adv. Mr. Sheo Kumar Gupta,Adv. Mr. Bhanu Pratap Gupta,Adv. Mr. A.N. Bhardaiyar,Adv.

For State of Haryana Mr. Manjit Singh,Adv. Mr. T.V. George,Adv.For State of Maharashtraand Bombay High Court Mr. S.S. Shinde,Adv. Mr. A.P. Mayee,Adv. Mrs. Asha G. Nair,Adv.For the State of Punjab Mrs. Jayshree Anand,Adv. Mr. K.K. Mahalik,Adv. Mr. Ajay Pal,Adv.For State of Arunachal Pradesh Mr. Anil Shrivastav,Adv. Mr. Ritu Raj,Adv.For State of Goa Ms. A. Subhashini,Adv.For the State of Kerala Mr. G. Prakash,Adv. Ms. Beena Prakash,Adv. Mr. P.K. Jayakrishnan,Adv.For State of Manipur Mr. KH. Nobin Singh,Adv. Mr. Tarun Jamwal,Adv. Mr. S. Biswajit Meitei,Adv.For A.P. High Court Mr. K. Ram Kumar,Adv. Mr. B. Sridhar,Adv. Mr. I. Madhava,Adv.For High Court of Patna Mr. Sameeer Parekh,Adv. Mr. Ajay K. Jha,Adv. Ms. Diksha Rai,Adv. for Parekh & Co.,Advs.For Calcutta High Court Mr. L. Nageshwara Rao, Sr.Adv. Mr. Raja Chatterjee,Adv. Mr. G.S. Chatterjee,Adv.For State of U.P. Ms. Savitrai Pandey,Adv. Mr. Sandeep Singh,Adv. Mr. Anil Kumar Jha,Adv. Mr. J.M. Rao,Adv. Dr. Indra Pratap Singh,Adv. Mr. Pradeep Mishra,Adv. 3State of Chhattisgarh Ms. Suparna Srivastava,Adv. Ms. Nidhi Minocha,Adv. Mr. Rajesh Srivastava,Adv.State of M.P. Mr. Govind Goel,Adv. Mr. C.D. Singh,Adv. Mr. Marusagar Samanta Ray,Adv. Mr. Vairagya Vardhan,Adv. Mr. Sunny Chowdhary,Adv. Mr. Ram Narash Yadav,Adv. Mr. Vikas Upadhyay,Adv. Mr. B.S. Banthia,Adv.For State of Rajasthan Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta,Addl. Adv. Genl. Mr. Naveen Kumar Singh,Adv. Mr. Shashwat Gupta,Adv.For Orissa High Court Mr. Janaranjan Das,Adv.

Mr. Swetaketu Mishra,Adv.For State of Mizoram Mr. K.N. Madhusoodhanan,Adv. Mr. R. Satish,Adv.For State of H.P. Mr. J.S. Attri,Adv. Mr. Vivek Singh Attri,Adv.For U.T. of Chandigarh Ms. Kamini Jaiswal,Adv. Mr. S. Datta,Adv.For State of Karnataka Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde,Adv. Mr. Amit Kr. Chawla,Adv.For High Court of J & K Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma,Adv. Mr. Rajeev Sharma,Adv.For State of West Bengal Mr. Bhaskar P. Gupta, Sr.Adv. Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma,Adv. Mr. Krishan Datta,Adv. Miss Neelam Sharma,Adv.For Allahabad High Court Mr. Ashok K. Srivastava,Adv. Mr. Shairwal Srivastava,Adv. Mr. Indrajeet Das,Adv. Mr. Saurabh Trivedi,Adv.For State of Uttarakhand Mr. A.P. Sahay,Adv. Ms. Rachana Srivastava,Add.Adv.Gen.For Rajasthan High Court Mr. S. Borthakur,Adv. Mr. Ajay Bhatia,Adv. Mr. Aneesh Mittal,Adv.For State of Tamil Nadu Mr. Subramanium Prasad,Adv. 4 Mr. R. Gopal Krishan,Adv.For State of Sikkim & Ms. A. Mariarputham,Adv.High Court of Sikkim Ms. Aruna Mathur,Adv. for M/S. Arputham,Aruna & Co.,Advs.For Govt. of Pondicherry Mr. V.G. Pragasam,Adv. Mr. S. Joseph Aristotle,Adv. Mr. S. Prabu Ramasubramanian,Adv.For State of Nagaland Mr. U. Hazarika,Adv. Mr. Satya Mitra,Adv. Ms. Sumita Hazarika,Adv.For NCT of Delhi Mr. Ashok Bhan,Adv. Ms. Suita Sharma,Adv. Mr. R.C. Kathia,Adv. Ms. Anil Katiyar,Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra,Adv.For State of Assam Mr. Riku Sarma,Adv. for M/S Corporate Law Group,Advs.For State of Meghalaya Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee,Adv. Mr. S.C. Ghosh,Adv.For State of Tripura Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv. Mr. Rituraj Biswas,Adv.For State of Bihar Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv. Mr. Anukul Raj,Adv.

For State of Gujarat Mrs. Hemantika Wahi,Adv. Ms. Shivangi,Adv. Ms. Jesal Wahi,Adv.For State of Jharkhand Mr. Manish Kumar Saran,Adv. Mr. Sujit Saurabh,Adv.For State of A.P. Mrs. D. Bharati Reddy,Adv. Mr. Ashok Mathur,Adv.For State of J & K Mr. Anis Suhrawardy,Adv. Mrs. Shamama Anis,Adv. Mr. S. Mehdi Imam,Adv. Mr. Amit Anand,Adv. Mr. B.B. Singh,Adv. Mr. Prashant Bhushan ,Adv Mr. Raj Kumar Mehta ,Adv Mrs. Rachna Gupta ,Adv 5 Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain,Adv. Mrs. V.D. Khanna,Adv. Mr. M.N. Sharma,Adv. Mr. Annam D.N. Rao,Adv. Mrs. Revathy Raghavan,Adv. Mr. J.P. Dhanda,Adv. Mr. Mukesh K. Giri,Adv. Mr. Radha Shyam Jena ,Adv Mr. Vijay Kumar,Adv. Mr. Vishwajit Singh ,Adv Mr. Javed Mahmud Rao ,Adv Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra ,Adv Mr. T.V. Ratnam,Adv.UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following ORDER Having heard Mr. Narasimha, learned amicus curiae and the learned Solicitor General of India, we are of the opinion that the charts, supplied by the former, may be considered the basis by the Law Ministry for arriving at a decision in regard to the transfer of cases from criminal to civil, and in particular, the cases which are more than 5 years old, for disposal by the Fast Track Courts. Learned Solicitor General assures us that the Ministry of Law shall carry out a survey and take a decision in this behalf as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. Put up the matter after three months.

(A.S. BISHT) (PUSHAP LATA BHARDWAJ) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

\234DITEM No.1 Court No.6 SECTION -XVIA SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGST.C.(C) No. 22/2001Brij Mohan Lal Petitioner VERSUSUnion of India & Ors. Respondents(With appln(s) for permission and directions and impleadment the directions and permission to placeadditional documents on record)(Office report)(Office report with quarterly reports received form High Courts and State Govt. for directions)WithT.C.(C) No. 23/2001, SLP(C) No. 7870/2001, SLP(C) No. 10645/2001, T.P.(C) No. 407-410/2001WithW.P.(C) No. 140/2005(With appln. For interim directions)Date: 13.11.2007 :This matter was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.B.SINHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. BEDI For Petitioner(s)/ Mr. P.S. Narasimha, A.C. Respondent(s) Mr. P.S.Narasimha, Adv.for M/s P.S.N. & Co. Mr.Chander Shekhar Ashri, Adv.Patna High Court Mr.Sameer Parekh,Adv. Mr. P.H. Parekh, Adv. Mr.Ajay K. Jha, Adv. Ms.Diksha Rai, Adv. M/s P.H. Parekh & Co.High Court of A.P. Mr. B.Sridhar, Adv. Mr. K. Ram Kumar, Adv.,UOI Mr.G.E.Vahanavati,Solicitor General Mr.R. Mohan,ASG Ms. A. Aiyagari, Adv. Mr.B.K. Prasad, Adv. Mr.P. Parmeswaran, Adv. Ms. Sunita Sharma, Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra, Adv.UOI/NCT Delhi Mr.Ashok Bhan, Adv. Ms.Sunita Sharma, Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv.Allahabad High Court Mr.Ashok K.Srivastava, Adv. Mr.Shaiwal Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Trivedi, Adv. -2-State of Tripura Mr.Gopal Singh, Adv. Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Adv.State of Bihar Mr.Gopal Singh, Adv. Mr.Anukul Raj, Adv.

Madhya Pradesh Mr.Vijay Kumar, Adv.Judges Assn. Mr. Manoj Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Vishwajit Singh, Adv.State of H.P. Mr.J.S. Attri,Addl.Adv. Genl. Ms. Promila, Adv.State of Goa Ms.A.Subhashini, Adv.State of Gujarat Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Adv. Ms.Shivangi, Adv. Ms.Sangeeta Singh, Adv.State of Kerala Mr.G. Prakash, Adv. Ms.Beena Prakash, Adv. Mr.P.K. Jayakrishnan, Adv. Mr.K.A.Devarajan,Adv. Mr.Anupam Lal Das, Adv. Mr. P.I.Jose, Adv. Ms. Deepti, Adv. Mr. Anupam Mishra, Adv. Ms. D. Bharathi Reddy, Adv.(NP) Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Adv. Mrs.Rachna Gupta, Adv. Mr.Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Adv. Mr.Javed Mahmud Rao, Adv.(NP) Mr.Ashok Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr.A.D.N.Rao, Adv. Mr. T.V.Ratnam, Adv. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Adv. Mr.Anil Shrivastav, Adv. Mr.Anis Suhrawardy, Adv. Mr.Sanjay R. Hegde, Adv. Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv.State of Assam Mr.Riku Sarma,Adv. M/s Corporate Law Group Mr. B.B. Singh, Adv.(NP) -3- Mr. J.P.Dhanda, Adv.(NP) Mr.Ashok Mathur, Adv.State of M.P. Mr.Govind Goel, Adv. Mr.C.D.Singh, Adv. Mr.Maru Sagar Samanta Ray, Adv. Mr.Vairagya Vardhan,Adv. Mr. Sunny Chowdhary,Adv. Mr.Ram Naresh Yadav,Adv. Mr.B.S.Banthia, Adv. Mr.Vikas Upadhyay,Adv.

Mrs. V.D. Khanna, Adv.State of West Bengal Mr.Bhaskar P.Gupta, Sr.Adv. Mr. T.C.Sharma, Adv. Ms. Neelam Sharma, Adv.High Court of J&K Mr.T.C.Sharma, Adv.State of T.N. & Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Adv.U.T.of Pondicherry Mr. S. Joseph Aristotle, Adv. Mr.S. Prabu Ramasubramanian,Adv.State of U.P. Mr.Anil Kumar Jha, Adv. Ms.Savitri Pandey, Adv. Mr.Vijay Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr.Raj Kumar Mehta, Adv. Mr. M.N. Sharma, Adv. Mr. A. Mariarputham,Adv. Ms.Aruna Mathur,Adv. M/s Arputham Aruna & Co. Mrs.Revathy Raghavan, Adv.(NP) Mr. Radha Shyam Jena, Adv. Mr. Mukesh K.Giri, Adv.State of Haryana Mr. T.V. George, Adv.State of Chhattisgarh Ms.Suparana Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Minocha, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, Adv.State of Meghalaya Mr.Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. S.C.Ghosh, Adv. Mr.G.S.Chatterjee, Adv. Mr.Sunil Kumar Jain,Adv.High Court of Orissa Mr. Janaranjan Das, Adv. Mr.Swetaketu Mishra, Adv. -4-State of Punjab Mrs.Jayshree Anand,Addl.Adv.Genl. Mr. K.K. Mahalik, Adv. Mr. Kuldip Singh, Adv.State of Manipur Mr. Kh. Nobin Singh, Adv. Mr.Tarun Janwal, Adv. Mr. S.Biswajit Meitei, Adv.State of Jharkhand Mr. Manish Kumar Saran, Adv.State of Arunachal Mr.Anil Shrivastava, Adv.Pradesh Mr.Ritu Raj, Adv.State of Rajasthan Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, Addl.Adv. Genl. Mr. Naveen Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Shashwat Gupta, Adv.State of Mizoram Mr. K.N. Madhusoodhanan, Adv. Mr.R. Satish, Adv.State of M.P. Mr.Govind Goel, Adv.

Mr.C.D.Singh,Adv. Mr. Merusagar Samantaray, Adv. Mr.Vairagya Vardhan, Adv. Mr.Sunny Chowdhary, Adv. Mr. Ram Naresh Yadav,Adv.State of Maharashtra Mr.S.S.Shinde, Adv. Mrs. Asha G. Nair,Adv.State of Uttranchal Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Adv. Mr.A.P. Sahay, Adv.W.P.(C) No.140/05 Mr.Ashok Bhan, Adv. Mrs.Sunita Sharma, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv. Mr. S. Ravishankar, Adv. Ms. Priyanka, Adv.State of Sikkim Mr.A. Mariarputham, Adv. Mrs.Aruna Mathur, Adv. M/s Arputham Aruna & Co.High Court of Sikkim Mr.Sonam P.Wangdi, A.G. Mr. A. Mariarputham, Adv. Ms. Aruna Mathur, Adv. For M/s Arputham Aruna & Co.State of Karnataka Mr.Sanjay R.Hegde, Adv.State of Tripura Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv. Ms. Retu Rai Biswas, Adv.State of Nagaland Mr. U. Hazarika, Adv. Mr. Satya Mitra, Adv. Ms.Sumita Hazarika, Adv. -5- Mrs.Sunita Sharma, Adv. Mr.D.S. Mahra, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following ORDER List on 20.11.2007. (Meenu Sethi) (Pushap Lata Bhardwaj) Court Master Court Master

S 1ITEM NO.5 COURT NO.6 SECTION XVIA SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS TRANSFER CASE (CIVIL) NO.22 OF 2001BRIJ MOHAN LAL Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)(With appln(s). for permission and directions to implement the directions andpermission to place addl. documents and office report)(Office report with quarterly reports received from State Governmentsfor directions)WITHT.C.(C) No.23/2001, SLP(C) No.7870/2001, SLP(C) No.10645/2001T.P.(C) Nos.407-410/2001 WITHW.P.(C) No.140/2005(With application for interim directions)Date: 30/10/2007 These matters were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.B. SINHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. BEDIFor Petitioner(s) Mr. P.S.Narasimha,Adv. (A.C.) Mr. Somiran Sharma,Adv. Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri,Adv. Mr. A.V. Rao,Adv. Mr. Prabhakar P.,Adv. Mr. Venkateshwara Rao Anumolu,Adv. Mr. Rohit Mammen Alex,Adv. Mr. Rishi Maheshwari,Adv. Ms. Anne Mathew,Adv. Mr. P.S. Sudheer,Adv. Mr. Sushil Kumar, Sr.Adv. Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr.Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Sachdeva,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. G.E. Vahanvati, SG Mr. R. Mohan, ASG 2 Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari,Adv. Mr. P. Parmeswaran,Adv.For High Court of Gujarat Mr. P.I. Jose,Adv. Ms. Deepti,Adv. Mr. Anupam Mishra,Adv. Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta,Adv. Mr. Sheo Kumar Gupta,Adv.

Mr. Bhanu Pratap Gupta,Adv. Mr. A.N. Bhardaiyar,Adv.For State of Haryana Mr. Manjit Singh,Adv. Mr. T.V. George,Adv.For State of Maharashtraand Bombay High Court Mr. S.S. Shinde,Adv. Mr. A.P. Mayee,Adv. Mrs. Asha G. Nair,Adv.For the State of Punjab Mrs. Jayshree Anand,Adv. Mr. K.K. Mahalik,Adv. Mr. Ajay Pal,Adv.For State of Arunachal Pradesh Mr. Anil Shrivastav,Adv. Mr. Ritu Raj,Adv.For State of Goa Ms. A. Subhashini,Adv.For the State of Kerala Mr. G. Prakash,Adv. Ms. Beena Prakash,Adv. Mr. P.K. Jayakrishnan,Adv.For State of Manipur Mr. KH. Nobin Singh,Adv. Mr. David Rao,Adv. Mr. Tarun Jamwal,Adv. Mr. Vijay Prakash,Adv.For A.P. High Court Mr. K. Ram Kumar,Adv. (N.P.)For High Court of Patna Mr. Ajay K. Jha,Adv. Ms. Diksha Rai,Adv. for Parekh & Co.,Advs.For Calcutta High Court Mr. L. Nageshwara Rao, Sr.Adv. Mr. Raja Chatterjee,Adv. Mr. G.S. Chatterjee,Adv.For State of U.P. Mrs. Shobha Dikshit, Sr.Adv. Mr. Anil Kumar Jha,Adv. Md. Fuzail Khan,Adv. Dr. Indra Pratap Singh,Adv. Mr. Pradeep Mishra,Adv. 3State of Chhattisgarh Mr. Rajesh Srivastava,Adv. (N.P.)State of M.P. Mr. Govind Goel,Adv. Mr. C.D. Singh,Adv. Mr. Marusagar Samanta Ray,Adv. Mr. Vairagya Vardhan,Adv. Mr. Sunny Chowdhary,Adv. Mr. Ram Narash Yadav,Adv.For State of Rajasthan Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta,Addl. Adv. Genl. Mr. Naveen Kumar Singh,Adv. Mr. Shashwat Gupta,Adv.For Orissa High Court Mr. Janaranjan Das,Adv. Mr. Swetaketu Mishra,Adv.For State of Mizoram Mr. K.N. Madhusoodhanan,Adv.

Mr. R. Satish,Adv.For State of H.P. Mr. J.S. Attri,Adv. Mr. Vivek Singh Attri,Adv.For U.T. of Chandigarh Ms. Kamini Jaiswal,Adv. Mr. S. Datta,Adv.For State of Karnataka Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde,Adv. Mr. Vikrant Yadav,Adv. Mr. Ramesh Jadhav,Adv. Mr. Amit Kr. Chandra,Adv.For High Court of J & K Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma,Adv. Mr. Rajeev Sharma,Adv.For State of West Bengal Mr. Bhaskar P. Gupta, Sr.Adv. Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma,Adv. Miss Neelam Sharma,Adv.For Allahabad High Court Mr. Ashok K. Srivastava,Adv. Mr. Shairwal Srivastava,Adv. Mr. Indrajeet Das,Adv. Mr. Saurabh Trivedi,Adv.For State of Uttaranchal Ms. Rachana Srivastava,Add.Adv.Gen. Mr. Noorullah,Adv.For Rajasthan High Court Mr. S. Borthakur,Adv. Mr. Ajay Bhatia,Adv. Mr. Aneesh Mittal,Adv.For State of Tamil Nadu Mr. Subramanium Prasad,Adv. Mr. R. Gopal Krishan,Adv. 4For State of Sikkim & Ms. A. Mariarputham,Adv.High Court of Sikkim Ms. Aruna Mathur,Adv. for M/S. Arputham,Aruna & Co.,Advs.For Govt. of Pondicherry Mr. V.G. Pragasam,Adv. Mr. S. Joseph Aristotle,Adv. Mr. S. Prabu Ramasubramanian,Adv.For State of Nagaland Mr. U. Hazarika,Adv. Mr. Satya Mitra,Adv. Ms. Sumita Hazarika,Adv.For NCT of Delhi Mr. Ashok Bhan,Adv. Ms. Suita Sharma,Adv. Mr. R.C. Kathia,Adv. Ms. Anil Katiyar,Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra,Adv.For State of Assam Mr. Riku Sarma,Adv. for M/S Corporate Law Group,Advs.For State of Meghalaya Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee,Adv. Mr. S.C. Ghosh,Adv.For State of Tripura Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv. Mr. Rituraj Biswas,Adv.For State of Bihar Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv. Mr. Anukul Raj,Adv.For State of Gujarat Mrs. Hemantika Wahi,Adv. Ms. Shivangi,Adv.

For State of Jharkhand Mr. Manish Kumar Saran,Adv. Mr. Sujit Saurabh,Adv.For State of A.P. Mrs. D. Bharati Reddy,Adv. (N.P.) Mr. Ashok Mathur,Adv.For State of J & K Mr. Anis Suhrawardy,Adv. Mrs. Shamama Anis,Adv. Mr. S. Mehdi Imam,Adv. Mr. Amit Anand,Adv. Mr. B.B. Singh,Adv. Mr. Prashant Bhushan ,Adv Mr. Raj Kumar Mehta ,Adv Mrs. Rachna Gupta ,Adv Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain,Adv. 5 Mrs. V.D. Khanna,Adv. Mr. M.N. Sharma,Adv. Mr. Annam D.N. Rao,Adv. Mrs. Revathy Raghavan,Adv. Mr. J.P. Dhanda,Adv. Mr. Mukesh K. Giri,Adv. Mr. Radha Shyam Jena ,Adv Mr. Vijay Kumar,Adv. Mr. Vishwajit Singh ,Adv Mr. Javed Mahmud Rao ,Adv Mr. Rajesh Srivastava ,Adv Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra ,Adv Mr. T.V. Ratnam,Adv.UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following ORDER STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: Nobody appears on behalf of the State of Andhra Pradesh and the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. We direct the High Court of Andhra Pradesh to furnish the details of the number of the Fast Track Courts working in the State as on date, allocation and disposal of cases by these Courts for the year 2007 and the salary structure adopted for remunerating the Presiding Officers of the said Courts. STATE OF BIHAR:

The High Court of Patna is directed to furnish the following details: (i) The number of Fast Track Courts working as on date; (ii) The allocation and disposal of cases by the Fast Track Courts 6 for the year 2007; (iii) Whether 30 vacancies in Fast Track Courts as indicated in the affidavit of the High Court dated 15th March, 2007 have been filled; (iv) The report of the Committee constituted by the Chief Justice for consider the order of the Supreme Court dated 02.02.2007 may be placed on record.STATE OF CHHATTISGARH: Nobody has appeared on behalf of the State of Chhattisgarh. The State of Chhattisgarh is directed to fill up the remaining 4Fast Track Courts out of the 31 allocated, (27 Fast Track Court are saidto be functioning in the State) and to furnish the details of the numberof the Fast Track Courts working in the State as on date; and theallocation and disposal of cases by these Courts for the year 2007. The aforesaid directions may be complied within four weeks.List for further order after four weeks. (A.S. BISHT) (PUSHAP LATA BHARDWAJ) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

L 1ITEM NO.37 COURT NO.6 SECTION XVIA SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS TRANSFER CASE (CIVIL) NO.22 OF 2001BRIJ MOHAN LAL Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)(With appln(s). for permission and directions to implement the directions andpermission to place addl. documents and office report)(Office report with quarterly reports received from State Governmentsfor directions)WITHT.C.(C) No.23/2001, SLP(C) No.7870/2001, SLP(C) No.10645/2001T.P.(C) Nos.407-410/2001 WITHW.P.(C) No.140/2005(With application for interim directions)Date: 08/10/2007 These matters were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.B. SINHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. BEDIFor Petitioner(s) Mr. P.S.Narasimha,Adv. (A.C.) Mr. Somiran Sharma,Adv. Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri,Adv. Mr. A.V. Rao,Adv. Mr. Prabhakar P.,Adv. Mr. Venkateshwara Rao Anumolu,Adv. Mr. Rohit Mammen Alex,Adv. Mr. Rishi Maheshwari,Adv. Ms. Anne Mathew,Adv. Mr. P.S. Sudheer,Adv. Mr. Sushil Kumar, Sr.Adv. Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr.Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Sachdeva,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. G.E. Vahanvati, SG Mr. R. Mohan, ASG 2 Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari,Adv. Mr. P. Parmeswaran,Adv. Mr. B.K. Prasad,Adv. Mr. Vijay Hansaria, Sr.Adv. Mr. P.I. Jose,Adv. Ms. Sneha Kalita,Adv. Ms. Deepti,Adv.

Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta,Adv. Mr. Sheo Kumar Gupta,Adv. Mr. Bhanu Pratap Gupta,Adv. Mr. A.N. Bhardaiyar,Adv.For State of Haryana Mr. Manjit Singh,Adv. Mr. T.V. George,Adv.For State of Maharashtraand Bombay High Court Mr. S.S. Shinde,Adv. Mr. A.P. Mayee,Adv. Mrs. Asha G. Nair,Adv.For the State of Punjab Mrs. Jayshree Anand,Adv. Mr. R.K. Rathore,Adv. Mr. Ajay Pal,Adv.For State of Arunachal Pradesh Mr. Anil Shrivastav,Adv. Mr. Ritu Raj,Adv.For State of Goa Ms. A. Subhashini,Adv.For the State of Kerala Mr. G. Prakash,Adv. Mr. P.K. Jayakrishnan,Adv.For State of Manipur Mr. KH. Nobin Singh,Adv. Mr. David Rao,Adv. Mr. Tarun Jamwal,Adv. Mr. Vijay Prakash,Adv.For A.P. High Court Mr. B. Sreedhar,Adv. Mr. K. Ram Kumar,Adv. Ms. I Madavi,Adv.For High Court of Patna Mr. P.H. Parekh,Adv. Mr. Sameer Parekh,Adv. Mr. Ajay K. Jha,Adv. Ms. Deeksha Rai,Adv. for M/s. P.H. Parekh & Co.,Advs.For Calcutta High Court Mr. L. Nageshwara Rao, Sr.Adv. Mr. Raja Chatterjee,Adv. Mr. G.S. Chatterjee,Adv.For State of U.P. Mrs. Shobha Dikshit, Sr.Adv. Mrs. Malvika Trivedi,Adv. Mr. Anil Kumar Jha,Adv. 3 Dr. Indra Pratap Singh,Adv. Mr. Pradeep Mishra,Adv.State of Chhattisgarh Ms. Suparna Srivastava,Adv. Ms. Nidhi Minocha,Adv. Mr. Rajesh Srivastava,Adv.State of M.P. Mr. Govind Goel,Adv. Mr. C.D. Singh,Adv. Mr. Marusagar Samanta Ray,Adv. Mr. Vairagya Vardhan,Adv. Mr. Sunny Chowdhary,Adv. Mr. Ram Narash Yadav,Adv. Mr. M.P. Singh,Adv.For State of Rajasthan Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta,Addl. Adv. Genl.

Mr. Naveen Kumar Singh,Adv. Mr. Shashwat Gupta,Adv.For Orissa High Court Mr. Janaranjan Das,Adv. Mr. Swetaketu Mishra,Adv.For State of Mizoram Mr. K.N. Madhusoodhanan,Adv. Mr. R. Satish,Adv.For State of H.P. Mr. J.S. Attri,Adv. Mr. Vivek Singh Attri,Adv.For U.T. of Chandigarh Ms. Kamini Jaiswal,Adv. Mr. S. Datta,Adv.For State of Karnataka Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde,Adv. Mr. Vikrant Yadav,Adv. Mr. Ramesh Jadhav,Adv. Mr. Amit Kr. Chandra,Adv.For High Court of J & K Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma,Adv. Mr. Rajeev Sharma,Adv.For State of West Bengal Mr. Bhaskar P. Gupta, Sr.Adv. Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma,Adv. Miss Neelam Sharma,Adv.For Allahabad High Court Mr. Ashok K. Srivastava,Adv. Mr. Shairwal Srivastava,Adv. Mr. Indrajeet Das,Adv. Mr. Saurabh Trivedi,Adv.For State of Uttaranchal Ms. Rachana Srivastava,Add.Adv.Gen. Mr. Noorullah,Adv.For Rajasthan High Court Mr. S. Borthakur,Adv. 4 Mr. Ajay Bhatia,Adv. Mr. Aneesh Mittal,Adv.For State of Tamil Nadu Mr. Subramanium Prasad,Adv. Mr. R. Gopal Krishan,Adv.For State of Sikkim & Ms. A. Mariarputham,Adv.High Court of Sikkim Ms. Aruna Mathur,Adv. for M/S. Arputham,Aruna & Co.,Advs.For Govt. of Pondicherry Mr. V.G. Pragasam,Adv. Mr. S. Joseph Aristotle,Adv. Mr. S. Prabu Ramasubramanian,Adv.For State of Nagaland Mr. U. Hazarika,Adv. Mr. Satya Mitra,Adv. Ms. Sumita Hazarika,Adv.For NCT of Delhi Mr. Ashok Bhan,Adv. Ms. Suita Sharma,Adv. Mr. R.C. Kathia,Adv. Ms. Anil Katiyar,Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra,Adv.For State of Assam Mr. Riku Sarma,Adv. for M/S Corporate Law Group,Advs.For State of Meghalaya Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee,Adv. Mr. S.C. Ghosh,Adv.

For State of Tripura Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv. Mr. Rituraj Biswas,Adv.For State of Bihar Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv. Mr. Anukul Raj,Adv.For State of Gujarat Mrs. Hemantika Wahi,Adv. Ms. Shivangi,Adv.For State of Jharkhand Mr. Manish Kumar Saran,Adv. Mr. Sujit Saurabh,Adv. Mrs. D. Bharati Reddy,Adv. Mr. Ashok Mathur,Adv.For State of J & K Mr. Anis Suhrawardy,Adv. Mrs. Shamama Anis,Adv. Mr. S. Mehdi Imam,Adv. Mr. Amit Anand,Adv. Mr. B.B. Singh,Adv. Mr. Prashant Bhushan ,Adv 5 Mr. Raj Kumar Mehta ,Adv Mrs. Rachna Gupta ,Adv Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain,Adv. Mrs. V.D. Khanna,Adv. Mr. M.N. Sharma,Adv. Mr. Annam D.N. Rao,Adv. Mrs. Revathy Raghavan,Adv. Mr. J.P. Dhanda,Adv. Mr. Mukesh K. Giri,Adv. Mr. Radha Shyam Jena ,Adv Mr. Vijay Kumar,Adv. Mr. Vishwajit Singh ,Adv Mr. Javed Mahmud Rao ,Adv Mr. Rajesh Srivastava ,Adv Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra ,Adv Mr. T.V. Ratnam,Adv.UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following ORDER Mr. Narasimha, learned amicus states that at the first instance the problems in respect of the Fast Track Courts of the States of Andhra Pradesh, Bihar and Chhattishgarh may be taken up on 30th October, 2007 and those of the States of Goa, Gujarat, Haryana and Himachal

Pradesh may be taken up on 13th November, 2007. We direct accordingly. (A.S. BISHT) (PUSHAP LATA BHARDWAJ) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

ÔGITEM NO.43 COURT NO.4 SECTION XVIA SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS TRANSFER CASE (CIVIL) NO.22 OF 2001BRIJ MOHAN LAL Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)(With appln(s). for permission and directions to implement the directions and permissionto place addl. documents and office report)(Office report with quarterly reports received from State Governmentsfor directions)WITHT.C.(C) No.23/2001, SLP(C) No.7870/2001, SLP(C) No.10645/2001T.P.(C) Nos.407-410/2001WITHW.P.(C) No.140/2005(With application for interim directions)Date: 01/10/2007 These matters were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.B. SINHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. BEDIFor Petitioner(s) Mr. P.S.Narasimha,Adv. (A.C.) Mr. Ananga Bhattacharyya,Adv. Mr. Avijeet K. Lala,Adv. for M/S. P.S.N. & Co.,Advs. Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri,Adv. Mr. A.V. Rao,Adv. Mr. Sateesh Galla,Adv. Mr. A.V. Rao,Adv. Mr. Prabhakar P.,Adv. Mr. Venkateshwara Rao Anumolu,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. G.E. Vahanvati, SG Mr. R. Mohan, ASG Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari,Adv. Mr. P. Parmeswaran,Adv. Mr. Vijay Hansaria, Sr.Adv. Mr. P.I. Jose,Adv. Mr. Anupam Mishra,Adv. Ms. Sneha Kalita,Adv. Ms. Deepti,Adv. Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta,Adv. Mr. Sheo Kumar Gupta,Adv. Mr. Bhanu Pratap Gupta,Adv. Mr. A.N. Bhardaiyar,Adv. ..2/- -2-For State of Haryana Mr. Manjit Singh,Adv. Mr. T.V. George,Adv.

For State of Maharashtraand Bombay High Court Mr. A.P. Mayee,Adv. Mr. V.N. Raghupathy,Adv.For the State of Punjab Mr. R.K. Rathore,Adv. Mr. M.K. Verma,Adv. Mr. Arun Kr. Sinha,Adv.For State of Arunachal Pradesh Mr. Anil Shrivastav,Adv. Ms. Samita,Adv.For State of Goa Ms. A. Subhashini,Adv.For the State of Kerala Mr. G. Prakash,Adv. Mr. P.K. Jayakrishnan,Adv.For State of Manipur Mr. KH. Nobin Singh,Adv. Mr. David Rao,Adv. Mr. Tarun Jamwal,Adv. Mr. Vijay Prakash,Adv.For A.P. High Court Mr. B. Sreedhar,Adv. Mr. K. Ram Kumar,Adv. Ms. I Madavi,Adv.For High Court of Patna Mr. P.H. Parekh,Adv. Mr. Sameer Parekh,Adv. Mr. Ajay K. Jha,Adv. Ms. Deeksha Rai,Adv. for M/s. P.H. Parekh & Co.,Advs.For Calcutta High Court Mr. L. Nageshwara Rao, Sr.Adv. Mr. Raja Chatterjee,Adv. Mr. G.S. Chatterjee,Adv.For State of U.P. Mrs. Shobha Dikshit, Sr.Adv. Mrs. Malvika Trivedi,Adv. Mr. Anil Kumar Jha,Adv. Dr. Indra Pratap Singh,Adv. Mr. Pradeep Mishra,Adv.State of Chhattisgarh Ms. Suparna Srivastava,Adv. Ms. Nidhi Minocha,Adv. Mr. Rajesh Srivastava,Adv.State of M.P. Mr. Govind Goel,Adv. Mr. C.D. Singh,Adv. Mr. Merusagar Samanta Ray,Adv. Mr. Vairagya Vardhan,Adv. Mr. Sunny Chowdhary,Adv. Mr. Ram Narash Yadav,Adv.For State of Rajasthan Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta,Addl. Adv. Genl. Mr. Naveen Kumar Singh,Adv. Mr. Mukul Sood,Adv. Mr. Shashwat Gupta,Adv. Ms. Adarsh Sabharwal,Adv. ...3/- -3-For Orissa High Court Mr. Janaranjan Das,Adv. Mr. Swetaketu Mishra,Adv.For State of Mizoram Mr. K.N. Madhusoodhanan,Adv. Mr. R. Satish,Adv.

For State of H.P. Mr. J.S. Attri,Adv. Mr. Vivek Singh Attri,Adv.For U.T. of Chandigarh Ms. Kamini Jaiswal,Adv. Mrs. Shomila Bakshi,Adv. Mrs.Sunita Dwivedi,Adv.For State of Karnataka Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde,Adv. Mr. Vikrant Yadav,Adv. Mr. Ramesh Jadhav,Adv. Mr. Amit Kr. Chandra,Adv.For High Court of J & K Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma,Adv. Mr. Rajeev Sharma,Adv.For State of West Bengal Mr. Bhaskar P. Gupta, Sr.Adv. Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma,Adv. Miss Neelam Sharma,Adv. Mr. Rajeev Sharma,Adv.For Allahabad High Court Mr. Ashok K. Srivastava,Adv. Mr. Saurabh Trivedi,Adv.For State of Uttaranchal Ms. Rachana Srivastava,Add.Adv.Gen.For Rajasthan High Court Mr. Sunil K. Jain,Adv. Mr. S. Borthakur,Adv. Ms. Jaya Tomar,Adv.For State of Tamil Nadu Mr. Subramanium Prasad,Adv. Mr. R. Gopal Krishan,Adv.For State of Sikkim & Ms. A. Mariarputham,Adv.High Court of Sikkim Ms. Aruna Mathur,Adv. for M/S. Arputham,Aruna & Co.,Advs.For Govt. of Pondicherry Mr. V.G. Pragasam,Adv. Mr. S. Vallinayagam,Adv.For State of Nagaland Mr. U. Hazarika,Adv. Mr. Satya Mitra,Adv. Ms. Sumita Hazarika,Adv.For NCT of Delhi Mr. Ashok Bhan,Adv. Ms. Suita Sharma,Adv. Mr. R.C. Kathia,Adv. Ms. Anil Katiyar,Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra,Adv.For State of Assam Mr. Riku Sarma,Adv. for M/S Corporate Law Group,Advs.For State of Meghalaya Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee,Adv. Mr. S.C. Ghosh,Adv.For State of Tripura Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv. Mr. Rituraj Biswas,Adv. -4-For State of Bihar Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv. Mr. Nishakant Pandey,Adv.For State of Gujarat Mrs. Hemantika Wahi,Adv. Ms. Shivangi,Adv.For State of Jharkhand Mr. Manish Kumar Saran,Adv.

Mr. Sujit Saurabh,Adv. Mrs. D. Bharati Reddy,Adv. Mr. Ashok Mathur,Adv. Mr. Altaf H. Naiyak, Adv.Gen., J&K. Mr. Anis Suhrawardy,Adv. Mr. B.B. Singh,Adv. Mr. Prashant Bhushan ,Adv Mr. Raj Kumar Mehta ,Adv Mrs. Rachna Gupta ,Adv Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain,Adv. Mrs. V.D. Khanna,Adv. Mr. M.N. Sharma,Adv. Mr. Annam D.N. Rao,Adv. Mrs. Revathy Raghavan,Adv. Mr. J.P. Dhanda,Adv. Mr. Mukesh K. Giri,Adv. Mr. Radha Shyam Jena ,Adv Mr. Vijay Kumar,Adv. Mr. Vishwajit Singh ,Adv Mr. Javed Mahmud Rao ,Adv Mr. Rajesh Srivastava ,Adv Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra ,Adv Mr. T.V. Ratnam,Adv.UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following ORDER List next week. (A.S. BISHT) (RADHA R. BHATIA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

Â@ITEM No.35 Court No.6 SECTION -XVIA SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGST.C.(C) No. 22/2001Brij Mohan Lal Petitioner VERSUSUnion of India & Ors. Respondents(With appln(s) for permission and directions and implement the directions and permissionto place additional documents on record)(Office report)(Office report with quarterly reports received form High Courts and State Govt. fordirections)WithT.C.(C) No. 23/2001, SLP(C) No. 7870/2001, SLP(C) No. 10645/2001, T.P.(C) No. 407-410/2001WithW.P.(C) No. 140/2005(With appln. For interim directions)Date: 24.08.2007 :This matter was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.B.SINHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. BEDI For Petitioner(s)/ Mr. P.S. Narasimha, A.C. Respondent(s) Mr. P.S.Narasimha, Adv.for M/s P.S.N. & Co. Mr.Chander Shekhar Ashri, Adv.Patna High Court Mr. P.H. Parekh, Adv. Mr.Ajay K. Jha, Adv. Ms.Diksha Rai, Adv. M/s P.H. Parekh & Co.High Court of A.P. Mr. B.Sridhar, Adv. Mr. K. Ram Kumar, Adv.,UOI Mr.G.E.Vahanavati,Solicitor General Ms. Aiyagari, Adv. Mr.P. Parmeswaran, Adv. Mr. T.S. Doabia, Sr.Adv. Ms. Sunita Sharma, Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra, Adv.UOI/NCT Delhi Mr.Ashok Bhan, Adv. Ms.Sunita Sharma, Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv.Allahabad High Court Mr.Ashok K.Srivastava, Adv. Mr.Shaiwal Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Indrajeet Das, Adv.State of Tripura Mr.Gopal Singh, Adv. Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Adv.State of Bihar Mr.Gopal Singh, Adv. Mr.Anukul Raj, Adv. Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Adv.Madhya Pradesh Mr.Vijay Kumar, Adv.Judges Assn. Mr. Manoj Shrivastava, Adv.

Mr. Vishwajit Singh, Adv.State of H.P. Mr.J.S. Attri,Addl.Adv. Genl. Ms. Promila, Adv.State of Goa Ms.A.Subhashini, Adv.State of Gujarat Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Adv. Ms.Shivangi, Adv.State of Kerala Mr.G. Prakash, Adv. Ms.Beena Prakash, Adv. Mr.Anupam Lal Das, Adv. Mr. P.I.Jose, Adv. Ms. Deepti, Adv. Mr. Anupam Mishra, Adv. Ms. D. Bharathi Reddy, Adv.(NP) Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Adv. Mrs.Rachna Gupta, Adv. Mr.Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Adv. Mr.Javed Mahmud Rao, Adv.(NP) Mr.Ashok Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr.A.D.N.Rao, Adv. Mr. T.V.Ratnam, Adv. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Adv. Mr.Anil Shrivastav, Adv. Mr. Altaf H. Naiyak,A.G. Mr.Anis Suhrawardy, Adv. Mr.Sanjay R. Hegde, Adv. Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv.State of Assam Ms. Minakshi Sarma, Adv. M/s Corporate Law Group Mr. B.B. Singh, Adv.(NP) Mr. J.P.Dhanda, Adv.(NP) Mr.Ashok Mathur, Adv.State of M.P. Mr. Pradeep Purohit,Adv. Mr. B.S. Banthia, Adv. Mrs. V.D. Khanna, Adv.State of West Bengal Mr.Bhaskar P.Gupta, Sr.Adv. Mr. T.C.Sharma, Adv. Mr. Kishan Datta, Adv. Ms. Neelam Sharma, Adv.State of T.N. & Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Adv.U.T.of Pondicherry Mr. S. Joseph Aristotle, Adv. Mr.S. Prabu Ramasubramanian,Adv.

State of U.P. Mr.Anil Kumar Jha, Adv. Mr.vijay Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr.Pradeep Mishra, Adv. Mr.Raj Kumar Mehta, Adv. Mr. M.N. Sharma, Adv. Mr. A. Mariarputham,Adv. Ms.Aruna Mathur,Adv. M/s Arputham Aruna & Co. Mrs.Revathy Raghavan, Adv.(NP) Mr. Radha Shyam Jena, Adv. Mr. Mukesh K.Giri, Adv.State of Haryana Mr. Manjeet Singh, Addl. A.G. Mr. T.V. George, Adv.State of Chhattisgarh Ms.Suparana Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Minocha, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, Adv.State of Meghalaya Mr.Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. S.C.Ghosh, Adv. Mr.G.S.Chatterjee, Adv. Mr.Sunil Kumar Jain,Adv.High Court of Orissa Mr. Janaranjan Das, Adv. Mr.Swetaketu Mishra, Adv. Mr.S.R.Mahanty,Adv.State of Punjab Mr.K.K. Mahalik, Adv. Mr.Ajay Pal, Adv.State of Manipur Mr. Kh. Nobin Singh, Adv.State of Jharkhand Mr. Manish Kumar Saran, Adv.State of Arunachal Mr.Anil Shrivastava, Adv.Pradesh Mr.Ritu Raj, Adv.State of Rajasthan Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, Addl.Adv. Genl. Mr. Naveen Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Mukul Sood, Adv. Mr.Shashwat Gupta, Adv. Mr.Adarsh Sabharwal, Adv.State of Mizoram Mr. K.N. Madhusoodhanan, Adv. Mr.R. Satish, Adv. Mr.Govind Goel, Adv. Mr.C.D.Singh,Adv. Mr. Merusagar Samantaray, Adv. Mr.Vairagya Vardhan, Adv. Mr.Sunny Chowdhary, Adv. Mr. Ram Naresh Yadav,Adv.State of Maharashtra Mr.S.S.Shinde, Adv. Mrs. Asha G. Nair,Adv.State of Uttranchal Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Adv.W.P.(C) No.140/05 Mr.Ashok Bhan, Adv.

Mrs.Sunita Sharma, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv. Mr. S. Ravishankar, Adv. Ms. Priyanka, Adv.State of Sikkim Mr.Sonam P.Wangdi, A.G. Mr. A. Mariarputham, Adv. Ms. Aruna Mathur, Adv. For M/s Arputham Aruna & Co.High Court of Sikkim Mr.Sonam P.Wangdi, A.G. Mr. A. Mariarputham, Adv. Ms. Aruna Mathur, Adv. For M/s Arputham Aruna & Co.State of Karnataka Mr.Sanjay R.Hegde, Adv.State of Tripura Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv. Ms. Retu Rai Biswas, Adv.State of Nagaland Mr. U. Hazarika, Adv. Mr. Satya Mitra, Adv. Ms.Sumita Hazarika, Adv. Mrs.Sunita Sharma, Adv. Mr.D.S. Mahra, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following ORDERI.A. for direction by Amicus-Curiae The Amicus-Curiae appointed in this case has filed an application fordirection. Having heard learned Amicus-Curiae and learned Solicitor General, weare of the opinion that as questions of some importance have been raised in theapplication, the applicationshould be treated as fresh writ petition. Let the writ petition be placed before anappropriate Bench. List T.C.(C)22/2001, T.C.(C) No.23/2001, SLP(C) No.7870/2001,SLP(C) No.10645/2001,T.P.(C) No.407-410/2001 and W.P.(C) No.140/2005after four weeks. (Meenu Sethi) (Pushap Lata Bhardwaj) Court Master Court Master

XN'ITEM No.37 Court No.6SECTION -XVIA SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGST.C.(C) No. 22/2001Brij Mohan Lal Petitioner VERSUSUnion of India & Ors. Respondents(With appln(s) for permission and directions and implement the directions andpermission to place additional documents )(Office report)(Office report with quarterly reports received from High Courts and State Govt. fordirections)WithT.C.(C) No. 23/2001, SLP(C) No. 7870/2001, SLP(C) No. 10645/2001, T.P.(C) No. 407-410/2001W.P.(C) No. 140/2005(With appln. For interim directions) Date: 23/07/2007 :This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.B.SINHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. BEDI For Petitioner(s)/ Mr. P.S. Narasimha, A.C. Respondent(s) Mr. P.S.Narasimha, Adv.for M/s P.S.N. & Co. Mr.Chander Shekhar Ashri, Adv.I.A.No.13 in Mr. A.V.Rao, Adv.T.C.22/01 Mr.Sateesh Galla,Adv. Mr. Prabhakar P., Adv. Mr. Venkateshwara Rao Anumole, Adv. -2-T.C.No.22/01 Mr.Sateesh Galla, Adv. Mr. P.H. Parekh, Adv. Mr.Sameer Parekh, Adv. Ms.Sonali Basu Parekh, Adv. Mr.Ajay K.Jha, Adv. Ms. Deeksha Rai, Adv. For M/s. P.H. Parekh & Co.Registrar General Mr. K. Ramkumar, Adv.High Court of A.P. Mr. B.Sridhar, Adv. Ms. I. Madhavi, Adv.UOI Mr.G.E.Vahanavati,Solicitor General Mr.R. Mohan, ASG Ms.Anjani Aiyagari, Adv. Mr.P. Parmeswaran, Adv.Ministry of Law & Mr. G.E. Vahanvati, ASGJustice Mr. T.S. Doabia, Sr.Adv. Ms. Sunita Sharma, Adv. Ms. Varuna Bhandari Gugna, Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra, Adv. Mr. P. Parmeswaran, Adv.

UOI Gaurav Agrawal,Adv. Mr.Ashok Bhan Singh, Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra, Adv.NCT, Delhi Ms. Sunita Sharma, Adv. Mr.Ashok Bhan, Adv. Ms.Anil Katiyar, Adv.Allahabad High Court Mr.Ashok K.Srivastava, Adv. Mr.Saurabh Trivedi, Adv. Mr. Shaiwal Srivastava, Adv. -3-State of Tripura Mr.Gopal Singh, Adv. Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Adv.State of Bihar Mr.Gopal Singh, Adv. Mr.Anukul Raj, Adv. Mr.Ritu Raj Biswas,Adv.Intervenor in I.A.9 Mr.Vijay Kumar, Adv. Mr. Vishwajit Singh, Adv.State of H.P. Mr.J.S. Attri,Addl.Adv. Genl.State of Goa Ms.A.Subhashini, Adv.State of Gujarat Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Adv. Ms. Pinky Behera, Adv. Ms.Shivangi, Adv.State of Kerala Mr.G. Prakash, Adv. Ms.Beena Prakash, Adv. Mr. Ajit Panja, Sr.Adv. Mr.Amit Sharma, Adv. Mr.Anupam Lal Das, Adv. Mr.Vijay Hansaria, Sr.Adv. Mr. P.I.Jose, Adv. Mr.Anupam Mishra, Adv. Ms.Sneha Kalita, Adv. Ms. Deepti, Adv. Ms. D. Bharathi Reddy, Adv.(NP) Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Adv. Mrs.Shomila Bakshi, Adv. Ms.Sunita Dwivedi, Adv. -4- Mrs.Rachna Gupta, Adv. Mr.Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Adv. Mr.Javed Mahmud Rao, Adv.(NP) Mr.Ashok Kumar Singh, Adv.

Mr.A.D.N.Rao, Adv. Mr. T.V.Ratnam, Adv. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Adv. Mr.Anil Shrivastav, Adv. Mr.Anis Suhrawardy, Adv.(NP) Mr.Sanjay R. Hegde, Adv. Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv.State of Assam Mr. Riku Sarma, Adv. For M/s Corporate Law Group Mr. Naveen Sharma, Adv. Mr. B.S. Banthia, Adv. Mrs. V.D. Khanna, Adv.State of West Bengal Mr.Bhaskar P.Gupta, Sr.Adv. Mr. T.C.Sharma, Adv. Ms. Neelam Sharma, Adv.High Court of J&K Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma, Adv. -5-State of T.N. & Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Adv.Govt.of Pondicherry Mr. S. Vallinayagam, Adv. Mr.S. Prabu Ramasubramanian,Adv.State of U.P. Mrs.Shobha Dikshit, Sr.Adv. Dr. I.P.Singh, Adv. Mr.Pradeep Mishra, Adv. Mr. A. Mariarputham,Adv. Ms.Aruna Mathur,Adv. M/s Arputham Aruna & Co. Mrs.Revathy Raghavan, Adv.(NP) Mr. Radha Shyam Jena, Adv. Mr. Mukesh K.Giri, Adv.State of Haryana Mr. Manjit Singh,Addl. Adv. Mr. T.V. George, Adv.State of Chhattisgarh Ms.Suparana Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Pooja Matlani, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Minocha,Adv. Mr. Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Halim Siddiqui, Adv.State of Meghalaya Mr.Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. S.C.Ghosh, Adv.For the Gauhati H.C. Mr.Vijay Hansaria,Sr.Adv. Mr. P.I. Jose,Adv. Ms.Deepti,Adv. Ms.Sneha Kalita,Adv.

Mr.Sunil Kumar Jain,Adv. -6-State of Orissa Mr. Janaranjan Das, Adv. Mr.Swetaketu Mishra, Adv.State of Punjab Mrs. Jayshree Ananu, Addl. Ad.General Mr. K.K. Mahalik, Adv. Mr. Kuldip Singh, Adv. Mr.R.K.Rathore, Adv. Mr. M.K. Verma, Adv. Mr.Arun Kumar Sinha, Adv.State of Manipur Mr. Kh. Nobin Singh, Adv. Mr. S.Biswajit Meitei, Adv. Mr.David Rao, Adv.State of Jharkhand Mr. Manish Kumar Saran, Adv. Mr.Sujit Saurabh, Adv.State of Arunachal Mr.Anil Shrivastava, Adv.Pradesh Mr. Ritu Raj, Adv.State of Rajasthan Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, Addl.Adv. Genl. Mr. Naveen Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Mukul Sood, Adv. Mr.Shashwat Gupta, Adv. Ms.Adarsh Sabharwal, Adv.For High Court of Rajasthan Mr.Sunil K Jain,Adv. Mr.SBorthakur,Adv. Ms.Jayu Tomar,Adv.State of Mizoram Mr. K.N. Madhusoodhanan, Adv. Mr.R. Satish, Adv. -7-State of M.P.& Mr. V.M.Ghatate,Sr.ADv.M.P. High Court Mr.C.D.Singh,Adv. Mr. Merusagar Samantaray, Adv.State of Maharashtra Mr.A.P. Mayee, Adv. Mr.V.N.Raghupathy, Adv.State of Uttranchal Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Adv. Mr.. Avatar Singh Rawat,Adv.W.P.(C) No.140/05 Mr.Ashok Bhan, Adv. Mrs.Sunita Sharma, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv. Mr. S. Ravishankar, Adv. Ms. Priyanka, Adv.Govt. of Pondicherry Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Adv.State of Sikkim Mr.Sonam P.Wangdi, A.G. Mr. A. Mariarputham, Adv. Ms. Aruna Mathur, Adv. For M/s Arputham Aruna & Co.

State of Orissa Mr. J. Das, Adv. Mr. Swetavetu Mishra,Adv. Mrs. S.R. MohantyState of Goa Ms. A. Subhashini,Adv. -8-State of M.P. Mr.B.S.Banthia, Adv. Mr. Govind Goel, Adv. Mr. C.D. Singh, Adv. Mr. Ram Naresh Yadav, Adv. Mr. Sunny Chowdhary, Adv. Mr. Merusagar Samatta Ray, Adv.State of Manipur Mr.KH Nobin Singh,Adv.State of Karnataka Mr.Sanjay R.Hegde, Adv. Mr. Anil K.Mishra, Adv. Mr.Vikrant Yadav, Adv. Mr. Sashidhar, Adv.State of Tripura Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv. Ms. Retu Rai Biswas, Adv. Mr.Anukul Raj,Adv.State of Nagaland Mr. U. Hazarika, Adv. Mr. Satya Mitra, Adv. Ms.Sumita Hazarika, Adv. Mrs.Sunita Sharma, Adv. Mr.D.S. Mahra, Adv.UPON being mentioned the Court made the following ORDERList after two weeks.(P.P.Sharma) (Pushap Lata Bhardwaj) AR-cum-PS Court Master

øOITEM No.37 Court No.6 SECTION -XVIA SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS T.C.(C) No. 22/2001Brij Mohan Lal Petitioner VERSUSUnion of India & Ors. Respondents(With appln(s) for permission and directions and implement the directionsand permission to place additional documents )(Office report)(Office report with quarterly reports received from High Courts and State Govt. fordirections)With T.C.(C) No. 23/2001, SLP(C) No. 7870/2001, SLP(C) No. 10645/2001,T.P.(C) No. 407-410/2001W.P.(C) No. 140/2005(With appln. For interim directions)Date: 23/07/2007 :This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.B.SINHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. BEDIFor Petitioner(s)/ Mr. P.S. Narasimha, A.C.Respondent(s) Mr. P.S.Narasimha, Adv.for M/s P.S.N. & Co. Mr.Chander Shekhar Ashri, Adv.I.A.No.13 in Mr. A.V.Rao, Adv.T.C.22/01 Mr.Sateesh Galla,Adv. Mr. Prabhakar P., Adv. Mr. Venkateshwara Rao Anumole, Adv.T.C.No.22/01 Mr.Sateesh Galla, Adv. Mr. P.H. Parekh, Adv. Mr.Sameer Parekh, Adv. Ms.Sonali Basu Parekh, Adv. Mr.Ajay K.Jha, Adv. Ms. Deeksha Rai, Adv. For M/s. P.H. Parekh & Co.Registrar General Mr. K. Ramkumar, Adv.High Court of A.P. Mr. B.Sridhar, Adv. Ms. I. Madhavi, Adv. -2-UOI Mr.G.E.Vahanavati,Solicitor General Mr.R. Mohan, ASG Ms.Anjani Aiyagari, Adv. Mr.P. Parmeswaran, Adv.Ministry of Law & Mr. G.E. Vahanvati, ASGJustice Mr. T.S. Doabia, Sr.Adv. Ms. Sunita Sharma, Adv. Ms. Varuna Bhandari Gugna, Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra, Adv. Mr. P. Parmeswaran, Adv.UOI Gaurav Agrawal,Adv. Mr.Ashok Bhan Singh, Adv.

Mr. D.S. Mahra, Adv.NCT, Delhi Ms. Sunita Sharma, Adv. Mr.Ashok Bhan, Adv. Ms.Anil Katiyar, Adv.Allahabad High Court Mr.Ashok K.Srivastava, Adv. Mr.Saurabh Trivedi, Adv. Mr. Shaiwal Srivastava, Adv.State of Tripura Mr.Gopal Singh, Adv. Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Adv.State of Bihar Mr.Gopal Singh, Adv. Mr.Anukul Raj, Adv. Mr.Ritu Raj Biswas,Adv.Intervenor in I.A.9 Mr.Vijay Kumar, Adv. Mr. Vishwajit Singh, Adv.State of H.P. Mr.J.S. Attri,Addl.Adv. Genl.State of Goa Ms.A.Subhashini, Adv.State of Gujarat Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Adv. Ms. Pinky Behera, Adv. Ms.Shivangi, Adv.State of Kerala Mr.G. Prakash, Adv. Ms.Beena Prakash, Adv. Mr. Ajit Panja, Sr.Adv. Mr.Amit Sharma, Adv. Mr.Anupam Lal Das, Adv. Mr.Vijay Hansaria, Sr.Adv. Mr. P.I.Jose, Adv. Mr.Anupam Mishra, Adv. Ms.Sneha Kalita, Adv.Ms. Deepti, Adv. -3- Ms. D. Bharathi Reddy, Adv.(NP) Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Adv. Mrs.Shomila Bakshi, Adv. Ms.Sunita Dwivedi, Adv. Mrs.Rachna Gupta, Adv. Mr.Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Adv. Mr.Javed Mahmud Rao, Adv.(NP) Mr.Ashok Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr.A.D.N.Rao, Adv. Mr. T.V.Ratnam, Adv. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Adv. Mr.Anil Shrivastav, Adv. Mr.Anis Suhrawardy, Adv.(NP)

Mr.Sanjay R. Hegde, Adv. Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv.State of Assam Mr. Riku Sarma, Adv. For M/s Corporate Law Group Mr. Naveen Sharma, Adv. Mr. B.S. Banthia, Adv. Mrs. V.D. Khanna, Adv.State of West Bengal Mr.Bhaskar P.Gupta, Sr.Adv. Mr. T.C.Sharma, Adv. Ms. Neelam Sharma, Adv.High Court of J&K Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma, Adv.State of T.N. & Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Adv.Govt.of Pondicherry Mr. S. Vallinayagam, Adv. Mr.S. Prabu Ramasubramanian,Adv.State of U.P. Mrs.Shobha Dikshit, Sr.Adv. Dr. I.P.Singh, Adv. Mr.Pradeep Mishra, Adv. Mr. A. Mariarputham,Adv. Ms.Aruna Mathur,Adv. M/s Arputham Aruna & Co. Mrs.Revathy Raghavan, Adv.(NP) -4- Mr. Radha Shyam Jena, Adv. Mr. Mukesh K.Giri, Adv.State of Haryana Mr. Manjit Singh,Addl. Adv. Mr. T.V. George, Adv.State of Chhattisgarh Ms.Suparana Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Pooja Matlani, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Minocha,Adv. Mr. Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Halim Siddiqui, Adv.State of Meghalaya Mr.Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. S.C.Ghosh, Adv.For the Gauhati H.C. Mr.Vijay Hansaria,Sr.Adv. Mr. P.I. Jose,Adv. Ms.Deepti,Adv. Ms.Sneha Kalita,Adv. Mr.Sunil Kumar Jain,Adv.State of Orissa Mr. Janaranjan Das, Adv. Mr.Swetaketu Mishra, Adv.State of Punjab Mrs. Jayshree Ananu, Addl. Ad.General Mr. K.K. Mahalik, Adv. Mr. Kuldip Singh, Adv. Mr.R.K.Rathore, Adv. Mr. M.K. Verma, Adv. Mr.Arun Kumar Sinha, Adv.State of Manipur Mr. Kh. Nobin Singh, Adv.

Mr. S.Biswajit Meitei, Adv. Mr.David Rao, Adv.State of Jharkhand Mr. Manish Kumar Saran, Adv. Mr.Sujit Saurabh, Adv.State of Arunachal Mr.Anil Shrivastava, Adv.Pradesh Mr. Ritu Raj, Adv.State of Rajasthan Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, Addl.Adv. Genl. Mr. Naveen Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Mukul Sood, Adv. Mr.Shashwat Gupta, Adv. Ms.Adarsh Sabharwal, Adv.For High Court of Mr.Sunil K Jain,Adv.Rajasthan Mr.SBorthakur,Adv. Ms.Jayu Tomar,Adv. -5-State of Mizoram Mr. K.N. Madhusoodhanan, Adv. Mr.R. Satish, Adv.State of M.P.& Mr. V.M.Ghatate,Sr.ADv.M.P. High Court Mr.C.D.Singh,Adv. Mr. Merusagar Samantaray, Adv.State of Maharashtra Mr.A.P. Mayee, Adv. Mr.V.N.Raghupathy, Adv.State of Uttranchal Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Avatar Singh Rawat,Adv.W.P.(C) No.140/05 Mr.Ashok Bhan, Adv. Mrs.Sunita Sharma, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv. Mr. S. Ravishankar, Adv. Ms. Priyanka, Adv.Govt. of Pondicherry Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Adv.State of Sikkim Mr.Sonam P.Wangdi, A.G. Mr. A. Mariarputham, Adv. Ms. Aruna Mathur, Adv. For M/s Arputham Aruna & Co.State of Orissa Mr. J. Das, Adv. Mr. Swetavetu Mishra,Adv. Mrs. S.R. MohantyState of Goa Ms. A. Subhashini,Adv.State of M.P. Mr.B.S.Banthia, Adv. Mr. Govind Goel, Adv. Mr. C.D. Singh, Adv. Mr. Ram Naresh Yadav, Adv. Mr. Sunny Chowdhary, Adv. Mr. Merusagar Samatta Ray, Adv.State of Manipur Mr.KH Nobin Singh,Adv.State of Karnataka Mr.Sanjay R.Hegde, Adv. Mr. Anil K.Mishra, Adv. Mr.Vikrant Yadav, Adv. Mr. Sashidhar, Adv.State of Tripura Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv. Ms. Retu Rai Biswas, Adv.

Mr.Anukul Raj,Adv.State of Nagaland Mr. U. Hazarika, Adv. Mr. Satya Mitra, Adv. -6- Ms.Sumita Hazarika, Adv. Mrs.Sunita Sharma, Adv. Mr.D.S. Mahra, Adv. UPON being mentioned the Court made the following ORDER List after two weeks.(P.P.Sharma) (Pushap Lata Bhardwaj)AR-cum-PS Court Master

øOITEM No.37 Court No.6 SECTION -XVIA SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS T.C.(C) No. 22/2001Brij Mohan Lal Petitioner VERSUSUnion of India & Ors. Respondents(With appln(s) for permission and directions and implement the directionsand permission to place additional documents )(Office report)(Office report with quarterly reports received from High Courts and State Govt. fordirections)With T.C.(C) No. 23/2001, SLP(C) No. 7870/2001, SLP(C) No. 10645/2001,T.P.(C) No. 407-410/2001W.P.(C) No. 140/2005(With appln. For interim directions)Date: 23/07/2007 :This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.B.SINHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. BEDIFor Petitioner(s)/ Mr. P.S. Narasimha, A.C.Respondent(s) Mr. P.S.Narasimha, Adv.for M/s P.S.N. & Co. Mr.Chander Shekhar Ashri, Adv.I.A.No.13 in Mr. A.V.Rao, Adv.T.C.22/01 Mr.Sateesh Galla,Adv. Mr. Prabhakar P., Adv. Mr. Venkateshwara Rao Anumole, Adv.T.C.No.22/01 Mr.Sateesh Galla, Adv. Mr. P.H. Parekh, Adv. Mr.Sameer Parekh, Adv. Ms.Sonali Basu Parekh, Adv. Mr.Ajay K.Jha, Adv. Ms. Deeksha Rai, Adv. For M/s. P.H. Parekh & Co.Registrar General Mr. K. Ramkumar, Adv.High Court of A.P. Mr. B.Sridhar, Adv. Ms. I. Madhavi, Adv. -2-UOI Mr.G.E.Vahanavati,Solicitor General Mr.R. Mohan, ASG Ms.Anjani Aiyagari, Adv. Mr.P. Parmeswaran, Adv.Ministry of Law & Mr. G.E. Vahanvati, ASGJustice Mr. T.S. Doabia, Sr.Adv. Ms. Sunita Sharma, Adv. Ms. Varuna Bhandari Gugna, Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra, Adv. Mr. P. Parmeswaran, Adv.UOI Gaurav Agrawal,Adv. Mr.Ashok Bhan Singh, Adv.

Mr. D.S. Mahra, Adv.NCT, Delhi Ms. Sunita Sharma, Adv. Mr.Ashok Bhan, Adv. Ms.Anil Katiyar, Adv.Allahabad High Court Mr.Ashok K.Srivastava, Adv. Mr.Saurabh Trivedi, Adv. Mr. Shaiwal Srivastava, Adv.State of Tripura Mr.Gopal Singh, Adv. Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Adv.State of Bihar Mr.Gopal Singh, Adv. Mr.Anukul Raj, Adv. Mr.Ritu Raj Biswas,Adv.Intervenor in I.A.9 Mr.Vijay Kumar, Adv. Mr. Vishwajit Singh, Adv.State of H.P. Mr.J.S. Attri,Addl.Adv. Genl.State of Goa Ms.A.Subhashini, Adv.State of Gujarat Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Adv. Ms. Pinky Behera, Adv. Ms.Shivangi, Adv.State of Kerala Mr.G. Prakash, Adv. Ms.Beena Prakash, Adv. Mr. Ajit Panja, Sr.Adv. Mr.Amit Sharma, Adv. Mr.Anupam Lal Das, Adv. Mr.Vijay Hansaria, Sr.Adv. Mr. P.I.Jose, Adv. Mr.Anupam Mishra, Adv. Ms.Sneha Kalita, Adv.Ms. Deepti, Adv. -3- Ms. D. Bharathi Reddy, Adv.(NP) Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Adv. Mrs.Shomila Bakshi, Adv. Ms.Sunita Dwivedi, Adv. Mrs.Rachna Gupta, Adv. Mr.Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Adv. Mr.Javed Mahmud Rao, Adv.(NP) Mr.Ashok Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr.A.D.N.Rao, Adv. Mr. T.V.Ratnam, Adv. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Adv. Mr.Anil Shrivastav, Adv. Mr.Anis Suhrawardy, Adv.(NP)

Mr.Sanjay R. Hegde, Adv. Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv.State of Assam Mr. Riku Sarma, Adv. For M/s Corporate Law Group Mr. Naveen Sharma, Adv. Mr. B.S. Banthia, Adv. Mrs. V.D. Khanna, Adv.State of West Bengal Mr.Bhaskar P.Gupta, Sr.Adv. Mr. T.C.Sharma, Adv. Ms. Neelam Sharma, Adv.High Court of J&K Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma, Adv.State of T.N. & Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Adv.Govt.of Pondicherry Mr. S. Vallinayagam, Adv. Mr.S. Prabu Ramasubramanian,Adv.State of U.P. Mrs.Shobha Dikshit, Sr.Adv. Dr. I.P.Singh, Adv. Mr.Pradeep Mishra, Adv. Mr. A. Mariarputham,Adv. Ms.Aruna Mathur,Adv. M/s Arputham Aruna & Co. Mrs.Revathy Raghavan, Adv.(NP) -4- Mr. Radha Shyam Jena, Adv. Mr. Mukesh K.Giri, Adv.State of Haryana Mr. Manjit Singh,Addl. Adv. Mr. T.V. George, Adv.State of Chhattisgarh Ms.Suparana Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Pooja Matlani, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Minocha,Adv. Mr. Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Halim Siddiqui, Adv.State of Meghalaya Mr.Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. S.C.Ghosh, Adv.For the Gauhati H.C. Mr.Vijay Hansaria,Sr.Adv. Mr. P.I. Jose,Adv. Ms.Deepti,Adv. Ms.Sneha Kalita,Adv. Mr.Sunil Kumar Jain,Adv.State of Orissa Mr. Janaranjan Das, Adv. Mr.Swetaketu Mishra, Adv.State of Punjab Mrs. Jayshree Ananu, Addl. Ad.General Mr. K.K. Mahalik, Adv. Mr. Kuldip Singh, Adv. Mr.R.K.Rathore, Adv. Mr. M.K. Verma, Adv. Mr.Arun Kumar Sinha, Adv.State of Manipur Mr. Kh. Nobin Singh, Adv.

Mr. S.Biswajit Meitei, Adv. Mr.David Rao, Adv.State of Jharkhand Mr. Manish Kumar Saran, Adv. Mr.Sujit Saurabh, Adv.State of Arunachal Mr.Anil Shrivastava, Adv.Pradesh Mr. Ritu Raj, Adv.State of Rajasthan Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, Addl.Adv. Genl. Mr. Naveen Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Mukul Sood, Adv. Mr.Shashwat Gupta, Adv. Ms.Adarsh Sabharwal, Adv.For High Court of Mr.Sunil K Jain,Adv.Rajasthan Mr.SBorthakur,Adv. Ms.Jayu Tomar,Adv. -5-State of Mizoram Mr. K.N. Madhusoodhanan, Adv. Mr.R. Satish, Adv.State of M.P.& Mr. V.M.Ghatate,Sr.ADv.M.P. High Court Mr.C.D.Singh,Adv. Mr. Merusagar Samantaray, Adv.State of Maharashtra Mr.A.P. Mayee, Adv. Mr.V.N.Raghupathy, Adv.State of Uttranchal Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Avatar Singh Rawat,Adv.W.P.(C) No.140/05 Mr.Ashok Bhan, Adv. Mrs.Sunita Sharma, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv. Mr. S. Ravishankar, Adv. Ms. Priyanka, Adv.Govt. of Pondicherry Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Adv.State of Sikkim Mr.Sonam P.Wangdi, A.G. Mr. A. Mariarputham, Adv. Ms. Aruna Mathur, Adv. For M/s Arputham Aruna & Co.State of Orissa Mr. J. Das, Adv. Mr. Swetavetu Mishra,Adv. Mrs. S.R. MohantyState of Goa Ms. A. Subhashini,Adv.State of M.P. Mr.B.S.Banthia, Adv. Mr. Govind Goel, Adv. Mr. C.D. Singh, Adv. Mr. Ram Naresh Yadav, Adv. Mr. Sunny Chowdhary, Adv. Mr. Merusagar Samatta Ray, Adv.State of Manipur Mr.KH Nobin Singh,Adv.State of Karnataka Mr.Sanjay R.Hegde, Adv. Mr. Anil K.Mishra, Adv. Mr.Vikrant Yadav, Adv. Mr. Sashidhar, Adv.State of Tripura Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv. Ms. Retu Rai Biswas, Adv.

Mr.Anukul Raj,Adv.State of Nagaland Mr. U. Hazarika, Adv. Mr. Satya Mitra, Adv. -6- Ms.Sumita Hazarika, Adv. Mrs.Sunita Sharma, Adv. Mr.D.S. Mahra, Adv. UPON being mentioned the Court made the following ORDER List after two weeks.(P.P.Sharma) (Pushap Lata Bhardwaj)AR-cum-PS Court Master

\226KIT E M NO.3 9 COUR T NO.6 S EC T I O N XVIA S UP R E M E C OUR T OF I N D I A R E CO R D OF P R OC E E D I N G S TRA N S F E R CAS E (CIVI L) NO.2 2 OF 20 0 1B R I J MOHAN LA L Petitioner(s) VE R S U SUNION OF INDI A & ORS. Respondent(s)(With appln(s). for permission and directions to implement the directions and permissionto place addl. documents and office report)(Office report with quarterly reports received from State Governmentsfor directions)WI T HT.C.(C) No.2 3 / 2 0 0 1 , SL P(C) No.7 8 7 0 / 2 0 0 1 , SL P(C) No.1 0 6 4 5 / 2 0 0 1T. P.(C) Nos.4 0 7 - 41 0 / 2 0 0 1WI T HW. P.(C) No.1 4 0 / 2 0 0 5(With application for interim directions)Date: 0 9/ 0 7 / 2 0 0 7 These matters were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'B L E MR. JUS T I C E S.B. SINHA HON'B L E MR. JUS T I C E H.S. B E D IFor Petitioner(s) Mr. P.S. Na r a s i m h a ,Adv. (A.C.) Mr. Ananga Bhattacha ryya,Adv. Mr. Avijeet K. Lala,Adv. for M/S. P.S. N. & Co.,Advs. Mr. Chander Shekha r Ashri,Adv. Mr. A.V. Rao,Adv. Mr. Sateesh Galla,Adv. Mr. A.V. Rao,Adv. Mr. Pra bha k a r P.,Adv. Mr. Venkateshwa r a Rao Anumolu,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. G.E. Vahanvati, SG Mr. R. Mohan, ASG Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari,Adv. Mr. P. Pa r mes w a r a n,Adv. Mr. Vijay Hansaria, Sr.Adv. Mr. P.I. Jose,Adv. Mr. Anupam Mishra,Adv. Ms. Sneha Kalita,Adv. Ms. Deepti,Adv. Mr. Raj Kuma r Gupta,Adv. Mr. Sheo Kuma r Gupta,Adv. Mr. Bha nu Pratap Gupta,Adv. Mr. A.N. Bha rdaiyar,Adv. ..2/- -2-For State of Haryana Mr. Manjit Singh,Adv. Mr. T.V. George,Adv.

For State of Maha ra s htr aand Bombay High Court Mr. A.P. Mayee,Adv. Mr. V.N. Raghupathy,Adv.For the State of Punjab Mr. R. K. Rathore,Adv. Mr. M.K. Verma,Adv. Mr. Arun Kr. Sinha,Adv.For State of Arunachal Prades h Mr. Anil Shrivastav,Adv. Ms. Samita,Adv.For State of Goa Ms. A. Subhas hini,Adv.For the State of Kerala Mr. G. Pra k a s h,Adv. Ms. Beena Pra k a s h,Adv.For State of Manipur Mr. KH. Nobin Singh,Adv. Mr. S. Biswajit Meitei,Adv. Mr. David Rao,Adv.For A.P. High Court Mr. B. Sreedha r,Adv. Mr. K. Ra m Kuma r,Adv. Ms. I Madavi,Adv.For High Court of Patna Mr. P.H. Pa re kh,Adv. Mr. Ajay K. Jha,Adv. for M/s. P.H. Pa re kh & Co.,Advs.For Calcutta High Court Mr. L. Nageshwa ra Rao, Sr.Adv. Mr. Raja Chatterjee,Adv. Mr. G.S. Chatterjee,Adv.For State of U.P. Dr. Indra Pratap Singh,Adv. Mr. Pradeep Mishra,Adv.State of Chhattisgarh Ms. Suparna Srivastava,Adv. Ms. Nidhi Minocha,Adv. Mr. Rajesh Srivastava,Adv.For M.P. High Court Mr. Govind Goel,Adv. Mr. C.D. Singh,Adv. Mr. Merusagar Sama nta r ay,Adv. Mr. Vairagya Vardha n,Adv.For State of M. P. Mr. B.S. Banthia,Adv.For State of Rajastha n Mr. Aruneshwa r Gupta,Addl. Adv. Genl. Mr. Naveen Kuma r Singh,Adv. Mr. Mukul Sood,Adv. Mr. Shashwat Gupta,Adv. Ms. Adarsh Sabharwal,Adv.For Orissa High Court Mr. Ja n a r a n j a n Das,Adv. Mr. Swetaketu Mishra,Adv.For State of Mizora m Mr. K.N. Madhusoodhan a n,Adv. Mr. R. Satish,Adv.For State of H.P. Mr. J.S. Attri,Adv. Mr. Vivek Singh Attri,Adv. ...3/- -3-For U.T. of Chandigarh Ms. Ka mini Jaiswal,Adv. Mrs. Shomila Ba ks hi,Adv. Mrs.Sunita Dwivedi,Adv.For State of Ka rnata k a Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde,Adv. Mr. Vikra nt Yadav,Adv.

Mr. Ra mes h Jadhav,Adv. Mr. Amit Kr. Chandra,Adv.For High Court of J & K Mr. Tara Chandra Shar m a,Adv. Mr. Rajeev Shar m a,Adv.For State of West Bengal Mr. Bha s k a r P. Gupta, Sr.Adv. Mr. Tara Chandra Shar m a,Adv. Miss Neelam Sharm a,Adv. Mr. Rajeev Shar m a,Adv.For Allahabad High Court Mr. Ashok K. Srivastava,Adv. Mr. Saurabh Trivedi,Adv.For State of Uttaranchal Ms. Racha na Srivastava,Adv. Mr. Sunil K. Jain,Adv. Mr. S. Bortha ku r,Adv. Mr. B. Barooa h,Adv.For State of Tamil Nadu Mr. Subra m a niu m Pra s ad,Adv. Mr. R. Gopal Krisha n,Adv.For State of Sikkim & Ms. A. Maria rputha m,Adv.High Court of Sikkim Ms. Aruna Mathur,Adv. for M/S. Arputha m,Arun a & Co.,Advs.For Govt. of Pondicherry Mr. V.G. Praga s a m,Adv. Mr. S. Vallinayaga m,Adv.For State of Nagaland Mr. U. Hazarika,Adv. Mr. Satya Mitra,Adv. Ms. Sumita Hazarika,Adv.For NCT of Delhi Mr. Ashok Bha n,Adv. Ms. Suita Shar m a,Adv. Mr. R.C. Kathia,Adv. Ms. Anil Katiyar,Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra,Adv.For State of Assam Mr. Riku Sarm a,Adv. for M/S Corporate Law Group,Advs.For State of Meghalaya Mr. Ranja n Mukherjee,Adv. Mr. S.C. Ghosh,Adv.For State of Tripura Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv. Mr. Rituraj Biswa s,Adv.For State of Biha r Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv. Mr. Nisha ka nt Pa ndey,Adv.For State of Gujarat Mrs. Hemantika Wahi,Adv. Ms. Shivangi,Adv.For State of Jha r k h a nd Mr. Manish Kuma r Saran,Adv. Mr. Sujit Saurabh,Adv. ....4/- -4- Mrs. D. Bha rati Reddy,Adv. Mr. Ashok Mathur,Adv. Mr. Altaf H. Naiyak, Adv.Gen., J& K . Mr. Anis Suhrawa rdy,Adv. Mr. B. B. Singh,Adv.

Mr. Pra s h a nt Bhush a n ,Adv Mr. Raj Kuma r Mehta ,Adv Mrs. Rachna Gupta ,Adv Mr. Sunil Kuma r J ain,Adv. Mrs. V.D. Kha nn a,Adv. Mr. M.N. Shar m a,Adv. Mr. Annam D.N. Rao,Adv. Mrs. Revathy Raghavan,Adv. Mr. J. P. Dhanda,Adv. Mr. Mukesh K. Giri,Adv. Mr. Radha Shyam Jena ,Adv Mr. Vijay Kum a r,Adv. Mr. Vishwajit Singh ,Adv Mr. Javed Mahmud Rao ,Adv Mr. Rajesh Srivastava ,Adv Mr. Ravi Pra k a s h Mehrotra ,Adv Mr. T.V. Ratna m,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following OR D E RList the matter after one week. (A.S. BI S H T) (PUSH A P LAT A BHA R D W A J )COURT MAS T E R COUR T MAS T E R

LwITEM No.32 Court No.7 SECTION -XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGST.C.(C) No. 22/2001Brij Mohan Lal Petitioner VERSUSUnion of India & Ors. Respondents(With appln(s) for permission and directions and implement the directions andpermission to place additional documents on record)(Office report)(Office report with quarterly reports received form High Courts and State Govt. fordirections)WithT.C.(C) No. 23/2001, SLP(C) No. 7870/2001, SLP(C) No. 10645/2001, T.P.(C) No. 407-410/2001W.P.(C) No. 140/2005(With appln. For interim directions) Date: 13.4.2007 :This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.B.SINHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BALASUBRAMANYAN For Petitioner(s)/ Mr. P.S. Narasimha, A.C. Respondent(s) Mr. P.S.Narasimha, Adv. Mr. P.H.Dinesh, Adv. M/s P.S.N. & Co. Mr.Chander Shekhar Ashri, Adv. I.A.No.13 in Dr. Rajiv Dhawan, Sr. Adv.

Mr. A.V.Rao, Adv. T.C.22/01 Mr.Sateesh Galla,Adv. Mr. Prabhakar P., Adv. Mr. Venkateshwara Rao Anumole, Adv. T.C.No.22/01 Mr.Sateesh Galla, Adv. Mr. P.H. Parekh, Adv. Mr.Ajay K.Jha, Adv. Ms. Deeksha Rai, Adv. For M/s. P.H. Parekh & Co. ....2/- -2-Registrar General Mr. K. Ramkumar, Adv.High Court of A.P. Mr. B.Sridhar, Adv. Ms. I. Madhavi, Adv.UOI Mr.G.E.Vahanavati,Solicitor General Ms. Anjani Aiyagari, Adv. Mr.P. Parmeswaran, Adv.Ministry of Law & Mr. G.E. Vahanvati, ASGJustice Mr. T.S. Doabia, Sr.Adv. Ms. Sunita Sharma, Adv. Ms. Varuna Bhandari Gugna, Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra, Adv. Mr. P. Parmeswaran, Adv.UOI Gaurav Agrawal,Adv. Mr.Ashok Bhan Singh, Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra, Adv.

Ms. Sunita Sharma, Adv. Mr.Ashok Bhan, Adv. Mr.D.S. Mahra, Adv.Allahabad High Court Mr.Ashok K.Srivastava, Adv. Mr.Sourabh Trivedi, Adv. Mr.Indrajeet Das, Adv.State of Tripura Mr.Gopal Singh, Adv. Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Adv.State of Bihar Mr.Gopal Singh, Adv. Mr.Anukul Raj, Adv. Mr.Rituraj Biswas, Adv.Intervenor in I.A.9 Mr.Vijay Kumar, Adv. Mr. Vishwajit Singh, Adv.State of H.P. Mr.J.S. Attri,Addl.Adv. Genl. Mr.Vivek Singh Attri, Adv.State of Goa Ms.A.Subhashini, Adv.State of Gujarat Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Adv. Ms.Shivangi, Adv.State of Kerala Mr.G. Prakash, Adv. Ms.Beena Prakash, Adv. ...3/- -3-

Mr. Vijay Hansaria, Sr.Adv. Mr. P.I. Jose, Adv. Ms.Sneha, Adv. Ms. Deepti, Adv. Mr.Anupam Lal Das, Adv. Mr.Vijay Hansaria, Sr.Adv. Mr. P.I.Jose, Adv. Mr. Mishra, Adv. Ms.Sneha Kalita, Adv. Ms. Deepti, Adv. Ms. D. Bharathi Reddy, Adv.(NP) Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Adv. Mrs.Shomila Bakshi, Adv. Ms.Sunita Dwivedi, Adv. Mrs.Rachna Gupta, Adv. Mr.Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Adv. Mr.Javed Mahmud Rao, Adv.(NP) Mr.Ashok Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Neelam Jain, Adv.for M r.A.D.N.Rao, Adv. Mr. T.V.Ratnam, Adv. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Adv.

Mr.Anil Shrivastav, Adv. Mr.Anis Suhrawardy, Adv.(NP) Mr.Sanjay R. Hegde, Adv. Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv. Mr.S.C.Ghosh, Adv.State of Assam Mr. Riku Sarma, Adv. For M/s Corporate Law Group Mr. B.B. Singh, Adv.(NP) Mr. J.P.Dhanda, Adv.(NP) Mr.Ashok Mathur, Adv. ...4/- -4- Mr.M.P. Singh,Adv.. Mr. B.S. Banthia, Adv. Mrs. V.D. Khanna, Adv.State of West Bengal Mr.Bhaskar P.Gupta, Sr.Adv. Mr. T.C.Sharma, Adv. Ms. Neelam Sharma, Adv.High Court of J&K Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma, Adv. Mr.Rajeev Sharma, Adv.

State of T.N. & Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Adv.Govt.of Pondicherry Mr. S. Vallinayagam, Adv. Mr.S. Prabu Ramasubramanian,Adv.State of U.P. Dr. I.P.Singh, Adv. Mr.Pradeep Mishra, Adv. Mr.Raj Kumar Mehta, Adv. Mr. M.N. Sharma, Adv. Mr. V.G. Pragasam,Adv. Mr. A. Mariarputham,Adv. Ms.Aruna Mathur,Adv. M/s Arputham Aruna & Co. Mrs.Revathy Raghavan, Adv.(NP) Mr. Radha Shyam Jena, Adv. Mr. Mukesh K.Giri, Adv.State of Haryana Mr. Manjeet Singh, Adv. Mr. T.V. George, Adv.State of Chhattisgarh Ms.Suparana Srivastava, Adv. Ms.Nidhi Minocha,Adv. Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Halim Siddiqui, Adv.

State of Meghalaya Mr.Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. S.C.Ghosh, Adv. ..5/- -5- Mr.G.S.Chatterjee, Adv. Mr.Sunil Kumar Jain,Adv.State of Orissa Mr. Janaranjan Das, Adv. Mr.Swetaketu Mishra, Adv.State of Punjab Mr. Kuldip Singh, Adv. Mr.R.K. Pandey, Adv. Mr.Sanjay Katyal, Adv. Mr. T.P. Mishra, Adv.State of Manipur Mr.Ashok Potshangbam, Adv. Mr. Kh. Novin Singh, Adv.State of Jharkhand Mr. Manish Kumar Saran, Adv. Mr.Sujit Saurabh, Adv.State of Arunachal Mr.Anil Shrivastava, Adv.PradeshState of Rajasthan Mr. Naveen Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Mukul Sood, Adv. Mr.Shashwat Gupta, Adv.

State of Mizoram Mr. K.N. Madhusoodhanan, Adv. Mr.R. Satish, Adv.State of M.P.&M.P. High Court Mr.C.D.Singh,Adv. Mr. Merusagar Samantaray, Adv. Mr.Vairagya Vardhan,Adv.State of Maharashtra Mr.A.P. Mayee, Adv. Mr.V.N.Raghupathy, Adv.State of Uttranchal Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Adv.State of Uttranchal Mr. Avatar Singh Rawat,Adv. Mr. Jitendra Kumar Bhatia, Adv.W.P.(C) No.140/05 Mr.Ashok Bhan, Adv. Mrs.Sunita Sharma, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv. Mr. S. Ravishankar, Adv. Ms. Priyanka, Adv. ...6/- -6-Govt. of Pondicherry Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Adv.State of Sikkim Mr.Sonam P.Wangdi, A.G. Mr. A. Mariarputham, Adv. Ms. Aruna Mathur, Adv. For M/s Arputham Aruna & Co.State of Karnataka Mr.Sanjay R.Hegde, Adv.

Mr. Anil K.Mishra, Adv. Mr.Vikrant Yadav, Adv. Mr. Sashidhar, Adv.State of Tripura Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv. Ms. Retu Rai Biswas, Adv.State of Nagaland Mr. U. Hazarika, Adv. Mr. Satya Mitra, Adv. Ms.Sumita Hazarika, Adv. Mrs.Sunita Sharma, Adv. Mr.D.S. Mahra, Adv. UPON being mentioned the Court made the following O R D E R On 2.2.2007, this Court passed the following order: "....... Keeping in view the fact that a large number of cases arepending in the said Courts, we request the High Court to consider the question asto whether the work of the existing Fast Track Courts can be confined tocriminal matters and upon such consideration their views may be conveyed tothis Court. Let the matter appear for hearing on the said issue on 30.3.2007.TheHigh Courts are requested to file their affidavits latest by 20.3.2007. The State Governments are also directed to consider the proposal ofconstituting Fast Track Courts at the CJM or Magisterial level, or both, at theirown expense or with the support of the Central Government. Their views in this

behalf may be conveyed to this Court. Put up on 5.4.2007 for considering thisaspect of the matter. Affidavits in this behalf should be filed by 26.3.2007. The State Governments as also the High Courts must state on affidavitstating the reasons as to why the existing vacancies have not yet been filled up." It is stated that the State of Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Delhi, HimachalPradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Karanataka, Kerala,Punjab, Uttar Pradesh,Haryana, Sikkim, Maharasthra, Orissa, Rajasthan,Tamil Nadu, Andaman,Jharkhand have not given proper response and High Courts of Andaman,Assam,Chattisgarh,Delhi,Jammu & Kashmir, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh,Mizoram, Manipur, Tamil Nadu have not given any response whatsoever. Theresponses of some of the States are also not clear. We direct the above-mentioned State Governments to file properaffidavits keeping in view the directions issued by this Court on 2.2.2007 and asextracted hereinbefore. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the ChiefSecretaries of the States concerned besides the High Courts concerned. We directthe Secretaries of the States named hereinbefore to file their responses withinfour weeks from date. Put up after six weeks. (Meenu Sethi) (Pushap Lata Bhardwaj) Court Master Court Master

zQITEM NO.32 COURT NO.7 SECTION XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS TRANSFER CASE (CIVIL) NO.22 OF 2001BRIJ MOHAN LAL Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)(With appln(s). for directions, permission, impleadment, implementation of Court's order and permission to place addl. documents on record and office report with quarterly reports received from High Courts and State Govt. for directions)WITH T.C.(C) No.23/2001, SLP(C) No.7870/2001, SLP(C) No.10645/2001T.P.(C) Nos.407-410/2001WITHW.P.(C) No.140/2005 (With application for interim directions)Date: 05/04/2007 These matters were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.B. SINHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MARKANDEY KATJU

For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.S.Narasimha,Adv. (A.C.) Mr. Ananga Bhattacharyya,Adv. Mr. Avijeet K. Lala,Adv. for M/S. P.S.N. & Co.,Advs. Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri,Adv. Mr. A.V. Rao,Adv. Mr. Sateesh Galla,Adv. Mr. A.V. Rao,Adv. Mr. Prabhakar P.,Adv. Mr. Venkateshwara Rao Anumolu,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. G.E. Vahanvati, SG Mr. R. Mohan, ASG Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari,Adv. Mr. P. Parmeswaran,Adv. Mr. Vijay Hansaria, Sr.Adv. Mr. P.I. Jose,Adv. Mr. Anupam Mishra,Adv. Ms. Sneha Kalita,Adv. Ms. Deepti,Adv. Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta,Adv. Mr. Sheo Kumar Gupta,Adv. Mr. Bhanu Pratap Gupta,Adv. Mr. A.N. Bhardaiyar,Adv. ..2/- -2-For State of Haryana Mr. Ajay Siwach,Adv.

Mr. Mr. Manjit Singh,Adv. Mr. Harikesh Singh,Adv. Mr. T.V. George,Adv.For State of Maharashtra and Bombay High Court Mr. A.P. Mayee,Adv. Mr. V.N. Raghupathy,Adv.For the State of Punjab Mr. R.K. Rathore,Adv. Mr. M.K. Verma,Adv. Mr. Arun Kr. Sinha,Adv.For State of Arunachal Pradesh Mr. Anil Shrivastav,Adv. Ms. Samita,Adv.For State of Goa Ms. A. Subhashini,Adv.For the State of Kerala Mr. G. Prakash,Adv. Ms. Beena Prakash,Adv.For State of Manipur Mr. KH. Nobin Singh,Adv. Mr. S. Biswajit Meitei,Adv. Mr. David Rao,Adv.For A.P. High Court Mr. B. Sreedhar,Adv. Mr. K. Ram Kumar,Adv. Ms. I Madavi,Adv.For High Court of Patna Mr. P.H. Parekh,Adv. Mr. Ajay K. Jha,Adv. for M/s. P.H. Parekh & Co.,Advs.For Calcutta High Court Mr. L. Nageshwara Rao, Sr.Adv. Mr. Raja Chatterjee,Adv. Mr. G.S. Chatterjee,Adv.

For State of U.P. Dr. Indra Pratap Singh,Adv. Mr. Pradeep Mishra,Adv.State of Chhattisgarh Ms. Suparna Srivastava,Adv. Ms. Nidhi Minocha,Adv. Mr. Rajesh Srivastava,Adv.For M.P. High Court Dr. N.M. Ghatate, Sr.Adv. Mr. C.D. Singh,Adv. Mr. Merusagar Samantaray,Adv. Mr. Vairagya Vardhan,Adv.For State of M.P. Mr. B.S. Banthia,Adv.For State of Rajasthan Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta,Addl. Adv. Genl. Mr. Naveen Kumar Singh,Adv. Mr. Mukul Sood,Adv. Mr. Shashwat Gupta,Adv. Ms. Shikha Tandon,Adv.For Orissa High Court Mr. Janaranjan Das,Adv. Mr. Swetaketu Mishra,Adv. For State of Mizoram Mr. K.N. Madhusoodhanan,Adv. Mr. R. Satish,Adv.For State of H.P. Mr. J.S. Attri,Adv. Mr. Vivek Singh Attri,Adv. ...3/- -3-For U.T. of Chandigarh Ms. Kamini Jaiswal,Adv. Mrs. Shomila Bakshi,Adv. Mrs.Sunita Dwivedi,Adv.

For State of Karnataka Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde,Adv. Mr. Vikrant Yadav,Adv. Mr. Ramesh Jadhav,Adv. Mr. Amit Kr. Chandra,Adv.For High Court of J & K Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma,Adv. Mr. Rajeev Sharma,Adv.For State of West Bengal Mr. Bhaskar P. Gupta, Sr.Adv. Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma,Adv. Miss Neelam Sharma,Adv. Mr. Rajeev Sharma,Adv.For Allahabad High Court Mr. Ashok K. Srivastava,Adv. Mr. Saurabh Trivedi,Adv.For State of Uttaranchal Ms. Rachana Srivastava,Adv. Mr. Sunil K. Jain,Adv. Mr. S. Borthakur,Adv. Mr. B. Barooah,Adv.For State of Tamil Nadu Mr. Subramanium Prasad,Adv. Mr. R. Gopal Krishan,Adv.For State of Sikkim & Ms. A. Mariarputham,Adv.High Court of Sikkim Ms. Aruna Mathur,Adv. for M/S. Arputham,Aruna & Co.,Advs. For Govt. of Pondicherry Mr. V.G. Pragasam,Adv. Mr. S. Vallinayagam,Adv.For State of Nagaland Mr. U. Hazarika,Adv.

Mr. Satya Mitra,Adv. Ms. Sumita Hazarika,Adv.For NCT of Delhi Mr. Ashok Bhan,Adv. Ms. Suita Sharma,Adv. Mr. R.C. Kathia,Adv. Ms. Anil Katiyar,Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra,Adv.For State of Assam Mr. Riku Sarma,Adv. for M/S Corporate Law Group,Advs.For State of Meghalaya Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee,Adv. Mr. S.C. Ghosh,Adv.For State of Tripura Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv. Mr. Rituraj Biswas,Adv.For State of Bihar Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv. Mr. Nishakant Pandey,Adv.For State of Gujarat Mrs. Hemantika Wahi,Adv. Ms. Shivangi,Adv.For State of Jharkhand Mr. Manish Kumar Saran,Adv. Mr. Sujit Saurabh,Adv. ....4/- -4- Mrs. D. Bharati Reddy,Adv. Mr. Ashok Mathur,Adv.

Mr. Altaf H. Naiyak, Adv.Gen., J&K. Mr. Anis Suhrawardy,Adv. Mr. B.B. Singh,Adv. Mr. Prashant Bhushan ,Adv Mr. Raj Kumar Mehta ,Adv Mrs. Rachna Gupta ,Adv Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain,Adv. Mrs. V.D. Khanna,Adv. Mr. M.N. Sharma,Adv. Mr. Annam D.N. Rao,Adv. Mrs. Revathy Raghavan,Adv. Mr. J.P. Dhanda,Adv. Mr. Mukesh K. Giri,Adv. Mr. Radha Shyam Jena ,Adv Mr. Vijay Kumar,Adv. Mr. Vishwajit Singh ,Adv Mr. Javed Mahmud Rao ,Adv Mr. Rajesh Srivastava ,Adv

Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra ,Adv Mr. T.V. Ratnam,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List on Monday after four weeks. In the meantime, the States which have not filed affidavits should file their affidavits. (A.S. BISHT) (PUSHAP LATA BHARDWAJ) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

&iITEM No.32 Court No.7 SECTION -XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGST.C.(C) No. 22/2001Brij Mohan Lal Petitioner VERSUSUnion of India & Ors. Respondents(With appln(s) for permission and directions and implement the directions andpermission to place additional documents on record)(Office report)(Office report with quarterly reports received form High Courts and State Govt. fordirections)WithT.C.(C) No. 23/2001, SLP(C) No. 7870/2001, SLP(C) No. 10645/2001, T.P.(C) No. 407-410/2001W.P.(C) No. 140/2005(With appln. For interim directions) Date: 02.02.2007 :This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.B.SINHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MARKANDEY KATJU For Petitioner(s)/ Mr. P.S. Narasimha, A.C. Respondent(s) Mr. P.S.Narasimha, Adv.for M/s P.S.N. & Co. Mr.Chander Shekhar Ashri, Adv. I.A.No.13 in Mr. A.V.Rao, Adv.

T.C.22/01 Mr.Sateesh Galla,Adv. Mr. Prab hakar P., Adv. Mr. Venkateshwara Rao Anumole, Adv. T.C.No.22/01 Mr.Sateesh Galla, Adv. Mr. P.H. Parekh, Adv. Mr.Sameer Parekh, Adv. Ms.Sonali Basu Parekh, Adv. Mr.Ajay K.Jha, Adv. Ms. Deeksha Rai, Adv. For M/s. P.H. Parekh & Co. ....2/- -2-Registrar General Mr. K. Ramkumar, Adv.High Court of A.P. Mr. B.Sridhar, Adv. Ms. I. Madhavi, Adv.UOI Mr.G.E.Vahanavati,Solicitor General Mr.R. Mohan, ASG Ms.Anjani Aiyagari, Adv. Mr.P. Parmeswaran, Adv.Ministry of Law & Mr. G.E. Vahanvati, ASGJustice Mr. T.S. Doabia, Sr.Adv. Ms. Sunita Sharma, Adv. Ms. Varuna Bhandari Gugna, Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra, Adv. Mr. P. Parmeswaran, Adv.UOI Gaurav Agrawal,Adv. Mr.Ashok Bhan Singh, Adv.

Mr. D.S. Mahra, Adv.NCT, Delhi Ms. Sunita Sharma, Adv. Mr.Ashok Bhan, Adv. Ms.Anil Katiyar, Adv.Allahabad High Court Mr.Ashok K.Srivastava, Adv. Mr.Saurabh Trivedi, Adv.State of Tripura Mr.Gopal Singh, Adv. Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Adv.State of Bihar Mr.Gopal Singh, Adv. Mr.Anukul Raj, Adv.Intervenor in I.A.9 Mr.Vijay Kumar, Adv. Mr. Vishwajit Singh, Adv.State of H.P. Mr.J.S. Attri,Addl.Adv. Genl.State of Goa Ms.A.Subhashini, Adv.State of Gujarat Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Adv. Ms. Pinky Behera, Adv. Ms.Shivangi, Adv.State of Kerala Mr.G. Prakash, Adv. Ms.Beena Prakash, Adv. ...3/- -3- Mr. Ajit Panja, Sr.Adv.

Mr.Amit Sharma, Adv. Mr.Anupam Lal Das, Adv. Mr.Vijay Hansaria, Sr.Adv. Mr. P.I.Jose, Adv. Mr.Anupam Mishra, Adv. Ms.Sneha Kalita, Adv. Ms. Deepti, Adv. Ms. D. Bharathi Reddy, Adv.(NP) Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Adv. Mrs.Shomila Bakshi, Adv. Ms.Sunita Dwivedi, Adv. Mrs.Rachna Gupta, Adv. Mr.Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Adv. Mr.Javed Mahmud Rao, Adv.(NP) Mr.Ashok Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr.A.D.N.Rao, Adv. Mr. T.V.Ratnam, Adv. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Adv. Mr.Anil Shrivastav, Adv. Mr.Anis Suhrawardy, Adv.(NP) Mr.Sanjay R. Hegde, Adv.

Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv.State of Assam Mr. Riku Sarma, Adv. For M/s Corporate Law Group Mr. B.B. Singh, Adv.(NP) Mr. J.P.Dhanda, Adv.(NP) Mr.Ashok Mathur, Adv. ...4/- -4- Mr. Naveen Sharma, Adv. Mr. B.S. Banthia, Adv. Mrs. V.D. Khanna, Adv.State of West Bengal Mr.Bhaskar P.Gupta, Sr.Adv. Mr. T.C.Sharma, Adv. Ms. Neelam Sharma, Adv.High Court of J&K Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma, Adv.State of T.N. & Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Adv.Govt.of Pondicherry Mr. S. Vallinayagam, Adv. Mr.S. Prabu Ramasubramanian,Adv.State of U.P. Mrs.Shobha Dikshit, Sr.Adv. Dr. I.P.Singh, Adv. Mr.Pradeep Mishra, Adv.

Mr.Raj Kumar Mehta, Adv. Mr. M.N. Sharma, Adv. Mr. V.G. Pragasam,Adv. Mr. A. Mariarputham,Adv. Ms.Aruna Mathur,Adv. M/s Arputham Aruna & Co. Mrs.Revathy Raghavan, Adv.(NP) Mr. Radha Shyam Jena, Adv. Mr. Mukesh K.Giri, Adv.State of Haryana Mr. Manjeet Singh, Adv. Mr. Harikesh Singh, Adv. Mr. T.V. George, Adv. Mr. Ajay Siwach, Adv.State of Chhattisgarh Ms.Suparana Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Pooja Matlani, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Minocha,Adv. Mr. Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Halim Siddiqui, Adv.State of Meghalaya Mr.Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. S.C.Ghosh, Adv. ..5/-

-5- Mr.G.S.Chatterjee, Adv. Mr.Sunil Kumar Jain,Adv.State of Orissa Mr. Janaranjan Das, Adv. Mr.Swetaketu Mishra, Adv.State of Punjab Mr.R.K.Rathore, Adv. Mr. M.K. Verma, Adv. Mr.Arun Kumar Sinha, Adv.State of Manipur Mr. Kh. Nobin Singh, Adv. Mr. S.Biswajit Meitei, Adv. Mr.David Rao, Adv.State of Jharkhand Mr. Manish Kumar Saran, Adv. Mr.Sujit Saurabh, Adv.State of Arunachal Mr.Anil Shrivastava, Adv.PradeshState of Rajasthan Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, Addl.Adv. Genl. Mr. Naveen Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Mukul Sood, Adv. Mr.Shashwat Gupta, Adv. Ms.Shikha Tandon, Adv.State of Mizoram Mr. K.N. Madhusoodhanan, Adv. Mr.R. Satish, Adv.State of M.P.& Mr. V.M.Ghatate,Sr.ADv.M.P. High Court Mr.C.D.Singh,Adv.

Mr. Merusagar Samantaray, Adv.State of Maharashtra Mr.A.P. Mayee, Adv. Mr.V.N.Raghupathy, Adv.State of Uttranchal Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Adv.State of Uttranchal Mr. Avatar Singh Rawat,Adv. Mr. Jitendra Kumar Bhatia, Adv.W.P.(C) No.140/05 Mr.Ashok Bhan, Adv. Mrs.Sunita Sharma, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv. Mr. S. Ravishankar, Adv. Ms. Priyanka, Adv. ...6/- -6-Govt. of Pondicherry Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Adv.State of Sikkim Mr.Sonam P.Wangdi, A.G. Mr. A. Mariarputham, Adv. Ms. Aruna Mathur, Adv. For M/s Arputham Aruna & Co.State of Karnataka Mr.Sanjay R.Hegde, Adv. Mr. Anil K.Mishra, Adv. Mr.Vikrant Yadav, Adv. Mr. Sashidhar, Adv.State of Tripura Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv. Ms. Retu Rai Biswas, Adv.

State of Nagaland Mr. U. Hazarika, Adv. Mr. Satya Mitra, Adv. Ms.Sumita Hazarika, Adv. Mrs.Sunita Sharma, Adv. Mr.D.S. Mahra, Adv. UPON being mentioned the Court made the following O R D E R Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we direct theState of West Bengal to take steps for filling up the balance vacancies in the FastTrack Courts in terms of the recommendations of the High Court. Mr.BhaskarP.Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of State of West Bengalassures us that an appropriate notification shall be issued within one week fromdate. We may also place on record that,according to Mr.Gupta, the State hasobjection only in regard to name of one of the recommendees. The High Courtmay consider that aspect of the matter. Before us learned Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Union ofIndia and learned Amicus-Curiae have placed three charts ..7/- -7-

showing pendency of the cases in the Sessions Courts in all the States; pendencyof cases in the Courts of Judicial Magistrates First Class/MetropolitanMagistrates and pendency of cases in the Courts of Chief Judicial Magistrate.Keeping in view the fact that a largenumber of cases are pending in the said Courts, we request the High Court toconsider the question as to whether the work of the existing Fast Track Courtscan be confined to criminal matters and upon such consideration their views maybe conveyed to this Court. Let the matter appear for hearing on the said issue on 30.3.2007.TheHigh Courts are requested to file their affidavits latest by 20.3.2007. The State Governments are also directed to consider the proposal ofconstituting Fast Track Courts at the CJM or Magisterial level, or both, at theirown expense or with the support of the Central Government. Their views in thisbehalf may be conveyed to this Court. Put up on 5.4.2007 for considering thisaspect of the matter. Affidavits in this behalf should be filed by 26.3.2007. The State Governments as also the High Courts must state on affidavitstating the reasons as to why the existing vacancies have not yet been filled up. (Meenu Sethi) (Pushap Lata Bhardwaj) Court Master Court Master

úYITEM NO.41 COURT NO.8 SECTION XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS TRANSFER CASE (CIVIL) NO.22 OF 2001BRIJ MOHAN LAL Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)(With application for permission and impleadment the directions and office report with quarterly reports received from High Courts and State Govt. for directions)WITH T.C.(C) No.23/2001, SLP(C) No.7870/2001, SLP(C) No.10645/2001T.P.(C) Nos.407-410/2001WITHW.P.(C) No.140/2005 (With application for interim directions)Date: 27/11/2006 These matters were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.B. SINHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MARKANDEY KATJUFor Petitioner(s) Mr. P.S.Narasimha,Adv. (A.C.) Mr. Ananga Bhattacharyya,Adv. Mr. Avijeet K. Lala,Adv. for M/S. P.S.N. & Co.,Advs. Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri,Adv.

Mr. S.B. Sanyal, Sr.Adv. Mr. Satish Galla,Adv. Mr. A.V. Rao,Adv. Mr. Venkateshwara Rao Anumolu,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. G.E. Vahanvati, SG Mr. R. Mohan, ASG Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari,Adv. Mr. P. Parmeswaran,Adv. Ms. Sunita Sharma,Adv. Mr. Vijay Hansaria, Sr.Adv. Mr. P.I. Jose,Adv. Ms. Sneha Kalita,Adv. Ms. Deepti,Adv. Ms. Ritu Bhardwaj,Adv. Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta,Adv. Mr. Sheo Kumar Gupta,Adv. Mr. Bhanu Pratap Gupta,Adv. Mr. A.N. Bhardaiyar,Adv. ..2/- -2-For State of Haryana Mr. Ajay Siwach,Adv. Mr. Manjit Singh,Adv. Mr. Harikesh Singh,Adv. Mr. T.V. George,Adv.For State of Maharashtra and Bombay High Court Mr. A.P. Mayee,Adv. Mr. V.N. Raghupathy,Adv.

For the State of Punjab Mr. R.K. Rathore,Adv. Mr. M.K. Verma,Adv. Mr. Arun Kr. Sinha,Adv.For State of Arunachal Pradesh Mr. Anil Shrivastav,Adv. Ms. Smita Shankar,Adv.For State of Goa Ms. A. Subhashini,Adv.For the State of Kerala Mr. G. Prakash,Adv. Ms. Beena Prakash,Adv. Mr. K.D. Dileep Kumar,Adv.For State of Manipur Mr. KH. Nobin Singh,Adv. Mr. S. Biswajit Meitei,Adv.For A.P. High Court Mr. B. Sreedhar,Adv. Ms. I Madavi,Adv. Mr. K. Ram Kumar,Adv.For High Court of Patna Mr. P.H. Parekh,Adv. Mr. A.K. Jha,Adv. Ms. Dikhsa Rai,Adv. for M/s. P.H. Parekh & Co.,Advs.For Calcutta High Court Mr. L. Nageshwara Rao, Sr.Adv. Mr. Raja Chatterjee,Adv. Mr. Sachin Das,Adv. Ms. Rajni Bhagat,Adv. Mr. G.S. Chatterjee,Adv. For State of U.P. Mrs. Shobha Dikshit,Sr.Adv. Dr. Indra Pratap Singh,Adv.

Mr. Pradeep Mishra,Adv.State of Chhattisgarh Ms. Suparna Srivastava,Adv. Mr. Rajesh Srivastava,Adv. Ms. Pooja Matlani,Adv.For M.P. High Court Dr. N.M.Ghatate,Sr.Adv. Mr. C.D. Singh,Adv. Mr. Merusagar Samantaray,Adv. Ms. Minakshi Sharma,Adv.For State of M.P. Mr. B.S. Banthia,Adv. -3-For State of Rajasthan Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta,Addl. Adv. Genl. Mr. Naveen Kumar Singh,Adv. Mr. Mukul Sood,Adv. Mr. Shashwat Gupta,Adv. Ms. Shikha Tandon,Adv.For Orissa High Court Mr. Janaranjan Das,Adv. Mr. Swetaketu Mishra,Adv. For State of Mizoram Mr. K.N. Madhusoodhanan,Adv. Mr. R. Satish,Adv.For State of H.P. Mr. J.S. Attri,Adv. Ms. Shivani Thakur,Adv. Mr. Vivek Singh,Adv.For U.T. of Chandigarh Ms. Kamini Jaiswal,Adv. Mrs. Shomila Bakshi,Adv. Mrs. Rani Mishra,Adv.

For High Court of J & K Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma,Adv.For State of West Bengal Mr. Bhaskar P. Gupta, Sr.Adv. Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma,Adv. Miss Neelam Sharma,Adv.For Allahabad High Court Mr. Ashok K. Srivastava,Adv. Mr. Saurabh Trivedi,Adv.For State of Uttaranchal Mr. Avatar Sigh Rawat,Adv. Mr. J.K. Bhatia,Adv. Ms. Rachana Srivastava,Adv. Mr. Sunil K. Jain,Adv. Mr. S. Borthakur,Adv. Mr. B. Barooah,Adv.For State of Tamil Nadu Mr. Subramanium Prasad,Adv. Mr. R. Gopal Krishan,Adv.For State of Sikkim Ms. A. Mariarputham,Adv. Ms. Aruna Mathur,Av. for M/S. Arputham,Aruna & Co.,Advs. For Govt. of Pondicherry Mr. V.G. Pragasam,Adv. Mr. S.Vallinayagam,Adv.For State of Nagaland Mr. U. Hazarika,Adv. Mr. Satya Mitra,Adv. Ms. Sumita Hazarika,Adv.For NCT of Delhi Mr. Ashok Bhan,Adv. Ms. Suita Sharma,Adv. Mr. R.C. Kathiya,Adv.

Ms. Anil Katiyar,Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra,Adv. -4-For State of Assam Ms. Momta Oniom,Adv. for M/S Corporate Law Group,Advs.For State of Meghalaya Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee,Adv.For State of Tripura Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv. Mr. Returaj Biswas,Adv.For State of Bihar Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv. Mr. Nishakant Pandey,Adv. Mr. Anukul Raj,Adv.For State of Gujarat Mrs. Hemantika Wahi,Adv. Mrs. Sadhna Sandhu,Adv. Ms. Pinky Behra,Adv.For State of Jharkhand Mr. Anil K. Jha,Adv. Mr. S. Ravi Shankar,Adv. Ms. Priyanka Jha,Adv. Mr. Y.M.Chauhan,Adv. Mrs. D. Bharati Reddy,Adv. Mr. Ashok Mathur,Adv. Mr. Anis Suhrawardy,Adv.

Mr. B.B. Singh,Adv. Mr. G.S. Chatterjee,Adv. Mr. Prashant Bhushan ,Adv Mr. Raj Kumar Mehta ,Adv Mrs. Rachna Gupta ,Adv Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain,Adv. Mrs. V.D. Khanna,Adv. Mr. S. Muralidhar,Adv. Mr. M.N. Sharma,Adv. Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee,Adv. Mr. Annam D.N. Rao,Adv. Mrs. Revathy Raghavan,Adv. Mr. J.P. Dhanda,Adv. Mr. Mukesh K. Giri,Adv. -5- Mr. Radha Shyam Jena ,Adv Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde ,Adv

Mr. Vishwajit Singh ,Adv Mr. Javed Mahmud Rao ,Adv Mr. Rajesh Srivastava ,Adv Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra ,Adv Mr. T.V. Ratnam,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R MR. P.S.Narasimha, learned amicus curiae has placed before us a chart showing pendency of all cases in the Sessions Court in all the States as also those pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Judicial Magistrates First Class/Metropolitan Magistrate in all the States in the context of the Fast Track Court. Learned Solicitor General also states before us that with the requisite statistics being now available it will now be possible for him to respond thereto. We would request the learned amicus to formulate the question which

should be taken up by this Court so that if necessary, the matter may be taken out High Court wise. List in the Ist week of January, 2007. (SUMAN WADHWA) (PUSHAP LATA BHARDWAJ) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

lOITEM No.38 Court No.8 SECTION -XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGST.C.(C) No. 22/2001Brij Mohan Lal Petitioner VERSUSUnion of India & Ors. Respondents(With appln(s) for permission and directions and implement the directions andpermission to place additional documents on record)(Office report with quarterly reports received from High courts and State Govt. fordirections)WithT.C.(C) No. 23/2001, SLP(C) No. 7870/2001, SLP(C) No. 10645/2001, T.P.(C) No. 407-410/2001W.P.(C) No. 140/2005(With appln. For interim directions) Date: 13.11.2006 :This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.B.SINHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MARKANDEY KATJU For Petitioner(s)/ Mr. P.S. Narasimha, A.C. Respondent(s) Mr. P.S.Narasimha, Adv.for M/s P.S.N. & Co. Mr.Chander Shekhar Ashri, Adv. I.A.No.13 in Mr. Venkateshwara Rao Anumole, Adv.

T.C.No.22/01 Mr.Sateesh Galla, Adv. Mr. P.H. Parekh, Adv. Mr. Ajay Jha, Adv. Ms.Diksha Roy, Adv.for M/s. P.H. Parekh & Co.Registrar GeneralHigh Court of A.P. Mr. B.Sridhar, Adv. Mr. K.Ram Kumar, Adv.UOI Mr.G.E.Vahanavati,Solicitor General Mr.R. Mohan, ASG Ms.Anjani Aiyagari, Adv. Mr.P. Parmeswaran, Adv. ...2/ -2-Ministry of Law & Mr. G.E. Vahanvati, ASGJustice Mr. T.S. Doabia, Sr.Adv. Ms. Sunita Sharma, Adv. Ms. Varuna Bhandari Gugna, Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra, Adv. Mr. P. Parmeswaran, Adv.UOI Mr. T.S. Doabia, Sr. Adv. Ms.Sunita Sharma, Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra, Adv.NCT, Delhi Ms. Sunita Sharma, Adv. Mr.Ashok Bhan, Adv. Ms.Anil Katiyar, Adv.

Allahabad High Court Mr.Ashok K.Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Shaiwal Srivastava, Adv. Mr.Saurabh Trivedi, Adv.State of Tripura Mr.Gopal Singh, Adv. Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Adv.State of Bihar Mr.Gopal Singh, Adv. Mr. Nishakant Pandey, Adv.M.P.Judges Assn. Mr.Vijay Kumar, Adv. Mr. Majuri Vatis, Adv. Mr. Vishwajit Singh, Adv.State of H.P. Mr.J.S. Attri,Addl.Adv. Genl. Mr.Vivek Singh, Adv.State of Goa Ms.A.Subhashini, Adv.State of Gujarat Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Adv. Ms. Sadhna Sandhu, Adv. Ms.Shivangi, Adv.State of Kerala Mr.G. Prakash, Adv. Ms.Beena Prakash, Adv. Mr. Vijay Hansaria, Sr.Adv. Mr. P.I.Jose, Adv. Mr.Anupam Mishra, Adv. Ms. Deepti, Adv. Ms.Ritu Bhardwaj, Adv. ...3/-

-3- Ms. D. Bharathi Reddy, Adv.(NP) Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Adv. Mrs.Shomila Bakshi, Adv. Mrs.Rachna Gupta, Adv. Mr.Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Adv. Mr.Javed Mahmud Rao, Adv.(NP) Mr.Ashok Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr.A.D.N.Rao, Adv. Mr. T.V.Ratnam, Adv. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Adv. Mr.Anil Shrivastav, Adv. Mr.Anis Suhrawardy, Adv.(NP) Mr.Sanjay R. Hegde, Adv. Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv.State of Assam Mr. Riku Sarma, Adv. For M/s Corporate Law Group Mr. B.B. Singh, Adv.(NP)

Mr. J.P.Dhanda, Adv.(NP) Mr.Ashok Mathur, Adv. Mr. K.N. Nagpal, Adv. Mr. B.S. Banthia, Adv. Mrs. V.D. Khanna, Adv. ...4/- -4-State of West Bengal Mr.Bhaskar P.Gupta, Sr.Adv. Mr. T.C.Sharma, Adv. Ms. Neelam Sharma, Adv.High Court of J&K Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma, Adv.State of T.N. & Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Adv.Govt.of Pondicherry Mr. s. Vallinayagam, Adv.State of U.P. Mrs.Shobha Dixit, Sr.Adv. Dr. I.P.Singh, Adv. Mr.Pradeep Mishra, Adv. Mr.Anuvrat Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr.Raj Kumar Mehta, Adv. Mr. M.N. Sharma, Adv. Mr. V.G. Pragasam,Adv. Mr. A. Mariarputham,Adv.

Ms.Aruna Mathur,Adv. M/s Arputham Aruna & Co. Mrs.Revathy Raghavan, Adv.(NP) Mr. Radha Shyam Jena, Adv. Mr. Mukesh K.Giri, Adv.State of Haryana Mr. Manjeet Singh, Adv. Mr. Harikesh Singh, Adv. Mr. T.V. George, Adv.State of Chhattisgarh Ms.Suparana Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Pooja Matlani, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Halim Siddiqui, Adv.State of Meghalaya Mr.Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv. Mr.G.S.Chatterjee, Adv. ...5/- -5- Mr.Sunil Kumar Jain,Adv.State of Orissa Mr. Janaranjan Das, Adv. Mr.Swetaketu Mishra, Adv.State of Punjab Mr.R.K.Rathore, Adv.

Mr. M.K. Verma, Adv.State of Manipur Mr. Kh. Nobin Singh, Adv.State of Jharkhand Mr.Anil Kumar Jha, Adv.State of Arunachal Mr.Anil Shrivastava, Adv.PradeshState of Rajasthan Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, Addl.Adv. Genl. Mr. Naveen Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Mukul Sood, Adv. Mr.Shashwat Gupta, Adv. Ms.Shikha Tandon, Adv.State of Mizoram Mr. K.N. Madhusoodhanan, Adv. Mr.R. Satish, Adv.State of M.P.& Mr. C.D.Singh, Adv.M.P. High Court Mr. Merusagar Samantaray, Adv.State of Maharashtra Mr.A.P. Mayee, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Choudhary, Adv. Mr.V.N.Raghupathy, Adv.State of Uttranchal Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Adv.State of Uttranchal Mr. Avatar Singh Rawat,Adv. Mr. Jitendra Kumar Bhatia, Adv.W.P.(C) No.140/05 Mr.Ashok Bhan, Adv. Mrs.Sunita Sharma, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv. Mr. S. Ravishankar, Adv.

Ms. Priyanka, Adv.Govt. of Pondicherry Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Adv.State of Sikkim Mr. A. Mariarputham, Adv. Ms. Aruna Mathur, Adv. Ms. Mini N. Nayar, Adv. For M/s Arputham Aruna & Co. ...6/- -6-State of Tripura Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv. Ms. Retu Rai Biswas, Adv.State of Nagaland Mr. U. Hazarika, Adv. Mr. Satya Mitra, Adv. Mr. Nitin Khare, Adv. UPON being mentioned the Court made the following O R D E R Put up after one week. (Meenu Sethi ) (Pushap Lata Bhardwaj) Court Master Court Master

F_ITEM NO.33 COURT NO.8 SECTION XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS TRANSFER CASE (CIVIL) NO.22 OF 2001BRIJ MOHAN LAL Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)(With application for permission and impleadment the directions and office report with quarterly reports received from High Courts and State Govt. for directions)WITH T.C.(C) No.23/2001, SLP(C) No.7870/2001, SLP(C) No.10645/2001T.P.(C) Nos.407-410/2001WITHW.P.(C) No.140/2005 (With application for interim directions)Date: 29/09/2006 These matters were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.B. SINHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALVEER BHANDARIFor Petitioner(s) Mr. P.S.Narasimha,Adv. (A.C.) Mr. Ananga Bhattacharyya,Adv. Mr. Avijeet K. Lala,Adv. for M/S. P.S.N. & Co.,Advs.

Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri,Adv. Mr. S.B. Sanyal, Sr.Adv. Mr. Satish Galla,Adv. Mr. A.V. Rao,Adv. Mr. Venkateshwara Rao Anumolu,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. G.E. Vahanvati, SG Mr. R. Mohan, ASG Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari,Adv. Mr. P. Parmeswaran,Adv. Ms. Sunita Sharma,Adv. Mr. Vijay Hansaria, Sr.Adv. Mr. P.I. Jose,Adv. Mr. A. Radhakrishnan,Adv. Mr. Anupam Mishra,Adv. Mr. C.M. Jayakumar,Adv. Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta,Adv. Mr. Sheo Kumar Gupta,Adv. Mr. Bhanu Pratap Gupta,Adv. Mr. A.N. Bhardaiyar,Adv. ..2/- -2-For State of Haryana Mr. Manjit Singh,Adv. Mr. Harikesh Singh,Adv. Mr. T.V. George,Adv.For State of Maharashtra and Bombay High Court Mr. A.P. Mayee,Adv. Mr. V.N. Raghupathy,Adv.For the State of Punjab Mr. R.K. Rathore,Adv.

Mr. M.K. Verma,Adv. Mr. Arun Kr. Sinha,Adv.For State of Arunachal Pradesh Mr. Anil Shrivastav,Adv.For State of Goa Ms. A. Subhashini,Adv.For the State of Kerala Mr. G. Prakash,Adv. Ms. Beena Prakash,Adv. Mr. K.D. Dileep Kumar,Adv.For State of Manipur Mr. KH. Nobin Singh,Adv. Mr. S. Biswajit Meitei,Adv. Mr. B.V. Niren,Adv.For A.P. High Court Mr. B. Sreedhar,Adv. Ms. I Madavi,Adv. Mr. K. Ram Kumar,Adv.For High Court of Patna Mr. P.H. Parekh,Adv. Mr. A.K. Jha,Adv. Ms. Dikhsa Rai,Adv. for M/s. P.H. Parekh & Co.,Advs.For Calcutta High Court Mr. L. Nageshwara Rao, Sr.Adv. Mr. Raja Chatterjee,Adv. Mr. Sachin Das,Adv. Ms. Rajni Bhagat,Adv. Mr. G.S. Chatterjee,Adv. For State of U.P. Mrs. Shobha Dikshit,Sr.Adv. Dr. Indra Pratap Singh,Adv. Mr. Pradeep Mishra,Adv.State of Chattisgarh Ms. Suparna Srivastava,Adv. Mr. Rajesh Srivastava,Adv. Ms. Pooja Matlani,Adv.For M.P. High Court Mr. C.D. Singh,Adv.

Mr. Merusagar Samantaray,Adv. Ms. Minakshi Sharma,Adv.For State of M.P. Mr. B.S. Banthia,Adv.For State of Rajasthan Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta,Addl. Adv. Genl. Mr. Naveen Kumar Singh,Adv. Mr. Mukul Sood,Adv. Mr. Shashwat Gupta,Adv. Ms. Shikha Tandon,Adv.For State of Orissa Mr. Janaranjan Das,Adv. Mr. Swetaketu Mishra,Adv. For State of Mizoram Mr. K.N. Madhusoodhanan,Adv. Mr. R. Satish,Adv. ...3/- -3-For State of H.P. Mr. J.S. Attri,Adv. Ms. Shivani Thakur,Adv.For U.T. of Chandigarh Ms. Kamini Jaiswal,Adv. Mrs. Shomila Bakshi,Adv. Mrs. Rani Mishra,Adv.For High Court of J & K Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma,Adv.For State of West Bengal Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma,Adv. Miss Neelam Sharma,Adv.For Allahabad High Court Mr. Ashok K. Srivastava,Adv. Mr. Saurabh Trivedi,Adv.For State of Uttaranchal Mr. Avatar Sigh Rawat,Adv. Mr. J.K. Bhatia,Adv. Ms. Rachana Srivastava,Adv. Mr. Sunil K. Jain,Adv. Mr. S. Borthakur,Adv.

Mr. B. Barooah,Adv.For State of Tamil Nadu Mr. Subramanium Prasad,Adv. Mr. R. Gopal Krishan,Adv.For State of Sikkim Ms. A. Mariarputham,Adv. Ms. Aruna Mathur,Av. Ms. Mini N. Nair,Adv. for M/S. Arputham,Aruna & Co.,Advs. For Govt. of Pondicherry Mr. V.G. Pragasam,Adv.For State of Nagaland Mr. U. Hazarika,Adv. Mr. Satya Mitra,Adv. Ms. Sumita Hazarika,Adv.For NCT of Delhi Mr. Ashok Bhan,Adv. Ms. Suita Sharma,Adv. Ms. Anil Katiyar,Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra,Adv.For State of Assam Mr. Riku Sharma,Adv. for M/S Corporate Law Group,Advs.For State of Meghalaya Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee,Adv.For State of Tripura Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv. Mr. Retu Bai Biswas,Adv. Mr. Nishant Pandey,Adv.For State of Bihar Mr. Rituraj Biswas,Adv. Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv.For State of Gujarat Mrs. Hemantika Wahi,Adv. Mrs. Sadhna Sandhu,Adv. Ms. Pinky Behra,Adv.For State of Jharkhand Mr. Anil K. Jha,Adv.

Mr. S. Ravi Shankar,Adv. Ms. Priyanka Jha,Adv. ...4/- -4- Mrs. D. Bharati Reddy,Adv. Mr. Ashok Mathur,Adv. Mr. Anis Suhrawardy,Adv. Mr. B.B. Singh,Adv. Mr. G.S. Chatterjee,Adv. Mr. Prashant Bhushan ,Adv Mr. Raj Kumar Mehta ,Adv Mrs. Rachna Gupta ,Adv Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain,Adv. Mrs. V.D. Khanna,Adv. Mr. S. Muralidhar,Adv. Mr. M.N. Sharma,Adv. Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee,Adv. Mr. Annam D.N. Rao,Adv. Mrs. Revathy Raghavan,Adv. Mr. J.P. Dhanda,Adv. Mr. Mukesh K. Giri,Adv. Mr. Radha Shyam Jena ,Adv

Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde ,Adv Mr. Vishwajit Singh ,Adv Mr. Javed Mahmud Rao ,Adv Mr. Rajesh Srivastava ,Adv Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra ,Adv Mr. T.V. Ratnam,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R A Chart prepared giving Statewise information has been furnished by the learned amicus curiae. We direct the Registry to supply copies of the same to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of different States as also the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective High Courts. They are directed to file their responses thereto and as regards the nature of the pendency of the criminal -5- cases vis-a-vis the sessions cases. This Court may furthermore be informed as to whether in view of the fact that in some of the States, the services of Fast Track Courts are being principally utilized for disposal of the civil cases, they should abolish a few Fast Track Courts so as to enable them to utilize the requisite fund for creation of the Fast Track Magistrates or

whether the respective State Governments, in particular, where there are a large number of pending criminal cases, are ready and willing to create some Fast Track Courts on their own. Put up after six weeks. An affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Bihar may be kept on record. (A.S. BISHT) (PUSHAP LATA BHARDWAJ) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

èTITEM NO.39 COURT NO.8 SECTION XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS TRANSFER CASE (CIVIL) NO. 22 OF 2001BRIJ MOHAN LAL Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for permission, directions and to implement the directions and office report ))WITHT.C.(C) NO. 23 of 2001SLP(C) No.7870/2001, SLP(C) No.10645/2001T.P.(C) Nos.407-410 of 2001W.P(C) NO. 140 of 2005(With application for interim directions)Date: 31/07/2006 These matters were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.B. SINHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALVEER BHANDARIFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri,Adv. Mr. P.S.Narasimha,Adv. (A.C.) Mr. Ananga Bhattacharyya,Adv. Mr. Avijeet K. Lala,Adv. Mr. Shriram P. Murthy,Adv. for M/S. P.S.N. & Co.,Advs.

For Respondent(s) Mr. G.E. Vahanvati, SG Mr. T.S. Doabia,Sr.Adv. Mrs. Varuna Bhandari Gugnani,Adv. Mr. P. Parmeswaran,Adv. Ms. Sunita Sharma,Adv. Mr. Vijay Hansaria, Sr.Adv. Mr. P.I. Jose,Adv. Mr. Anupam Mishra,Adv. Mr. Jenis,Adv. Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta,Adv. Mr. Sheo Kumar Gupta,Adv. Mr. Bhanu Pratap Gupta,Adv. Mr. A.N. Bhardaiyar,Adv.For State of Haryana Mr. Ajay Siwach,Adv. Mr. Manjit Singh,Adv. Mr. Harikesh Singh,Adv. Mr. T.V. George,Adv.For State of Maharashtra and Bombay High Court Mr. A.P. Mayee,Adv. Mr. V.N. Raghupathy,Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Kr. Choudhury,Adv. -2-For the State of Punjab Mr. R.K. Rathore,Adv. Mr. M.K. Verma,Adv. Mr. Arun Kr. Sinha,Adv.For State of Arunachal Pradesh Mr. Anil Shrivastav,Adv.For State of Goa Ms. A. Subhashini,Adv.For State of Manipur Mr. KH. Nobin Singh,Adv.

For A.P. High Court Mr. B. Sreedhar,Adv. Ms. I Madavi,Adv. Mr. K. Ram Kumar,Adv.For High Court of Patna Mr. P.H. Parekh,Adv. Mr. Rohit Alex,Adv. for M/s. P.H. Parekh & Co.,Advs.For Calcutta High Court Mr. L. Nageshwara Rao, Sr.Adv. Mr. Raja Chatterjee,Adv. Mr. Sachin Das,Adv. Ms. Rajni Bhagat,Adv. Mr. G.S. Chatterjee,Adv. For State of U.P. Dr. Indra Pratap Singh,Adv. Mr. Pradeep Mishra,Adv.State of Chattisgarh Ms. Suparna Srivastava,Adv. Mr. Rajesh Srivastava,Adv. Ms. Pooja Matlani,Adv.For State of M.P. Mr. N.M. Ghatate, Sr.Adv. Mr. C.D. Singh,Adv. Ms. Minakshi Sharma,Adv. Mr. Naveen Sharma,Adv. Mr. B.S. Banthia,Adv.For State of Rajasthan Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta,Addl. Adv. Genl. Mr. Naveen Kumar Singh,Adv. Mr. Mukul Sood,Adv.For State of Orissa Mr. Janaranjan Das,Adv. Mr. Swetaketu Mishra,Adv. For H. Court of Orissa Mr. Janaranjan Das,Adv. Mr. Swetaketu Mishra,Adv. For State of Mizoram Mr. K.N. Madhusoodhanan,Adv.

Mr. R. Satish,Adv.For State of H.P. Mr. J.S. Attri,Addl.Adv.Gen.,H.P. Ms. Shivani Thakur,Adv.For U.T. of Chandigarh Ms. Kamini Jaiswal,Adv. Mrs. Shomila Bakshi,Adv. Mrs. Rani Mishra,Adv.For High Court of J & K Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma,Adv.For State of West Bengal Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma,Adv. Miss Neelam Sharma,Adv.For Allahabad High Court Mr. Ashok K. Srivastava,Adv. -3-For State of Uttaranchal Ms. Rachana Srivastava,Adv. Mr. Sunil K. Jain,Adv. Mr. S. Borthakur,Adv.For State of Tamil Nadu Mr. Subramanium Prasad,Adv. Mr. R. Gopal Krishan,Adv.For State of Sikkim Ms. A. Mariarputham,Adv. Ms. Aruna Mathur,Av. Ms. Mini N. Nair,Adv. for M/S. Arputham,Aruna & Co.,Advs. For Govt. of Pondicherry Mr. V.G. Pragasam,Adv. Mr. S. Vallinayagam,Adv.For State of Nagaland Mr. U. Hazarika,Adv. Mr. Satya Mitra,Adv. Ms. Sumita Hazarika,Adv.For NCT of Delhi Ms. Suita Sharma,Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra,Adv. Ms. Anil Katiyar,Adv.

For State of Assam Ms. Momta Oniom,Adv. Mr. Riku Sharma,Adv. for M/S Corporate Law Group,Advs.For State of Meghalaya Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee,Adv.For State of Tripura Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv. Mr. Retu Bai Biswas,Adv.For State of Bihar Mr. Rituraj Biswas,Adv. Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv. Mrs. Hemantika Wahi,Adv. Mrs. Sadhna Sandhu,Adv. Mr. S. Ravi Shankar,Adv. Mr. R. Yanunah Nachiar,Adv. Mrs. D. Bharati Reddy,Adv. Mr. Anil K. Jha,Adv. Mr. Ashok Mathur,Adv. Mr. Anis Suhrawardy,Adv. Mr. B.B. Singh,Adv. Mr. G.S. Chatterjee,Adv. Mr. K. Ram Kumar ,Adv. Mr. Prashant Bhushan ,Adv Mr. Raj Kumar Mehta ,Adv Mrs. Rachna Gupta ,Adv Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain,Adv. Mrs. V.D. Khanna,Adv.

-4- Mr. M.N. Sharma,Adv. Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee,Adv. Mr. Annam D.N. Rao,Adv. Mrs. Revathy Raghavan,Adv. Mr. J.P. Dhanda,Adv. Mr. Mukesh K. Giri,Adv. Mr. Radha Shyam Jena ,Adv Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde ,Adv Mr. Vijay Kumar,Adv. Mr. Vishwajit Singh,Adv. Mr. Javed Mahmud Rao ,Adv Mr. V.N. Raghupathy ,Adv Mr. Rajesh Srivastava ,Adv Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra ,Adv Mr. T.V. Ratnam,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Put up after four weeks by way of last indulgence. All the High Courts and the State Governments who have not filed their response, are directed to do so within three weeks from date. The Registry is directed to

supply an additional copy of the entire set of affidavits filed by the High Courts and the State Governments, to the learned Solicitor General within two weeks. The learned counsel for the State of J & K is directed to serve a copy of the affidavit filed by the State of J & K, upon Mr. Tara Chand Sharma, standing counsel for the High Court of J & K within a week and the High Court is directed to file its response to the said affidavit within two weeks thereafter. (A.S. BISHT) (PUSHAP LATA BHARDWAJ) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

\204NITEM NO.41 COURT NO.9 SECTION XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I. A.Nos.11, 1 2, 17 & 18 in TRANSFER CASE (CIVIL) NO.22 OF 2001BRIJ MOHAN LAL Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)(For directions/intervention and office report)Date: 10/05/2006 This matter was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.B. SINHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. BALASUBRAMANYANFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri,Adv. Mr. P.S.Narasimha,Adv. (A.C.) Mr. Ananga Bhattacharyya,Adv. Mr. Avijeet K. Lala,Adv. for M/S. P.S.N. & Co.,Advs.For Respondent(s) Mr. G.E. Vahanvati, SG Mr. T.S. Doabia,Sr.Adv. Mrs. Varuna Bhandari Gugnani,Adv. Mr. P. Parmeswaran,Adv. Ms. Sunita Sharma,Adv. Mr. Vijay Hansaria, Sr.Adv.

Mr. P.I. Jose,Adv. Mr. A. Radhakrishnan,Adv. Mr. Anupam Mishra,Adv. Mr. C.M. Jayakumar,Adv. Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta,Adv. Mr. Sheo Kumar Gupta,Adv. Mr. Bhanu Pratap Gupta,Adv. Mr. A.N. Bhardaiyar,Adv.For State of Haryana Mr. Manjit Singh,Adv. Mr. Harikesh Singh,Adv. Mr. T.V. George,Adv.For State of Maharashtra and Bombay High Court Mr. A.P. Mayee,Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Kr. Choudhury,Adv.For the State of Punjab Mr. R.K. Rathore,Adv. Mr. Arun Kr. Sinha,Adv.For State of Arunachal Pradesh Mr. Anil Shrivastav,Adv.For State of Goa Ms. A. Subhashini,Adv. ...2/- -2-For State of Manipur Mr. KH. Nobin Singh,Adv.For A.P. High Court Mr. B. Sreedhar,Adv. Ms. I Madavi,Adv. Mr. K. Ram Kumar,Adv.For High Court of Patna Mr. Ravindra Shrivastava, Sr.Adv. Mr. Rohit Alex,Adv. Mr. Rajiv Mehta,Adv. for M/s. P.H. Parekh & Co.,Advs.

For Calcutta High Court Mr. L. Nageshwara Rao, Sr.Adv. Mr. Raja Chatterjee,Adv. Mr. Sachin Das,Adv. Ms. Rajni Bhagat,Adv. Mr. G.S. Chatterjee,Adv. For State of U.P. Dr. Indra Pratap Singh,Adv. Mr. Pradeep Mishra,Adv.State of Chattisgarh Ms. Suparna Srivastava,Adv. Mr. Rajesh Srivastava,Adv. Ms. Pooja Matlani,Adv.For State of M.P. Mr. C.D. Singh,Adv. Mr. Kiran Suvarna,Adv. Mr. Dhrupad Kashyap,Adv. Ms. Minakshi Sharma,Adv. Mr. B.S. Banthia,Adv. Ms. Musharaff Choudhury,Adv. Mr. Amit Mishra,Adv.For State of Rajasthan Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta,Addl. Adv. Genl. Mr. Naveen Kumar Singh,Adv. For State of Orissa Mr. Janaranjan Das,Adv. Mr. Swetaketu Mishra,Adv. For State of Mizoram Mr. K.N. Madhusoodhanan,Adv. Mr. R. Satish,Adv.For State of H.P. Mr. J.S. Attri,Adv.For U.T. of Chandigarh Ms. Kamini Jaiswal,Adv. Mrs. Shomila Bakshi,Adv.For High Court of J & K Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma,Adv.For State of West Bengal Mr. Bhaskar P. Gupta, Sr.Adv.

Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma,Adv. Miss Neelam Sharma,Adv.For Allahabad High Court Mr. Ashok K. Srivastava,Adv. Mr. Shaiwal Srivastava,Adv.For State of Uttaranchal Mr. Avatar Sigh Rawat,Adv. Mr. J.K. Bhatia,Adv. Ms. Rachana Srivastava,Adv. Mr. Sunil K. Jain,Adv. Mr. S. Borthakur,Adv. Mr. B. Barooah,Adv. ...3/- -3-For State of Tamil Nadu Mr. Subramanium Prasad,Adv. Mr. R. Gopal Krishan,Adv.For State of Sikkim Ms. A. Mariarputham,Adv. Ms. Aruna Mathur,Av. Ms. Mini N. Nair,Adv. for M/S. Arputham,Aruna & Co.,Advs. For Govt. of Pondicherry Mr. V.G. Pragasam,Adv.For State of Nagaland Mr. U. Hazarika,Adv. Mr. Satya Mitra,Adv. Ms. Sumita Hazarika,Adv.For NCT of Delhi Mr. Ashok Bhan,Adv. Ms. Suita Sharma,Adv. Ms. Anil Katiyar,Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra,Adv.For State of Assam Ms. Momta Oniom,Adv. Mr. Riku Sharma,Adv.

for M/S Corporate Law Group,Advs.For State of Meghalaya Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee,Adv.For State of Tripura Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv. Mr. Retu Bai Biswas,Adv.For State of Bihar Mr. Rituraj Biswas,Adv. Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv. Mrs. Hemantika Wahi,Adv. Mrs. Sadhna Sandhu,Adv. Mr. S. Ravi Shankar,Adv. Mrs. D. Bharati Reddy,Adv. Mr. Anil K. Jha,Adv. Mr. Ashok Mathur,Adv. Mr. Anis Suhrawardy,Adv. Mr. B.B. Singh,Adv. Mr. G.S. Chatterjee,Adv. Mr. K. Ram Kumar ,Adv. Mr. Prashant Bhushan ,Adv Mr. Raj Kumar Mehta ,Adv Mrs. Rachna Gupta ,Adv Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain,Adv. Mrs. V.D. Khanna,Adv. Mr. S. Muralidhar,Adv. Mr. M.N. Sharma,Adv.

...4/- -4- Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee,Adv. Mr. Annam D.N. Rao,Adv. Mrs. Revathy Raghavan,Adv. Mr. J.P. Dhanda,Adv. Mr. Mukesh K. Giri,Adv. Mr. Radha Shyam Jena ,Adv Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde ,Adv Mr. Vishwajit Singh ,Adv Mr. Javed Mahmud Rao ,Adv Mr. V.N. Raghupathy ,Adv Mr. Rajesh Srivastava ,Adv Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra ,Adv Mr. T.V. Ratnam,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List the matter on 12th May, 2006. (A.S. BISHT) (PUSHAP LATA BHARDWAJ) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

\212\ITEM No.37 Court No.9 SECTION -XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGST.C.(C) No. 22/2001Brij Mohan Lal Petitioner VERSUSUnion of India & Ors. Respondents(With appln(s) for implement the directions and permission and intervention and directions and officereport)I.A.Nos. 16,17,18,19(Appln. For directions, intervention and permission to file true phot6ocopies ofAnnexures R1-R8)WithT.C.(C) No. 23/2001, SLP(C) No. 7870/2001, SLP(C) No. 10645/2001, T.P.(C) No. 407-410/2001WithW.P.(C) No. 140/2005(With appln. For interim relief directions) Date: 10.4.2006 :This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.B.SINHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BALASUBRAMANYAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.S. Narasimha, A.C. Mr. Ananga Bhattacharyya, Adv. Mr.Avijeet K. Lala, Adv. M/s P.S.N. & Co. In W.P.(C)140/05 Mr. S. Ravishankar, Adv. Mr.R. Yamunah Nachiar, Adv. Mr. S. lesi, Adv. Mr.Chander Shekhar Ashri, Adv.

I.A.No.11 Mr. S. Muralidhar, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv.I.A.No.18 Mr.Raj Kumar Gupta, Adv. Mr.Sheo Kumar Gupta, Adv. Mr. Bihari Trigunayat, Adv. Mr.A.N. Baradaiyar, Adv. -2-Applicant in Mr. P.H. Parekh, Adv.I.A.No.15 in Ms. Meenakshi Roy, Adv.T.C.No.22/01 Mr.Rohit Alex, Adv.for Ms. P.H. Parekh & Co.Registrar GeneralHigh Court of A.P. Mr. B.Sridhar, Adv. Mr. K.Ram Kumar, Adv.Ministry of Law & Mr. G.E. Vahanvati, ASGJustice Mr. T.S. Doabia, Sr.Adv. Ms. Sunita Sharma, Adv. Ms. Varuna Bhandari Gugna, Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra, Adv. Mr. P. Parmeswaran, Adv.UOI Mr. T.S. Doabia, Sr. Adv. Ms.Sunita Sharma, Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra, Adv.NCT, Delhi Ms. Sunita Sharma, Adv. Mr.Ashok Bhan, Adv. Ms.Anil Katiyar, Adv.Allahabad High Court Mr.Ashok K.Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Shaiwal Srivastava, Adv. Mr.Saurabh Trivedi, Adv.

State of Tripura Mr.Rituraj, Adv. Mr.Gopal Singh, Adv.State of Bihar Mr.Gopal Singh, Adv. Mr. Anukul Raj, Adv.M.P.Judges Assn. Mr.Vijay Kumar, Adv. Mr. Majuri Vatis, Adv. Mr. Vishwajit Singh, Adv.State of H.P. Mr.J.S. Attri,Addl.Adv. Genl.State of Goa Ms.A.Subhashini, Adv.State of Gujarat Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Adv. Ms. Pinky Behera, Adv. -3- Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Adv. Mrs.Shomila Bakshi, Adv. Ms. Rani, Adv. Mrs.Rachna Gupta, Adv. Mr.Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Adv. Mr.Javed Mahmud Rao, Adv. Mr.Ashok Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr.A.D.N.Rao, Adv. Mr. T.V.Ratnam, Adv. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Adv. Mr.Anil Shrivastav, Adv. Mr.Anis Suhrawardy, Adv. Mr. S. Mehndi Imam, Adv. Mr.Tabres Ahmad, Adv.

Mr.Sanjay R. Hegde, Adv. Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv.State of Assam Mr.Satish Viz, Adv. Mr. Riku Sarma, Adv. For M/s Corporate Law Group Ms. Namarta Chadha, Adv. for M/s Corporate Law Group Mr. B.B. Singh, Adv.(NP) Mr. J.P.Dhanda, Adv.(NP) Mr.Ashok Mathur, Adv. Mr. K.N. Nagpal, Adv. Mr. B.S. Banthia, Adv. -4- Mrs. V.D. Khanna, Adv.State of West Bengal Mr. T.C.Sharma, Adv. Ms. Neelam Sharma, Adv.High Court of J&K Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma, Adv.State of U.P. Dr. I.P.Singh, Adv. Mr.Anuvrat Sharma, Adv. Mr.Raj Kumar Mehta, Adv. Mr. M.N. Sharma, Adv. Mr. V.G. Pragasam,Adv. Mr. A. Mariarputham,Adv. Ms.Aruna Mathur,Adv. M/s Arputham Aruna & Co.

Mrs.Revathy Raghavan, Adv. Mr. Radha Shyam Jena, Adv. Mr. Mukesh K.Giri, Adv.State of Haryana Mr. Manjeet Singh, Adv. Mr. Harikesh Singh, Adv. Mr. T.V. George, Adv.State of Chhattisgarh Ms.Suparana Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Halim Siddiqui, Adv.State of Meghalaya Mr.Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv. Mr.Raja Chatterjee, Adv. Mr.Sachin Das, Adv. Ms. Rajni Bhagat, Adv. Mr.G.S.Chatterjee, Adv. -5- Mr.Sunil Kumar Jain,Adv. Mr. S. Borthakur, Adv.State of Orissa Mr. Janaranjan Das, Adv. Mr.Swetaketu Mishra, Adv.State of Punjab Mr.R.K.Rathore, Adv. Mr. M.K. Verma, Adv.State of Manipur Mr. Kh. Nobin Singh, Adv.State of Jharkhand Mr.Anil Kumar Jha, Adv.

State of Arunachal Mr.Anil Shrivastava, Adv.PradeshState of Rajasthan Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, Addl.Adv. Genl. Mr. Naveen Kumar Singh, Adv.State of Mizoram Mr. K.N. Madhusoodhanan, Adv. Mr.R. Satish, Adv.State of M.P. Mr.R.P.Gupta, Sr.Adv. Mr.C.D.Singh, Adv. Mr. Dhanpad Kashyap Das,Adv. Ms. Kiren Suvarna, Adv.State of Maharashtra Mr.A.P. Mayee, Adv. Mr.V.N.Raghupathy, Adv.State of Uttranchal Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Adv.State of Uttranchal Mr. Avatar Singh Rawat,Adv. Mr. Jitendra Kumar Bhatia, Adv.W.P.(C) No.140/05 Mr.Ashok Bhan, Sr. Adv. Mrs.Sunita Sharma, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv.Govt. of Pondicherry Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Adv.State of Sikkim Mr. A. Mariarputham, Adv. Ms. Aruna Mathur, Adv. Ms. Mini N. Nayar, Adv. For M/s Arputham Aruna & Co. -7-State of Tripura Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv. Ms. Retu Rai Biswas, Adv.

State of Nagaland Mr. U. Hazarika, Adv. Mr. Satya Mitra, Adv. Ms. Sunita Hazarika, Adv. UPON being mentioned the Court made the following O R D E R Learned Solicitor General states that a Status-Report shall be filed within a week. Pursuant to our order dated 21.11.2005, some of the High Courts and the StateGovernments have filed their affidavits, but it appears that the following High Courts and the StateGovernments have not complied with our order dated 21.11.2005: HIGH COURTS STATE GOVERNMENTS1. Andhra Pradesh 1. Andhra Pradesh2. Bihar 2. Arunachal Pradesh3. Goa 3. Assam4. Haryana 4. Bihar5. Jammu & Kashmir 5. Goa6. Jharkhand 6. Haryana7. Maharashtra 7. Jharkhand8. Punjab 8. Madhya Pradesh9. Tamil Nadu 9. Manipur10.Uttaranchal 10. Meghalaya 11. Nagaland 12. Orissa 13. Rajasthan 14. Tamil Nadu 15. Tripura 16. Uttar Pradesh 17. Uttarnchal The above-mentioned High Courts and the State Governments are granted two weeks' timeto file their affidavits.

It is agreed to by the learned Solicitor General and learned Amicus-Curiae that they wouldsit together and make a summary of the proposals Let the matter appear on 5.5.2006. (Meenu Sethi ) (Pushap Lata Bhardwaj) Court Master Court Master

.?ITEM No.1 Court No.9 SECTION -XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSI.A.No.13 in T.C.(C) No. 22/2001Brij Mohan Lal Petitioner VERSUSUnion of India & Ors. Respondents (Application to implement the directions and office report) Date: 6.3.2006 :This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.B.SINHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BALASUBRAMANYAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.S. Narasimha, A.C. Mr.Chander Shekhar Ashri, Adv. Mr. S. Muralidhar, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. Mr.Ravinder Srivastava, Sr. Adv. Mr. P.H. Parekh, Adv. Mr.Rohit Alex, Adv.Registrar General Ms.Asha G.Nair, Adv.High Court of A.P. Mr. B.Sridhar, Adv. Mr. K.Ram Kumar, Adv.Ministry of Law & Mr. T.S. Doabia, Sr. Adv.Justice Ms. Sunita Sharma, Adv. Ms. Varuna Bhandari Gugna, Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra, Adv.

Mr. P. Parmeswaran, Adv.UOI Mr. T.S. Doabia, Sr. Adv. Ms.Sunita Sharma, Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra, Adv.NCT, Delhi Ms. Sunita Sharma, Adv. Mr.Ashok Bhan, Adv. Ms.Anil Katiyar, Adv.Allahabad High Court Mr.Ashok K.Srivastava, Adv. Mr.Saurabh Trivedi, Adv. -2-State of Tripura Mr.Rituraj, Adv. Mr.Gopal Singh, Adv.State of Bihar Ms. Vimla Sinha, Adv. Mr.Gopal Singh, Adv.M.P.Judges Assn. Mr.Vijay Kumar, Adv. Mr. Majuri Vatis, Adv. Mr. Vishwajit Singh, Adv.State of H.P. Mr.J.S. Attri,Addl.Adv. Genl.State of Goa Ms.A.Subhashini, Adv.State of Gujarat Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Adv. Ms.Sadhna Sandhu, Adv. Ms.Aruna Gupta, Adv. Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Adv. Mrs.Rachna Gupta, Adv. Mr.Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Adv. Mr.Javed Mahmud Rao, Adv. Mr.Ashok Kumar Singh, Adv.

Mr.A.D.N.Rao, Adv. Mr. T.V.Ratnam, Adv. M/s P.S.N. & Co. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Adv. Mr.Anil Shrivastav, Adv. Mr.Altaf H. Naiyak, A.G. Mr.Anis Suhrawardy, Adv. Mr. S. Mehndi Imam, Adv. Mr.Tabres Ahmad, Adv. Mr.Sanjay R. Hegde, Adv. Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv. - -3-State of Assam Mr.V.K. Sidatharan, Adv. Ms. Namarta Chadha, Adv. for M/s Corporate Law Group Mr. B.B. Singh, Adv.(NP) Mr. J.P.Dhanda, Adv.(NP) Mr.Ashok Mathur, Adv.State of M.P. Mr. Naveen Sharma, Adv. Mr. B.S. Banthia, Adv. Mrs. V.D. Khanna, Adv.State of West Bengal Mr. T.C.Sharma, Adv. Ms. Neelam Sharma, Adv. Mr.Rajeev Sharma, Adv.State of U.P. Dr. I.P.Singh, Adv.

Mr.Garvesh Kabra, Adv. Mr.Anuvrat Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr.Raj Kumar Mehta, Adv. Mr. M.N. Sharma, Adv. Mr. V.G. Pragasam,Adv. Mr. A. Mariarputham,Adv. Ms.Aruna Mathur,Adv. M/s Arputham Aruna & Co. Mrs.Revathy Raghavan, Adv. Mr. Radha Shyam Jena, Adv. Mr. Mukesh K.Giri, Adv.State of Haryana Mr. Manjeet Singh, Adv. Mrs.Vivekta Singh, Adv. Mr. Harikesh Singh, Adv.State of Chhattisgarh Ms.Suparana Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Deepti Singh, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, Adv. -4- Mr.L.N. Rao, Sr. Adv. Mr.Raja Chatterjee, Adv. Mr.Sachin Das, Adv. Ms. Rajni Bhagat, Adv. Mr.G.S.Chatterjee, Adv. Mr.Sunil Kumar Jain,Adv. Mr. S. Borthakur, Adv.State of Orissa Mr. Janaranjan Das, Adv. Ms. Kshyama Singh, Adv.

Mr.Swetaketu Mishra, Adv.State of Punjab Mr.R.K.Rathore, Adv. Mr. M.K. Verma, Adv.State of Manipur Mr. Kh. Nobin Singh, Adv.State of Jharkhand Mr.Anil Kumar Jha, Adv.State of Arunachal Mr.Anil Shrivastava, Adv.Pradesh Mr.Saurabh Srivastava, Adv.State of Rajasthan Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, Addl.Adv. Genl. Mr. Naveen Kumar Singh, Adv.State of Mizoram Mr. K.N. Madhusoodhanan, Adv. Mr.R. Satish, Adv.State of M.P. Mr.S.K. Dubey, Sr.Adv. Mr. Amit Mishra, Adv. Mr.C.D.Singh, Adv. Mr. Dhanpad Kashyap Das,Adv. Ms. Kiren Suvarna, Adv.State of Maharashtra Mr.A.P. Mayee, Adv. UPON being mentioned the Court made the following O R D E R Two weeks' time is granted for filing counter affidavit. (Meenu Sethi ) (Pushap Lata Bhardwaj) Court Master Court Master

F] 1ITEM NO.43 COURT NO.9 SECTION XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS TRANSFER CASE (CIVIL.) NO. 22 OF 2001BRIJ MOHAN LAL Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)(With appln. For directions and permission and intervention andimplement the directions and office report with quarterly reportsreceived from High Courts and State Govt. for directions)WITH T.C.(C) NO. 23 of 2001, SLP(C) No. 7870/2001, SLP(C) No. 10645/2001T.P.(C) Nos. 407-410/2001withW.P(C) NO. 140 of 2005(With appln(s) for interim directions)Date: 21/11/2005 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.B. SINHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. BALASUBRAMANYANFor Petitioner(s) Mr. P.S.Narasimha, Adv. (A.C.)

Mr. Avijeet K.Lala, Adv. Mr. S. Ravi Shankar, Adv. Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri,Adv. Mr. G.E.Vahanvati, SG Mr. Ashok Bhan, Sr.Adv. Ms. Sunita Sharma, Adv. Mr. D.S.Mahra, Adv. Ms. Anil Katiyar, Adv. 2 Mr. P. Parmeswaran,Adv. Mrs.D. Bharathi Reddy, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. G.E.Vahanvati, SG Mr. Ashok Bhan, Sr.Adv. Ms. Sunita Sharma, Adv. Mr. D.S.Mahra, Adv. Ms. Anil Katiyar, Adv. Mr. P. Parmeswaran,Adv. Ms. Pinky Anand, Adv. Mr. D.N.Goburdhan, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Pathak, Adv. Ms. A.Subhashini ,Adv Mr. Anil K. Jha ,Adv Mr. Janaranjan Das, Adv. Mr. Swetaketu Mishra, Adv. Mr. Manjeet Singh, Adv. Ms. Vivekta Singh, Adv. Mr. Hariksh Singh, Adv. Mr. Harikishan Kataria, Adv.

Mr. Ashok Mathur ,Adv Mr. Anis Suhrawardy ,Adv Mr. B.B. Singh ,Adv Mr. Kumar Rajesh Singh, Adv. Mr. Gopal Singh ,Adv Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Adv. Ms. Hemantika Wahi ,Adv Ms. Sadhna Sandhu, Adv. Ms. Kamini Jaiswal ,Adv Ms. Sunita Dwivedi, Adv. Ms. Shomila Bakshi, Adv. Ms. Rani, Adv. Mr. K. Ram Kumar ,Adv Mr. Prashant Bhushan ,Adv Mr. Raj Kumar Mehta ,Adv 3 Mrs Rachna Gupta ,Adv Mr. Bhaskar P.Gupta, Sr.Adv. Mr. T.C. Sharma ,Adv Ms. Neelam Sharma, Adv. Mr. T.V. Ratnam ,Adv Mrs V.D. Khanna ,Adv Mr. S. Muralidhar ,Adv Mr. A.Mariarputham, Adv. Ms. Aruna Mathur, Adv. for

M/S Arputham,Aruna & Co. Mr. M.N. Sharma ,Adv Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee ,Adv Mr. V.G. Pragasam ,Adv Mr. Annam D.N. Rao ,Adv Mrs.Revathy Raghavan ,Adv Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh ,Adv Mr. J.P. Dhanda ,Adv Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri ,Adv Mr. C.D.Singh, Adv. Mr. Gunratan Pandey, Adv. Ms. Kiran Suvarna, Adv. Mr. B.S. Banthia ,Adv Ms. Pragati Nikhra, Adv. Mr. S.S.Shinde,Adv. Mr. V.N.Raghupathy, Adv. Mr. Mukesh K. Giri ,Adv Mr.Khwairakpam Nobin Singh ,Adv Mr. Radha Shyam Jena ,Adv Mr. Anil Shrivastav ,Adv 4 Mr. Saurabh Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Smita, Adv. Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde ,Adv Mr. Anil K.Mishra, Adv. Mr. A.Rohen Singh, Adv.

Mr. Vijay Kumar, Adv. Ms. Mayuri Butt, Adv. Mr. Vishwajit Singh ,Adv Mr. Javed Mahmud Rao ,Adv Ms. Rachana Srivastava ,Adv Mr. P.S.Narasimha, Adv. Mr. Avijeet K.Lala, Adv. for M/S. P.S.N. & Co. Ms. Krishna Sarma, Adv. Mr. V.K.Sidarthan, Adv. Mr. Riku Sarma, Adv. for M/S Corporate Law Group Ms. Suparna Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Deepti Singh, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Srivastava ,Adv Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra ,Adv Dr. Indra Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. Garvesh Kabra, Adv. Mrs.D. Bharathi Reddy, Adv. Mr. J.S.Attri, Addl.Adv.General Ms. Shivani Thakur, Adv. Mr. Venkateshwara Rao Anumolu, Adv. Mr. Upamanyu Hazarika, Adv. Mr. Satya Mitra, Adv. Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, AAG Mr. Naveen Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Sarup Singh, Sr.Addl.A.G.Punjab

Mr. Arun K.Sinha, Adv. Mr. Ashok K.Srivastava, Adv. 5 Mr. Saurabh Trivedi, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R In this Court's order dated 29.4.2005, an observation was made to the effect that it is desirable that the matter relating to number of Fast Track Courts vis-à-vis pendency of the cases may be worked out afresh. The learned Solicitor General thence stated that the Law Ministry would take effective steps in this behalf. However, the learned Solicitor General states that such an exercise has not been undertaken by the Central Government as yet. It is an accepted position that in various States, all the Fast Track Courts originally conceptualized have not been established. Some of the States and the High Courts had taken the stand that it is not necessary to have the number of Fast Track Courts originally contemplated to be established having regard to the fact that a large number of sessions cases have since been disposed of. It is also not in dispute that many Fast Track Courts are instead and place of sessions trial are dealing with other matters including civil matters.

In the aforementioned situation, in our opinion, a time has come to consider the question as to how best the allocation of Rs. 509 crores by the Central Government can be utilized in a better manner. The learned Solicitor General further states that only such Fast Track Courts be continued which are necessary for the purpose of disposal of the sessions trials and the excess fund available therefrom may be utilized for the purpose of creation of Fast Track Courts at the magisterial level. However, before such a direction is issued, we are of the opinion that it may be necessary for this Court to have the views of the respective State 6Governments as also the High Courts. We, therefore, request the High Courts toprepare appropriate scheme (s) which may be useful in this behalf for betteradministration of criminal justice in their respective States, if necessary, byappointing a small committee in this behalf; so as to enable this Court to know asto how many Fast Track Courts are required to be continued having regard to thependency of the sessions trials and other criminal cases and as to how the excessamount generated thereby can be utilized by creating Fast Track MagisterialCourts. Undoubtedly, while making such a scheme, the impact thereof vis-à-visthe members of Higher Judicial Service who have been promoted on ad hoc basis

and other relevant factors would be taken into consideration. The High Court may also give suggestions as regard the mode andmanner in which Fast Track Courts at the Magisterial Level shall be constitutedhaving regard to the funds available therefore, in the event, some Fast TrackCourts operating are abolished. Such scheme with appropriate affidavit may befiled within four weeks. The High Courts are also requested to apprise usregarding all the pendency of the sessions cases, criminal appeals as also othercriminal cases at all levels including the High Court. List after five weeks. Let I.A.No.13 be placed in two weeks as prayed for by learned counsel onbehalf of the State of Andhra Pradesh. List after two weeks. The State of Jammu & Kashmir is hereby directed to file an appropriateaffidavit as directed in terms of the order dated 31st March, 2005 within four weeksfailing which on the next date of hearing the Law Secretary shall be present in thisCourt. Let this order be communicated to the Law Secretary of the State ofJammu & Kashmir. List thereafter. 7(P.D.Balodi) (Pushap Lata Bhardwaj)Court Master Court Master

LD 1ITEM NO.301 COURT NO.10 SECTION XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS TRANSFER CASE (CIVIL.) NO. 22 OF 2001BRIJ MOHAN LAL Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)(With appln.(s) for Directions and permission and intervention andimplement the Directions and office report)(Office Report with quarterly reports received from High Courts andState Government for directions)WITH T.C.(C) NO. 23 of 2001S.L.P.(C) NO. 7870 of 2001, SLP(C)No.10645/2001T.P.(C)No.407-410/2001W.P.(C) No.140 of 2005 ALL MEDIA JOURNALISTS ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OFINDIA (With appln.(s) for interim directions) Date: 26/09/2005 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.B.SINHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.H. KAPADIAFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri,Adv.For Petitioner (WP(C)140/2005) Mr. S.Ravi Shankar, Adv. Mr. R.Yamunah Nachiar, Adv.

For Respondent(s) for UOI, Mr. Goolam E.Vahanvati, SG. Ms. Sunita Sharma, Adv. Mr. D.S.Mehra, Adv. Ms. Varuna Bhandari Gugnani, Adv. Mr. P. Parmeswaran,Adv.For UT of Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Adv.Chandigarh Mr. Shomila Bakshi, Adv. Mrs. Rachna Gupta, Adv.For State of Ms. Rachna Srivastava, AAGUttranchal Mr. K.K.Srivastava, Adv.For State of U.P. Dr. Indra Pratap Singh, Adv. With Mr. Samir Ali Khan, Adv. Ms.Alka Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Ravi P. Mehrotra, Adv. 2For State of Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Adv.Gujarat & Mizoram Mrs. Sadhna Sandhu, Adv.St.of Mah. Mr. S.S. Shinde, Adv. Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, Adv.For State of Mr. KHwairakpam Nobin Singh, Adv.Manipur Mr. Javed Mahmud Rao, Adv. Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Annam D.N. Rao, Adv.

Mr. T.V.Ratnam, Adv. Mr. P.S.Narasimha, Adv. Mr. Ananga Bhattacharya, Adv. Mr. Avijeet Kumar Lala, Adv. for M/s PSN & Co., Advs. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Adv.For H.C. of A.P. Mr. K. Ram Kumar, Adv. Mr. B.Sridhar, Adv. For State of Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv.Tripura Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Adv.For State of Mr. Anil Shrivastava, Adv.Arunachal PradeshFor State of Mr. Altaf H. Naiyak, AG, J&KJ & K Mr. Anis Suhrawardy, Adv. Ms. Shamamma Anis, Adv.For State of Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv.MeghalayaFor NCT of Delhi Mr. Ashok Bhan, Adv. Ms. Sunita Sharma, Adv. Ms. Anil Katiyar, Adv.UT of Andaman, Ms. Sunita Sharma, Adv. Lakshadweep, Daman Mr. D.S. Mahra, Adv. & Diu, Dadra & NagarHaveli

for M.P. H.C. Mr. N.M. Ghatate, Sr. Adv. Mr. C.D. Singh, Adv. Ms. Kiran Suvarua, Adv. Mr. Gunratan Pandey, Adv. For the Intervenor Mr. Vijay Kumar, Adv.(MP Judges Asscn.) Mr. Vishwajit Singh, Adv.In IA 13/05 Mr. Ravi K.Adsure, Adv. 3applicant Mr. Sateesh Galla, Adv. Mr. Venkateswara Rao Anumolu, Adv. In IA 11 Mr. S.Muralidhar, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. For State of W.B. Mr. Bhaskasr P.Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma, Adv. Ms. Neelam Sharma, Adv. For J&K H.C. Mr.Tara Chandra Sharma, Adv.For Allahabad H.C. Mr. Ashok K. Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Shaiwal Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Trivedi, Adv.For Orissa H.C. Mr. Janaranjan Das, Adv. Mr. Swetaketu Mishra, Adv.For Patna H.C. Mr. Ravindra Shrivastava, Sr. Adv. With Mr. P.H.Parekh, Adv. Mr.Kunal Verma, Adv. Mr. Ajun Garg, Adv.

For State of T.N. Mr. Subramonium Prasad, Adv. Mr.R. Gopalakrishnan, Adv. For U.T. of Mr. V.G., Pragasam, Adv.Pondicherry For State of Mr. Sarup Singh, Sr. Adv.(AG,Pb.)Punjab Mr. A.K. Sinha, Adv.For State of Mr. Manjit Singh, Adv.Haryana Mrs. Vivekta Singh, Adv. Mr. Hariksh Singh, Adv. Mr. Harikishan Kataria, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Rathee, Adv. For State of M.P. Mr. Naveen Sharma, Adv. Ms. Musharaf Chaudhury, Adv. Mr. B.S. Banthia, Adv. For State of Ms. Suprana Srivastava, Adv.Chhatisgarh Ms. Deepti Singh, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, Adv.For State of Goa Ms. A.Subhashini, Adv.For State of Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, AAGRajasthan Mr. Naveen Kumar, Adv. For State of Mr. U. Hazarika, Adv.Nagaland Mr. Satya Mitra, Adv. Ms. Sumita Hazarika, Adv.For State of Ms. Krishna Sarma, Adv.Assam Mr. V.K. Sidharthan, Adv.

4 Mr. Riku Sarma, Adv. for M/s Corporate Law Group, Advs.For State of Mr. A.Mariarputham, Adv.Sikkim Ms. Aruna Mathur, Adv. for M/s Arputham, Aruna & Co.For State of Mr. Ramesh Babu M.R.,Adv.Kerala Mrs. Sunita R.Singh, Adv. For State of Bihar Mr. B.B.Singh, Adv.For State of Mr. Ashok Mathur, Adv.JharkhandFor State of Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Adv.Karnataka Mr. Anil K. Mishra, Adv. Mr. A.Rohen Singh, Adv. St. of A.P. Mrs. D.Bharathi Reddy, Adv. Mr. P.Vinay Kumar, Adv. Ms. Sneha Bhaskaran, Adv. For State of H.P. Mr. J.S.Attri, AAGFor State of Ms. Suparna Srivastava, Adv.Chhattisgarh Mr. Rahul Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Deepti Singh, Adv. St. of Meghalaya Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv.St.of Jharkhand Ms. Pinky Anand, Adv.

Mr. D.N. Goburdhun, Adv. St. of Nagaland Mr. U.Hazarika, Adv. Mr. Satya Mitra, Adv. Ms.Sumita Hazarika, Adv. Mr. Ravindra Srivastava, Adv. Mr. E.R. Kumar, Adv. Mr. Rohit Alex, Adv. Mr. B.S.Banthia, Adv. Mrs. V.D. Khanna, Adv. Mr. Raj Kumar Mehta, Adv. Mr. M.N. Sharma, Adv. Mrs. Revathy Raghavan, Adv. Mr. J.P. Dhanda, Adv. Mr.Mukesh K.Giri, Adv. 5 Mr. Radha Shyam Jena, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R At the request of the counsel for the parties, the matters are adjourned. (Meenu Sethi) (Pushap Lata Bhardwaj) Court Master Court Master

\206OITEM NO.301 COURT NO.8 SECTION XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS TRANSFER CASE (CIVIL) NO(s). 22 OF 2001BRIJ MOHAN LAL Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for directions and permission and intervention and office report)(Office report with quarterly reports received from High Courts and State Government and fordirections)WithTC(C) 23/2001, SLP(C) No. 7870/2001, SLP(C) 10645/2001, TP(C) 407-410/2001 with WP(C)140/2005Date: 29/07/2005 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.B. SINHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.H. KAPADIAFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Adv. Mohd. Halim Siddiqui, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Singh, Adv. Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri, Adv. WP(C) 140 Mr. S. Ravi Shankar, Adv. Mr. R. Yamunah Nachiar, Adv.For I.A 13 Mr. Venkateshwara Rao Anumolu, Adv.For Respondent(s)Union of India Mr. A. Sharan, ASG Ms. Sunita Sharma, Adv.

Mr. D.S. Mahera, Adv. Ms. Varuna Bhandari Gugnani, Adv. Mr. T.V. Ratnam, Adv. Mr. P Parmeswaran, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv. Mr. P.S. Narasimha, Adv. (A.C.) Mr. Ananga Bhattacharyya, Adv. Mr. Avijeet Lala, Adv. for M/s. P.S.N. & Co. Patna High Court Mr. P.H. Parekh, Adv. Mr. Rohit Alex, Adv. Allahabad High Court Mr. Ashok K. Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Shaiwal Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Trivedi, Adv.State of Goa Ms. A. Subhashini, Adv.State of Nagaland Mr. Upamanya Hazarika, Adv. Mr. Satya Mitra, Adv.State of Assam Mr. Krishna Sarma, Adv. Mr. V.K. Sidharthan, Adv. Mr. Atul Kumar, Adv. Mr. Riku Sarma, Adv.State of Arunachal Mr. Anil Shrivastava, Adv.Pradesh Ms. Banosri, Adv. Ms. Smita, Adv.State of Manipur Mr. KH. Nobin Singh, Adv.State of Rajasthan Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, Addl.Adv.General Mr. Naveen Kumar Singh Adv.State of Maharashtra Mr. S.S. Shinde, Adv.

Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, Adv. Mr. Mukesh K. Giri, Adv.State of Meghalaya Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv.State of Pondicharry Mr. V.G. Pragasan, Adv.State of Jharkhand Ms. Pinky Anand, Sr. Standing Counsel Mr. D.N. Goburdhun, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Pathak, Adv.State of Nagaland Mr. U. Hazarika, Adv. Mr. Satya Mitra, Adv. Ms. Sumita Hazarika, Adv.State of Chhattisgarh Ms. Suparna Srivastava, Standing Counsel Ms. Deepti Singh, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, Adv.State of A.P. Mr. B. Sridhar, Adv. Mr. K. Ramkumar, Adv. Mr. D. Bharathi Reddy, Adv. Mr. P. Vinay, Adv. Ms. Sneha Bhaskaran, Adv.State of Gujarat/Mizoram Mrs. Hemantika Wahi, Adv. Ms. Sudhna Sndhu, Adv.State of W.B./ Mr. Bhaskar P. Gupta, Sr. Adv. J & K Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma, Adv. Ms. Neelam Sharma, Adv. State of Chandigarh Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Adv. Mrs. Shomila Bakshi, Adv.State of Tripura Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Adv. Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv.State of Punjab Mr. Sanjay Jain, Adv.State of H.P. Mr. J.S. Attri, Adv.

State of Uttaranchal Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Adv.State of Orissa Mr. Janaranjan Das, Adv. Mr. Swetaketu Mishra, Adv.State of U.P. Mr. Ravi P. Mehrotra, Adv. Mr. Samar Ali Khan, Adv.State of Bihar Ms. Sunita R. Singh, Adv.State of Haryana Mr. Manjeet Singh, Adv. Ms. Vivekta Singh, Av. Mr. Hariksh Singh, Adv. Mr. Harikishan Kataria, Adv.] Mr. Sanjay Rathee, Adv. Mr. T.V. George, Adv. Mr. C.D. Singh, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Ms. Kiran Suvarna, Adv.State of Sikkim/ Mr. A. Mariarputham, Adv.Rajasthan Ms. Aruna Mathur, Adv. Mrs. Rachna Gupta, Adv. Mr. Ashok Kr. Singh, Adv. Mr. Annam D.N. Rao, Adv. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Hegde, Adv. Mr. V.K.Sidharthan, Adv. for M/s. Corporate Law Group Mr. B.B. Singh, Adv.

Mr. J.P. Dhanda, Adv. Mr. Ashok Mathur, Adv. Mr. B.S. Banthia, Adv. Mr. V.D. Khanna, Adv. Mr. Raj Kumar Mehta, Adv. Mr. M.N. Sharma, Adv. Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Adv. Mrs. Revathy Raghavan, Adv. Mr. Radha Shyam Jena, Adv. Mr. S. Murlidhar, Adv. Mr. Arun K Sinha, Adv.For Intervenor Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vijay Kumar, Adv. Mr. Vishwajit Singh, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh is wholly unsatisfactory. TheState of Uttar Pradesh as also the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, is directed to fileappropriate affidavits within three weeks as regard the continuity of service or otherwise of thosejudicial officers including those who had been reverted to the post of Civil Judge (SeniorDivision).IA 12

Let notice be issued to the Union of India and also to the High Court of Judicature atCalcutta returnable within four weeks. Counter Affidavits be filed within three weeks.IA 11 Let notice be issued to the Union of India and also to the High Court of Judicature atCalcutta returnable within four weeks. Counter Affidavits be filed within three weeks. IA Nos. 11 and 12 will be heard together. IA 13 Issue notice returnable within four weeks. Ms. D. Bharati Reddy and Mr. T.V. Ratnam, learned counsel accept notice on behalf ofthe State of Andhra Pradesh and the Union of India respectively. Affidavits be filed within three weeks. IA 14 Issue notice to the State of Madhya Pradesh and also the High Court of MadhyaPradesh returnable within four weeks. Mr. C.D. Singh, and Mr.T.V. Ratnam, learned counselaccept notice on behalf of the State of M.P. and the Union of India respectively. Counter Affidavits be filed within three weeks. It appears that despite this Court's order dated 29th April, 2005 some of the States/HighCourts have not filed their respective affidavits. The Registry shall inform the standing counsel

appearing on behalf of the States/High Courts that the affidavits to be filed within three weeks. Mr. Tara Chand Sharma, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the State of Jammu& Kashmir and the J & K High Court. Mr. P.H. Parekh, appearing on behalf of the Patna High Court states that he files anaffidavit. Let it be kept on record. Registry is directed to number the affidavit as an I.A. Issue notice. Mr. B.B. Singh learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the State ofBihar. List the matters after four weeks. Rupam (PHOOLAN WATI ARORA) COURT MASTER

ö W.P(C)No. 140 OF 2005ITEM No.MM-C Court No. 1 SECTION PIL S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition(Civil) No.140/2005( For Preliminary Hearing ) ALL MEDIA JOURNALISTS ASSOCIATION Petitioner (s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA Respondent (s) Date : 28/03/2005 This Petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MATHUR For Petitioner (s)Mr. Rajiv Datta, Sr. Adv.Mr. S. Ravi Shankar, Adv. For Respondent (s) UPON being mentioned by counsel, the Court made the following O R D E R List on 30th March, 2005. (Ajay Kr. Jain) (Radha R. Bhatia) Court MasterCourt Master

\212? T.C.(C)No. 22 OF 2001ITEM No.302 Court No. 2 SECTION XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Transfer Case(Civil) No.22/2001 BRIJ MOHAN LAL Petitioner (s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent (s) [Office Report with quarterly reports received from High Courts and State Govt. for directions] with T.C.(C)No.23/2001, SLP(C)No.7870/2001, SLP(C)No.10645/2001 and TP(C)No. 407-410/2001. Date : 10/01/2005 These Petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.B. SINHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.H. KAPADIA For Petitioner (s) Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri,Adv. Mr.P.S.Narasimha,Adv., (A.C.) Mr.Ananga Bhattacharya,Adv.for M/s.PSN & Co., Advs. For Respondent (s) for the Intervenor: Mr.Vijay Kumar,Adv., Mr.Vishwajit Sigh,Adv. for UOI, UT of Mr.R.Mohan, ASG Andaman & Nicobar, Ms.Sunita Sharma,Adv., Dadar & Nagar Haveli, Mr.D.S.Mahra,Adv. Daman & Diu, Mrs. Rekha Pandey, Adv. Lakshadweep Ms. Sushma Suri, Adv. For NCT of Delhi Mr.Ashok Bhan,Adv., Ms.Sunita Sharma,Adv., Ms.Anil Katiyar,Adv. For State of W.Bengal Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma,Adv., Ms.Neelam Sharma,Adv. for UT of Chandigarh Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Adv. Mr. Saqib, Adv. Mrs. Naresh Bakshi, Adv.- 2 - for State of Gujarat Ms. Hemantika Wahi,Adv. Mrs.Sadhna Sandhu,Adv., For J&K High Court Mr.Tara Chandra Sharma,Adv. For Allahabad High Court Mr.Ashok K. Srivastava,Adv. For Orissa High Court Mr.Janaranjan Das,Adv.,

Mr.Swetaketu Mishra,Adv., Ms.Moushumi Gahlot,Adv. For State of Tamil Nadu Mr.Subramonium Prasad,Adv., Mr.Gopalakrishnan,Adv., Mr.Abhay Kumar,Adv. Mr.Rahul,Adv. For State of Manipur Mr.KH.Nobin Singh,Adv. For U.T of Pondicherry Mr. V.G. Pragasam,Adv. For State of Tripura Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv., Mr.Anurag Sharma,Adv., Mr.Rituraj Biswas,Adv. For State of Punjab Mr.R.K. Rathore,AAG Mr.A.K. Sinha,Adv., State of Maharashtra Mr.Mukesh K. Giri,Adv. For State of Haryana Mr.Praveen Kumar Rai,Adv., Ms. Kavita Wadia,Adv. For State of Orissa Mr. Radha Shyam Jena,Adv. for State of U.P. Mr. Dileep Tandon, Adv. Mr. Ravi P. Mehrotra, Adv. for State of Uttaranchal Ms.Rachna Srivastava,AAG for State of M.P. Mr.S.K. Agnihotri,Adv., Mr.Rohit K. Singh,Adv., Mr.Amit Mishra,Adv.for State of Chhatisgarh Ms.Suprarna Srivastava,Adv., Ms. Deepti Singh, Adv. Mr.Rajesh Srivastava,Adv., Mr.Rahul Srivastava,Adv. for State of Goa Ms.A. Subhashini,Adv. For UTs Mr.S.Wasim A. Qadri,Adv., Mr.D.S. Mahra,Adv. For State of Rajasthan: Mr.Aruneshwar Gupta,AAG Mr. Naveen Kumar, Adv. Ms. Shivangi, Adv.- 3 - For State of Nagaland Mr.U. Hazarika,Adv., Mr. Satya Mitra, Adv. Ms.Sumita Hazarika,Adv. for State of Assam Ms.Krishna Sarma,Adv., Mr.V.K. Sidharthan,Adv. Mr. Atul Kumar, Adv. for M/s.Corporate Law Group, Advs. for State of Sikkim Mr.A.Mariarputham,Adv., Ms.Aruna Mathur,Adv.for M/s Arputham,Aruna & Co., for State of Kerala Mr. K.R. Sasiprabhu,Adv. For State of Bihar Mr. B.B. Singh,Adv. For State of Jharkhand Mr.Ashok Mathur,Adv., Mr.Rajesh Pathak,Adv.

for State of Meghalaya Mr.Ranjan Mukherhjee,Adv. for State of J & K Mr. Altaf H. Naiyak, A.G., J&K, Mr.Anis Suhrawardy,Adv. For State of Karnataka Mr.Sanjay R. Hegde,Adv. State of Arunachal Mr.Anil Shrivastava,Adv. Pradesh Ms. Smita, Adv. State of A.P. Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, Adv. Mr. B. Vikas, Adv. Ms. Sneha Bhaskaran, Adv. High Court of A.P. Mr. B. Sridhar, Adv. Mr. K. Ramkumar, Adv. For State of H.P. Mr. J.S. Attri,AAG, Mrs.Rachna Gupta,Adv. Mr.Prashant Bhushan,Adv. Mr.V.N. Raghupathy,Adv. Mr.Javed Mahmud Rao,Adv. Mr.Annam D.N .Rao,Adv. Mr.T.V. Ratnam,Adv. Mr.B.S. Banthia,Adv. Mrs.V.D. Khanna,Adv. Mr.Raj Kumar Mehta,Adv.- 4 - Mr.M.N. Sharma,Adv. Mrs.Revathy Raghavan,Adv. Mr. J.P. Dhanda, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R It is stated by the learned Additional Solicitor General that the Union of India has taken a policy decision that Fast Track Courts would continue. We were further informed by the learned Additional Solicitor General that the report of 12th Finance Commission is pending acceptance before Hon'ble the President of India. It has further been brought to our notice that some States have not fully complied with the directions of this Court dated 01st November 2004. Learned counsel appearing for the State of Andhra Pradesh states that an affidavit indicating the Status Report shall be filed by tomorrow. Let a copy of the said Status Report be handed over to the learned Amicus Curiae. So far as the State of Bihar is concerned it has been stated across the Bar that now court rooms are available and subject to the recommendations of the names of the Presiding Officers therefor by the High Court, all the posts can be filled up. It is stated that steps have already been taken in this behalf. We hope and trust that all the vacant posts shall be filled up within a period of four weeks from date. It is stated by learned counsel appearing for State of Gujarat that 5 vacant courts shall be filled up within a period of two months. It is recorded accordingly.- 5 -So far as the States of Haryana and Punjab are concerned, it is accepted that in the State of Haryana, out of 36 Fast Track Courts allotted to State of Haryana, 16 are vacant; whereas out of 34 Fast Track Courts allotted to State of Punjab, 18 are vacant. On behalf of the High Court and the States, it is stated that the remaining vacant Courts are not required to be filled

up keeping in view the pendency of the criminal cases. Accepting the above statement, it is directed that the said two States as well as the High Court of Punjab & Haryana need not take further steps for the time being to fill up the Courts. However, it is made clear that if in future, on account of increase in cases, it is decided to fill up the above-mentioned remaining vacant Courts, it will be open to both the States and the High Court to review the aforestated decision and take appropriate steps by approaching the Union of India in that behalf. Accordingly, we also direct the High Court as well as both the States to review its decision on this aspect periodically.So far as the State of Jammu & Kashmir is concerned the learned Advocate General states that he is not aware as to whether the Notification issued for creation of Fast Track Courts of Judicial Magistrates has been withdrawn or not. If the same has not been withdrawn, the State of Jammu & Kashmir and the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir are directed to take immediate action accordingly. The State of Jammu & Kashmir is further directed to see that requisite number of Fast Track Courts for conducting Sessions trials in terms of the original Scheme framed by the Finance Commission be complied with at an early date and not later than two months from date. - 6 -All the States are hereby further directed to file affidavits showing present pendency of the criminal cases so as to enable this Court to pass further orders. Let this matter appear six weeks hence.(Subhash Chander)(Prem Prakash) Court Master Court Master

? T.C.(C)No. 22 OF 2001ITEM No.303 Court No. 2 SECTION XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Transfer Case(Civil) No.22/2001 BRIJ MOHAN LAL Petitioner (s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent (s)( With Appln(s). for directions and permission and Office Report with quarterly reports received from High Courts and State Govt. for directions) with T.C.(C)No.23/2001, SsLP(C)No.7870/2001, SLP (c) 10645/2001, TP(c) 407-410/2001 Date : 01/11/2004 These Petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.B. SINHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.H. KAPADIA For Petitioner (s) Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri,Adv. Mr.P.S.Narasimha,Adv., (A.C.) Mr.Ananga Bhattacharya,Adv.for M/s.PSN & Co. For Respondent (s) for the Intervenor: Mr.Vijay Kumar,Adv., Mr.Vishwajit Sigh,Adv. for UOI: Mr.R.Mohan, ASG Mr.T.S. Doabia,Sr.Adv., Mr.P. Parmessaran,Adv. Mr.T.S. Doabia,Sr.Adv., Ms.Sunita Sharma,Adv., Mr.D.S. Mahra,Adv. For State of W.Bengal Mr.Bhaskar P. Gupta,Sr.Adv., Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma,Adv., Mr.Rajeev Sharma,Adv., Ms.Neelam Sharma,Adv. for UT of Chandigarh: Ms.Kamini Jaiswal,Adv., Mr.Saqib,Adv. For NCT of Delhi Mr.Ashok Bhan,Adv., Ms.Sunita Sharma,Adv., Ms.Anil Katiyar,Adv. for State of Gujarat: Ms. Hemantika Wahi,Adv. Mrs.Manita Varma,Adv., Mrs.Aruna Gupta,Adv. For J&K High Court Mr.Tara Chandra Sharma,Adv.

For Allahabad High Court Mr.Ashok K. Srivastava,Adv. For Orissa High Court Mr.Janaranjan Das,Adv., Mr.Swetaketu Mishra,Adv., Ms.Moushumi Gahlot,Adv. For Patna High Court Mr.Amit Pawan,Adv., Mr.Amit Kumar,Adv. For State of Tamil Nadu Mr.Subramonium Prasad,Adv., Mr.Gopalakrishnan,Adv., Mr.Abhay Kumar,Adv. Mr.Rahul,Adv. For State of Manipur Mr.KH.Nobin Singh,Adv. For U.T of Pondicherry Mr. V.G. Pragasam,Adv. For State of H.P. Mr. J.S. Attri,AAG, For State of Tripura Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv., Mr.Anurag Sharma,Adv., Mr.Rituraj Biswas,Adv. For State of Punjab Mr.R.K. Rathore,AAG Mr.A.K. Sinha,Adv., Mr. Bimal Roy Jad,Adv., for State of Maharashtra: Mr. Ravindra K Adsure,Adv., Mr.Mukesh K. Giri,Adv. For State of Haryana Mr.Praveen Kumar Rai,Adv., Ms. Kavita Wadia,Adv. For State of Orissa Mr. Radha Shyam Jena,Adv. for State of U.P. Mr.Ravi P. Mehrotra,Adv., Mrs.Deepti R Mehrotra,Adv., Mr.Garvesh Kabra,Adv. for State of Uttaranchal Ms.Rachna Srivastava,AAG for State of M.P. Mr.S.K. Agnihotri,Adv., Mr.Rohit K. Singh,Adv., Mr.Amit Mishra,Adv. for State of Chhatisgarh: Ms.Suprarna Srivastava,Adv., Mr.Rajesh Srivastava,Adv., Mr.Rahul Srivastava,Adv. for State of Goa Ms.A. Subhashini,Adv. For UTs Mr.S.Wasim A. Qadri,Adv., Mr.D.S. Mahra,Adv. For State of Rajasthan: Mr.Aruneshwar Gupta,AAG For State of Nagaland Mr.U. Hazarika,Adv., Ms.Sumita Hazarika,Adv. for State of Assam: Ms.Krishna Sarma,Adv., Mr.Atul Kumar,Adv.for M/s.Corporate Law Group for State of Sikkim Mr.A.Mariarputham,Adv., Ms.Aruna Mathur,Adv.for M/s Arputham,Aruna & Co.,

for State of Kerala Mr. K.R. Sasiprabhu,Adv. For State of Bihar Mr. B.B. Singh,Adv. For State of Jharkhand: Mr.Ashok Mathur,Adv., Mr.Rajesh Pathak,Adv. for State of Meghalaya Mr.Ranjan Mukherhjee,Adv. for State of J & K Mr.Anis Suhrawardy,Adv. For State of Karnataka Mr.Sanjay R. Hegde,Adv. Mr.C.D. Singh,Adv., Dr.Indra Pratap Singh,Adv., Mr.Sanjay Singh,Adv.For Arunachal Pradesh State: Mr.Anil Shrivastava,Adv. Mrs.Rachna Gupta,Adv. Mr.Prashant Bhushan,Adv. Mr.V.N. Raghupathy,Adv. Mr.Javed Mahmud Rao,Adv. Mr.Annam D.N .Rao,Adv. Mr.T.V. Ratnam,Adv. Mr.B.S. Banthia,Adv. Mrs.V.D. Khanna,Adv. Mr.Raj Kumar Mehta,Adv. Mr.M.N. Sharma,Adv. Mrs.Revathy Raghavan,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R A chart has been filed by Mr.Narasimha the learned amicus-curiae explaining that in number of States all posts of Fast Track Courts have not been filled up. Our attention in this behalf has been drawn to the States of Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Gujarat, Haryana, Orissa and also Punjab. It has further been contended that in the State of J & K in place and stead of District Judges, the Civil Judges (Junior Division) have been appointed under the aforementioned Scheme. Mr.Tara Chandra Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the High Court of J & K however states that corrective measures have been taken to convert the said posts into the post of Higher Judicial Service. The learned counsel appearing for the State of Punjab states that the High Court has taken a decision that it is not necessary to appoint more than 18 Fast Track Courts out of 34 Fast Track Courts. Let an affidavit to that effect be filed The State of Andhra Pradesh and other States as specified hereinbefore and the concerned High Courts shall file supplementary affidavits explaining as to why all the posts of Fast Track Courts as sanctioned have not been filled up so far. Our attention has also been drawn to the affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India affirmed by N.M. Perumal wherein it has been contended as under:-"That the matter of continuation of fast track courts scheme beyond the original period of five years has already been taken up with Twelfth Finance Commission. The Minister for Law & Justice has written to the Chairman of Twelfth Finance Commission with a request to favourably consider the proposals of requirement for the upgradation of judicial infrastructure which, inter-alia, include continuation of fast track courts scheme during the period of the Twelfth Finance Commission and also creation of another 1500 fast track courts of Magistrates for dealing with non-sessions cases and other criminal cases."However, from the said statements it does not appear as to whether the Union of India has

taken a firm decision to continue the Fast Track Courts and/or to modify the said Scheme in the light of its experience as regards their functioning in the country. Keeping in view fact remains that despite lapse of 4 and a half years (1.4.2001) when the Scheme was to be given effect to, the States have not been able to fill up all the posts. It is expected that the Ministry of Law and Justice shall take a fresh look at the matter and taken a firm decision. It is also expected that a decision at the appropriate level could be taken by the Union of India to continue the functioning of the Fast Track Courts as expeditiously as possible. The learned Addl.Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India states that an affidavit to that effect shall be filed within three weeks. A copy of the said affidavit may be handed over to Mr.Narasimha,the learned amicus curiae in advance so as to enable him to file his response thereto. The learned ASG further states that an affidavit shall also be filed as regards the decision taken by the Union of India in terms of the Order of this Court dated 15.9.2003. Put up after six weeks.(Vijay Kumar Sharma) (Madhu Saxena) AR cum PS to Hon.Judge Court Master

\230+ T.C.(C)No. 22 OF 2001ITEM No.301 Court No. 2 SECTION XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Transfer Case(Civil) No.22/2001 BRIJ MOHAN LAL Petitioner (s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent (s)( Office Report with quarterly reports received from High Court and State Govt. for directions)) WithSLP(C)No.10645/2001,TC.(C)No.23/2001,T.P.(C) No.407-410/2001,SLP(C)No.7870/2001 Date : 30/08/2004 These Petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.B. SINHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.H. KAPADIA For Petitioner (s)Mr. P.S. Narasimha,Adv.Mr. Ananga Bhattacharya,Adv.M/s PSN & Co.,Advs.Ms. Aparna Bhat,Adv.Mr. P. Ramesh Kunj,Adv.Ms. Kamini Jaiswal,Adv.Ms. Inklee Barooah,Adv. Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri,Adv. For Respondent (s)Mr. R.Mohan,ASGMr. S. Wasim A. Qadri,Adv.Mr. P. Parmeswaran,Adv. State of Maharashtra:Mr. S.S. Shinde,Adv. Mr. Mukesh K. Giri,Adv. State of Tripura:Mr. Anurag Sharma,Adv.Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv. State of Goa:Ms. A. Subhashini,Adv. State of Rajasthan:Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta,AAGMr. Amarjit Singh Bedi,Adv. State of Punjab:Mr. R.K. Rathore,AAG,Pb.Mr. C.S. Ashri,Adv.Mr. Kuldeep S. Malik,Adv.High Court of Raj.Mr. A. Mariaputham,Adv.Ms. Aruna Mathur,Adv.M/s Arputham, Aruna & co.,Advs.High Court of Orissa:Mr. Janarajan Das,Adv.Mr. Swetaketu Mishra,Adv.Ms. Moushumi Gahlot,Adv.

Govt. of Pondicherry:Mr. V.G. Pragasam,Adv. For State (Delhi):Mr. Ashok Bhan,Adv.Ms. Sunita Sharma,Adv.Ms. Anil Katiyar,Adv. State of Manipur:Mr. K.H. Nobin Singh,Adv.UT of Andaman & Nicobar Mr. D.S. Mahra,Adv. Ms. Sunita Sharma,Adv.High Court of M.P.Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri,Adv.Mr. Rohit K. Singh,Adv.Mr. Amit Mishra,Adv.State of HPMr. J.S. Attri,AAG, HPState of J & KMr. T.C. Sharma,Adv.State of U.P.Mr. R.P. Mehrotra,Adv.Ms. Deepti R. Mehrotra,Adv.Mr. Garvesh Kabra,Adv.State of T.N.Mr. S. Prasad,Adv.Mr. Gopalakrishnan,Adv.Mr. Abhay Kumar,Adv.Mr.Rahul,Adv.State of Nagaland:Mr. U. Hazarika,Adv.Mr. Riku Sharma,Adv.Ms. Sumita Hazarika,Adv.For Allahabad HCMr. Ashok K. Srivastava,Adv.For Arunachal Pradesh:Mr. Anil Shrivastav,Adv.Mr. Vijay Kumar,Adv.Mr. Vishwajit Singh,Adv.State of A.P. Ms. D. Bharthi Reddy,Adv.Mr. R. Vikas,Adv.State of Chhattisgarh:Ms. Supama Srivastava,Adv.Mr. Rajesh Srivastava,Adv.State of Assam:Ms. Krishna Sarma,Adv.Mr. Niraj Kumar,Adv.For Corporate Law Group,Advs.State of T.N.Mr. R. Ayyam Perumal,Adv.Mr. S. Vallinayagam,Adv. Mrs Rachna Gupta,Adv. Ms. Rachana Srivastava,Adv. Ms. Hemantika Wahi,Adv. Mr.V.N. Raghupathy,Adv. Mr. Javed Mahmud Rao,Adv. Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri,Adv. Mr. Annam D.N. Rao,Adv. Mr. T.V. Ratnam,Adv. Mr. Prashant Bhushan,Adv.

Mr. K. Ram Kumar,Adv. Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde,Adv. Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee,Adv. Mr. B.B. Singh,Adv. Mr. J.P. Dhanda,Adv. Mr. Ashok Mathur,Adv. Mr. B.S. Banthia,Adv. Mrs V.D. Khanna,Adv. Mr. Raj Kumar Mehta,Adv. Mr. M.N. Sharma,Adv. Mrs.Revathy Raghavan,Adv. Mr. Radha Shyam Jena,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R It is stated by the learned Additional Solicitor General that recommendations have been made by the Union of India to the Twelfth Finance Commission for continuing the Fast Track Courts as also creation of 1500 courts of Magistrates. Let the Central Government file an appropriate affidavit in this behalf. The Central Government shall also point out by filing an affidavit as to whether said decision has been taken in respect of those States where it is not necessary to continue the Fast Track Courts or where such Fast Track Courts do not have enough work are to be abolished or can be asked to take up civil matters besides services cases.Mr. Narasimha, learned Amicus Curiae states that from the affidavit filed by the States it appears there has been substantial compliance so far as constitution of Fast Track Courts are concerned and it will be necessary to continue it. Mr. Narasimha, learned Amicus Curiae should bring the necessary facts to the notice of the Court as also the learned Additional Solicitor General. It is also submitted by Mr. Narasimha, learned Amicus Curiae that Central Government should adopt a policy decision to continue the Fast Track Courts.Put up these matters six weeks hence. (Ganga Thakur) (Prem Prakash) PS to Registrar Court Master

\220, T.C.(C)No. 22 OF 2001ITEM No.21 Court No.1 SECTION XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Transferred Case(Civil) No.22/2001 BRIJ MOHAN LAL Petitioner (s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent (s)( Office Report with Quarterly Reports received from High Courts and State Government for Directions ) WithT.C.(C)No.23/2001, S.L.P.(C) No. 7870/2001, S.L.P.(C) No. 10645/2001, T.P.(C) No.407-410/2001. Date : 08/04/2004 These Petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.B. SINHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.H. KAPADIA For Petitioner (s) Mr. K S Saini, Adv. Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri,Adv. Mr. P S Narasimha, Adv. (AC) Mr. P Sridhar, Adv. Mr. Ananga Bhattacharya, Adv. Mr. G Seshagiri Rao, Adv. for M/s. P S N & Co., Advs. For Respondent (s) Union of India Mr. Kirit N Raval, SG Mr. Prateek Jalan, Adv. Mr. P Parmeswaran, Adv. State of Assam Mr. Sanjay V S Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Niraj Kumar, Adv. for Corporate Law Group, Advs. State of Arunachal Mr. Anil Shrivastav, Adv. Pradesh Mr. Jyoti Dutt, Adv. State of Andhra Mr. T V Ratnam, Adv. Pradesh Mr. K Subba Rao, Adv. AP High Court Mr. K Ram Kumar, Adv. (NP) State of Bihar Mr. Kumar Rajesh Singh, Adv. Mr. B B Singh, Adv. Patna High Court Mr.Amit Pawan, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Verma, Adv.

UT Chandigarh Ms. Shomila Bakshi, Adv. Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Adv. Ms. Inklee Barooha, Adv. NCT of Delhi Ms. Pinky Anand, Adv. Mr. T A Khan, Adv. Ms. Anil Katiyar, Adv. UTs of Ms. Sunita Sharma, Adv. Of Andaman & Nicobar, Mr. D S Mahra, Adv. Lakshadweep, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Daman & Diu State of Chhatisgarh Ms. Suparna Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Prakash Shrivastava, Adv. (NP) State of Gujarat Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Adv. Ms. Aruna Gupta, Adv. State of Goa Ms. A Subhashini, Adv. State of Haryana Mr. Praveen Kumar Rai, Adv. Ms. Kavita Wadia, Adv. State of H.P. Mr. J S Attri, Adv. State of Jharkhand Mr. Ashok K Mathur, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Pathak, Adv. State of J & K Mr. Altaf H Nayak, Adv. Genl. Mr. Anis Suhrawardy, Adv. J & K High Court Mr. T C Sharma, Adv. State of Kerala Mr. Ramesh Babu M R, Adv. State of Karnataka Mr. Sanjay R Hegde, Adv. Mr. Satya R Mitra, Adv. Mr. Anil K Misra, Adv. State of Manipur Mr. KH Nobin Singh, Adv. State of Mizoram Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Adv. Ms. Aruna Gupta, Adv. State of Meghalaya Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv. State of Maharashtra Mr. Mukesh K Giri, Adv. State of M.P. Mr. Satish K Agnihotri, Adv. Mr. Anil Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Rohit K Singh, Adv. State of Nagaland Ms. Sumita Hazarika, Adv. Mr. U Hazarika, Adv. Ms. V D Khanna, Adv.(NP) State of Orissa Mr. R S Jena, Adv. Orissa High Court Mr. Janaranjan Das, Adv. Mr. Swetaketu Mishra, Adv. Ms. Moushumi Gahlot, Adv.

Govt of Pondicherry Mr. V G Pragasam, Adv. State of Punjab Mr. R K Rathore, Addl.Adv.Genl. Mr. R S Suri, Adv. P&H High Court Ms. Shomila Bakshi, Adv. Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Adv. Ms. Inklee Barooha, Adv. State of Rajasthan Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, Addl.Adv. Genl. Mr. Jog Singh, Adv. Mr. Amarjit Singh, Adv. Mr. V N Raghupathy, Adv.(NP) Raj. High Court Mr. A Mariarputham, Adv. Ms. Aruna Mathur, Adv. for Arputham Aruna & Co., Advs. State of Sikkim Mr. A Mariarputham, Adv. Ms. Aruna Mathur, Adv. for M/s. Arputham, Aruna & Co., Advs. State of Tripura Mr. Navin Prakash, Adv. Mr. Anurag Sharma, Adv. Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv. State of U.P. Mr. Ravi P Mehrotra, Adv. Ms. Deepti R Mehrotra, Adv. Mr. Garvesh Kabra, Adv. Allahabad High Court Mr. Ashok K Srivastava, Adv. State of Uttaranchal Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Adv. State of W.B. Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma, Adv. Ms. Neelam Sharma, Adv. Mr. Tarun Sharma, Adv. Mr. Vijay Kumar, Adv. Mr. Vishwajit Singh, Adv. Mrs Rachna Gupta,Adv.(NP) Mr. Javed Mahmud Rao,Adv.(NP) Mr. A D N Rao, Adv. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Adv. (NP) Mr. J P Dhanda, Adv. (NP) Mr. B S Banthia, Adv. (NP) Mr. Raj Kumar Mehta, Adv. Mr. M N Sharma, Adv. (NP) Ms. Revathy Raghavan, Adv. (NP) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Learned Solicitor General prays for and is allowed six weeks' time to file an affidavit as to the continuance of the Fast Track Courts Scheme.

List these matters thereafter before a Bench of which Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia are Members. (D.P. WALIA)(JANKI BHATIA)COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

´7 T.C.(C)No. 22 OF 2001ITEM No.33 Court No. 1 SECTION XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSTransferred Case (Civil) No.22 of 2001 BRIJ MOHAN LAL Petitioner (s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent (s) (Office Report with quarterly reports received from High Courts and State Govt. for directions.) With T.C.(C) No.23 of 2001 T.P.(C) Nos.407-410 of 2001 S.L.P. (C) No.7870 of 2001 S.L.P. (C) No.10645 of 2001 Date : 05/01/2004 These Petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.B. SINHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.H. KAPADIA For Petitioner (s) Mr. K.S. Saini, Adv.Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri,Adv. Mr. PS Narasimha, Adv. for M/s. P.S.N. & Co.,Advs. For Respondent (s) UOI Mr. K.N. Raval, SG Mr. Prateek Jalan, Adv. Mr. P. Parmeswaran,Adv.Ms. Pinky Anand, Adv.Ms. Anil Katiyar, Adv. State of U.P. Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Adv.Ms. Deepti R. Mehrotra, Adv.Mr. Garvesh Kabra, Adv.Mr. R.K. Singh, Adv....2/--2- State of Gujarat/ Ms. Hemantika Wahi,Adv. State of Mizoram Ms. Monica Bapna, Adv.

State of H.P. Mr. J.S. Attri, Adv. State of Madhya Mr. SK Agnihotri, Adv. Pradesh`Mr. Rohit K. Singh, Adv. State of Jharkhand Mr. Ashok Mathur, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Pathak, Adv. State of J&KMr. Altaf H. Nayak, Adv.Genl.Mr. Anis Suhrawardy, Adv. State of Manipur Mr. Khwairakpam Nobin Singh,Adv. State of Meghalaya Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv. State of Rajasthan Mr. Ranji Thomas, Adv. Ms. Bharati Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, Adv. State of A.P. Mr. T.V. Ratnam,Adv. Mr. K Subba Rao, Adv.Mr. O.S.G. Prasuna, Adv. State of Punjab Mr. R.K. Rathore, Addl.Adv.GeneralMr. RS Suri, Adv. State of Nagaland Mrs. V.D. Khanna, Adv.Mr. U. Hazarika, Adv. Ms. Sumita Hazarika, Adv. State of Karnataka Mr. Sanjay R Hegde, Adv. State of Sikkim Mr. A Mariarputham, Adv. & Rajasthan HighMs. Aruna Mathur, Adv. CourtM/s. Arputham, Aruna and Co., Advs. State of Arunachal Mr. Anil Shrivastava, Adv. Pradesh State of West Bengal Mr. TC Sharma, Adv. Ms. Neelam Sharma, Adv. State of Assam Ms. Krishna Sarma, Adv.Mr. Sanjay Choudhury, Adv. Ms. Asha G. Nair, Adv.Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Adv. M/s. Corporate Law Group, Advs....3/--3- State of TripuraMr. Anurag Sharma, Adv. Mr. Navin Prakash, Adv.Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv. U.T., Pondicherry Mr. VG Pragasam, Adv. NCT, DelhiMs. Pinky Anand, Adv.Mr. T.A. Khan, Adv.Ms. Anil Katiyar, Adv. U.T.Andaman&Nicobar, Mr. R.K. Rathore, Adv. Dadra&Nagar Haveli, Mr. D.S. Mehra, Adv. Lakshadweep

State of Kerala Mr. Ramesh Babu M.R., Adv.Ms. Anupama, Adv. State of Haryana Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, Adv. State of BiharMr. B.B. Singh, Adv.Ms. Sunita R. Singh, Adv. State of GoaMs. A Subhashini, Adv. State of Tamil NaduMr. S. Prasad, Adv.Mr. Abhay Kumar, Adv.Mr. R. Gopal Krishan, Adv.Ms. Prachi Vajpai, Adv. State of Maharashtra Mr. Mukesh K. Giri, Adv. State of UttaranchalMs. Rachna Srivastava, Adv. State of OrissaMr. Raj Kumar Mehta, Adv.Mr. R.S. Jena, Adv. For High Court ofMr. Ashok K. Srivastava, Adv. AllahabadMr. B.S. Banthia, Adv. For High Court of Ms. Kamini Jaiswal,Adv. Haryana Ms. Rachna Gupta,Adv. Ms. Rachana Srivastava,Adv. in TP 407-10 Mr. K Ram Kumar, Adv. No. 1 in SLP 7870 Mr. Prashant Bhushan,Adv....4/--4- in IA..in TC 22Mr. A.D.N. Rao, Adv. in IA 4 (RajasthanMr. A.D.N. Rao, Adv. Judicial Officers Association) in IA 4-5Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, Adv. in IA 8Mr. A. Mariarputham, Adv.Mr. J.P. Dhanda, Adv.Mr. M.N. Sharma, Adv.Ms. Revathy Raghavan, Adv. For High Court ofMr. Amit Pawan, Adv. PatnaMr. Amit Kumar, Adv. For High Court ofMr. T.C. Sharma, Adv. Jammu & KashmirMr. Vijay Kumar, Adv.Mr. Vishwajit Singh, Adv.Mr. Janaranjan Das, Adv.

Mr. S. Mishra, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E RStates of Bihar, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Punab and West Bengal:We direct that the exercise for appointment shall be completed within two months and the persons shall be appointed to the Fast Track Courts by 31st...5/--5-of March, 2004. In case the premises for the Court rooms are not available, they shall either be constructed or taken on lease wherefor the requisite charges by way of rent etc. shall be borne by the State concerned.Mr. B.B. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the State of Bihar, stated that another batch of 30 names have been sent by the High Court for appointment in the Fast Track Courts and they would be appointed by 31st January, 2004.State of Goa:So far as the State of Goa is concerned, learned counsel appearing for the State stated that the recommendation for appointment of Judges have already been received and notification to that effect will be issued by 31st of January, 2004 and the Fast Track Courts will become operative by 1st of February, 2004.State of Jammu and Kashmir:Learned Advocate General appearing for the State stated that the High Court has now, in terms of the Scheme, recommended the names of six persons from the Higher Judicial Services and they would be appointed shortly. We direct that remaining posts be filled up within a period of another three months....6/--6-State of Haryana:It has been stated at the Bar that the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has recommended the names of 20 persons for appointment to the Fast Track Courts from the Higher Judicial Services, but the State of Haryana has not sanctioned the remaining posts in the Higher Judicial Services. Learned counsel appearing for the High Court undertakes that the High Court shall make afresh recommendation for 36 posts. Let that be done within a period of one month. After the receipt of recommendation, the State shall accord sanction for the creation of remaining posts in the Higher Judicial Services and appointment shall be made accordingly.List these matters after three months.[ Alka Dudeja ] [ Janki Bhatia ] Court Master Court Master

\2227 T.C.(C)No. 22 OF 2001ITEM No.23 Court No.1 SECTION XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Transferred Case(Civil) No.22/2001 (for prel. hearing) BRIJ MOHAN LAL Petitioner (s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent (s)( Office Report with Quarterly Reports received from High Courts and State Government for Directions ) WithT.C.(C)No.23/2001, S.L.P.(C) No. 7870/2001, S.L.P.(C) No. 10645/2001, T.P.(C) No.407-410/2001. Date : 03/11/2003 These Petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.B. SINHA HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE AR. LAKSHMANAN For Petitioner (s) Mr. K S Saini, Adv. Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri,Adv. Mr. P S Narasimha, Adv. (AC) Mr. P Sridhar, Adv. Mr. Ananga Bhattacharya, Adv. Mr. G Seshagiri Rao, Adv. for M/s. P S N & Co., Advs. For Respondent (s) Union of India Mr. Kirit N Raval, SG Mr. Prateek Jalan, Adv. Mr. P Parmeswaran, Adv. Ms. Pinky Anand, Adv. Ms. Anil Katiyar, Adv. State of Assam Ms. Krishna Sarma, Adv. Ms. Asha G Nair, Adv. For Corporate Law Group, Advs. State of Arunachal Mr. Anil Shrivastav, Adv. Pradesh State of Andhra Mr. T V Ratnam, Adv. Pradesh Mr. K Subba Rao, Adv. AP High Court Mr. K Ram Kumar, Adv. (NP) State of Bihar Mr. Kumar Rajesh Singh, Adv. Mr. B B Singh, Adv. Patna High Court Mr.Amit Pawan, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv.

UT Chandigarh Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Adv. NCT of Delhi Ms. Pinky Anand, Adv. Mr. T A Khan, Adv. Ms. Anil Katiyar, Adv. UTs of Mr. R K Rathore, Adv. Of Andaman & Nicobar, Mr. D S Mahra, Adv. Lakshadweep, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Daman & Diu State of Chhatisgarh Mr. Prakash Shrivastava, Adv. State of Gujarat Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Adv. Ms. Monika Bapna, Adv. State of Goa Ms. A Subhashini, Adv. State of Haryana Mr. Praveen Kumar Rai, Adv. Ms. Kavita Wadia, Adv. State of H.P. Mr. J S Attri, Adv. State of Jharkhand Mr. Ashok K Mathur, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Pathak, Adv. State of J & K Mr. Anis Suhrawardy, Adv. State of Kerala Mr. Ramesh Babu M R, Adv. State of Karnataka Mr. Sanjay R Hegde, Adv. Mr. Satya R Mitra, Adv. Mr. Anil K Misra, Adv. State of Manipur Mr. H Nabakumar, Adv. Genl. Mr. KH Nobin Singh, Adv. State of Mizoram Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Adv. Ms. Monika Bapna, Adv. Adv. State of Meghalaya Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv. State of Maharashtra Mr. Mukesh K Giri, Adv. State of M.P. Mr. Sakesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Satish K Agnihotri, Adv. Mr. Anil Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Rohit K Singh, Adv. State of Nagaland Ms. Sumita Hazarika, Adv. Mr. U Hazarika, Adv. Ms. V D Khanna, Adv.(NP) State of Orissa Mr. R S Jena, Adv. Orissa High Court Mr. Janaranjan Das, Adv. Mr. Swetaketu Mishra, Adv. Govt of Pondicherry Mr. V G Pragasam, Adv. State of Punjab Mr. R K Rathore, Addl.Adv.Genl. Mr. R S Suri, Adv. State of Rajasthan Mr. Ranji Thomas, Adv. Ms. Bharati Upadhyaya, Adv. Mr. D K Thakur, Adv. Mr. V N Raghupathy, Adv.

Raj. High Court Mr. A Mariarputham, Adv. Ms. Aruna Mathur, Adv. For Arputham Aruna & Co., Advs. State of Sikkim Mr. N B Kathiwada, Adv. Genl. Mr. A Mariarputham, Adv. Ms. Aruna Mathur, Adv. For M/s. Arputham, Aruna & Co., Advs. State of Tripura Mr. Navin Prakash, Adv. Mr. Anurag Sharma, Adv. Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv. State of U.P. Mr. Ravi P Mehrotra, Adv. Mr. Arohi Bhalla, Adv. Ms. Deepti R Mehrotra, Adv. Mr. Garvesh Kabra, Adv. Allahabad High Court Mr. Ashok K Srivastava, Adv. State of Uttaranchal Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Rohit Singh, Adv. State of W.B. Mr. Bhaskar P Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma, Adv. Ms. Neelam Sharma, Adv. Mrs Rachna Gupta,Adv.(NP) Mr. Javed Mahmud Rao,Adv.(NP) Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Adv.(NP) Mr. B S Banthia, Adv. Mr. A D N Rao, Adv. (NP) Mr. J P Dhanda, Adv. (NP) Mr. Raj Kumar Mehta, Adv. (NP)Mr. M N Sharma, Adv. (NP)Ms. Revathy Raghavan, Adv. (NP)Mr. Manish Mohan, Adv.Ms. Anita Mohan, Adv.Mr. Praveen Swarup, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Mr. P S Narasimha, learned Amicus Curiae has furnished Status Report as regards establishment of Fast Track Courts and appointments therein in all the States of the country.The Status Report indicates that the States of Maharashtra, Chhatisgarh, Mizoram, Meghalaya, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Tripura, Uttar Pradesh, Uttaranchal and Assam have fully complied with the directions and all the appointments have been made. The States of Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Nagaland, Jharkhand and Kerala have substantially complied with the orders.We find that the States of Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Punjab and West Bengal have not complied with the orders. In fact, this shows inaction on the part of these States. Even after the fund has been made available, neither the Fast Track Courts have been created nor the appointments thereof have been made. However, seeing the public interest, we permit these States to strictly comply with the direction regarding making appointments on the remaining Fast Track Courts by 31st December, 2003. In case of default, we may consider asking these States to refund the fund received by them from the Central Government.

So far as the State of Jammu & Kashmir is concerned, the State and the High Court are granted four weeks' time to file the affidavit as to how much grant received for the Fast Track Courts has been used for creating the posts of Munisifs and making appointments thereon.We may also like to observe that those High Courts which have not made recommendations, they may make recommendations for appointments to the Fast Track Court posts before the said date.Learned Solicitor General would also take instructions as regards continuance of the Fast Track Courts Scheme.List these matters after 31st December, 2003. (D.P. WALIA)(JANKI BHATIA)COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

\210F T.C.(C)No. 22 OF 2001ITEM No.26 Court No. 1 SECTION XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSTransferred Case (Civil) No.22 of 2001 ( For Prel. Hearing ) BRIJ MOHAN LAL Petitioner (s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent (s) (Office Report with quarterly reports received from High Courts and State Govt. for directions.) With T.C.(C) No.23 of 2001 T.P.(C) Nos.407-410 of 2001 S.L.P. (C) No.7870 of 2001 S.L.P. (C) No.10645 of 2001 Date : 15/09/2003 These Petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.B. SINHA For Petitioner (s) Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri,Adv. Mr. PS Narasimha, Adv. Mr. Ananga Bhattacharya, Adv. Mr. P Sridhar, Adv. for M/s. P.S.N. & Co.,Advs. For Respondent (s) UOI Mr. K.N. Raval, SG Mr. Prateek Jalan, Adv. Mr. P. Parmeswaran,Adv.Ms. Sunita Sharma, Adv.Mr. D.S. Mahra, Adv. State of U.P. Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Adv.Ms. Deepti R. Mehrotra, Adv....2/--2- State of Gujarat/ Ms. Hemantika Wahi,Adv. State of Mizoram

State of H.P. Mr. J.S. Attri, Adv. State of Madhya Mr. SK Agnihotri, Adv. Pradesh`Mr. Anil Kumar Pandey, Adv.Mr. Rohit K. Singh, Adv. State of Jharkhand Mr. Ashok Mathur, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Pathak, Adv. State of J&KMr. Anis Suhrawardy, Adv. State of Manipur Mr. Khwairakpam Nobin Singh,Adv. State of Meghalaya Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv. State of Rajasthan Mr. Ranji Thomas, Adv. Ms. Bharati Upadhyay, Adv.Mr. A.K. Shukla, Adv. Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, Adv. State of A.P. Mr. T.V. Ratnam,Adv. Mr. K Subba Rao, Adv. State of Punjab Mr. R.K. Rathore, Addl.Adv.GeneralMr. RS Suri, Adv. State of Nagaland Mr. U. Hazarika, Adv. Ms. Sumita Hazarika, Adv. State of Karnataka Mr. Sanjay R Hegde, Adv. State of Sikkim Mr. A Mariarputham, Adv. & Rajasthan HighMs. Aruna Mathur, Adv. CourtMr. Anurag D Mathur, Adv. State of Arunachal Mr. Anil Shrivastava, Adv. Pradesh State of West Bengal Mr. TC Sharma, Adv. Ms. Neelam Sharma, Adv. State of Assam Ms. Krishna Sarma, Adv. Ms. Asha G. Nair, Adv. Mr. V.K. Sidatharan, Adv. M/s. Corporate Law Group, Advs. State of Tripura Mr. Navin Prakash, Adv.Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv. U.T., Pondicherry Mr. VG Pragasam, Adv. NCT, Delhi, U.T. Mr. Ashok Bhan, Adv. Andaman&Nicobar, Mr. T.A. Khan, Adv. Dadra&Nagar Haveli, Mr. D.S.Mahra, Adv. Lakshadweep Mr. Satbir Pillania, Adv.Ms. Anil Katiyar, Adv....3/--3- State of Kerala Mr. K.R. Sasiprabhu, Adv. State of Haryana Mr. Praveen Kumar Rai, Adv. State of BiharMr. B.B. Singh, Adv.Mr. Kumar Rajesh Singh, Adv. State of GoaMs. A Subhashini, Adv.

State of Tamil NaduMr. P.N. Ramalingam,Adv.Mr. V. Balaji, Adv. State of Maharashtra Mr. Mukesh K. Giri, Adv. State of UttaranchalMs. Sangeeta Sharma, Adv.Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Adv. State of OrissaMr. R.S. Jena, Adv. For High Court ofMr. Ashok K. Srivastava, Adv. AllahabadMr. B.S. Banthia, Adv.Ms. Pragati Nikhra, Adv. No. 2 in TC 22 Ms. Kamini Jaiswal,Adv. for impleading party Ms. Rachna Gupta,Adv. in TC 22 in TC 22 Ms. Rachana Srivastava,Adv. in TP 407-10 Mr. K Ram Kumar, Adv. No. 1 in SLP 7870 Mr. Prashant Bhushan,Adv. Mr. Vijay Kumar, Adv.Mr. Vishwajit Singh, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E RState of Andhra Pradesh:Learned counsel appearing for the State of Andhra Pradesh states that interview regarding selection and appointment of the Members of the Higher Judicial Services has already taken place on 15th June, 2003 and the appointments shall be made within a month.-4-The State Government and the High Court are directed to strictly comply with the order of this Court.State of Jammu and Kashmir:For the State of Jammu and Kashmir, 12 postes in the cadre of Higher Judicial Services were sanctioned. It is reported that, instead of creating posts in the Higher Judicial Services, the State Government and the High Court have created posts in the cadre of Munsiff. According to learned Amicus Curiae and the learned Solicitor General, this is a complete deviation from the Scheme. In that view of the matter, we direct the State Government and the High Court to explain within a period of four weeks as to why they have deviated from the Scheme, for which money was allocated to them.The State Government and the High Court are directed to take appropriate steps for filling up the said vacancy strictly in terms of the Scheme.It is also unfortunate that despite the direction of this Court in terms of its order dated 14th July, 2003, most of the High Courts have failed to report about the disposal of the sessions and other cases by the Presiding Officers of the Fast Track Courts. The directions contained in the said order dated 14th July, 2003 must be complied with.It is rather unfortunate that despite directions were issued to the States of Andhra Pradesh,-5-Bihar, Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa, Punjab and West Bengal for creating posts in the cadre of Higher Judicial Services under the Fast Track Scheme from time to time, the States have not complied with the order. The money for creation of such posts has already been sanctioned and given to the aforesaid States. On 14th July, 2003, this Court again granted four weeks' time to file

an affidavit indicating therein the manner in which the appointments were being made in Fast Track Courts and also within what period the remaining posts of Fast Track Courts would be filled up. The respective High Courts shall also obtain a report from the Presiding Officer(s) from each Fast Track Courts about the disposal of the cases and submit the same to this Court through the counsel for the respective States.Today, when the matter was taken up, we find that the aforesaid order has still not been complied with by the afore-mentioned States. In some cases, it has been said that the delay has been caused because of non-providing of the infra-structure that has not been granted by the State Governments. In some cases, in-action on the part of the High Courts has been pointed out in not recommending the Officers for appointment on those posts. It is rather a very sad state of affairs where the State Governments have put all the blame on the High Courts and the High Courts in turn have put the blame on the respective State-6-Governments. In fact both the State Governments and the High Courts are jointly and severally responsible for creation and appointment of officers for the posts. We also note with dismay about 70 Courts in Karnataka, 10 Courts in Kerala, 42 Courts in Madhya Pradesh, 84 Courts in Maharashtra, 42 Courts in Orissa, 14 Courts in Pubjab and 132 Courts in West Bengal are not functioning. However, seeing the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct all the State Governments and the High Courts to file an affidavit within a period of six weeks' from today, indicating therein the infra-structure available for the posts under the Fast Track Scheme; on how many posts the High Courts have made appointment; list showing the volume of work done by each Fast Track Court; how much more time the State Government would take to provide infra-structure for creation of posts for the purpose of establishing the Courts; and the High Court would indicate the period of time within which the appointments for filling up the vacancies would be made.I.A. No. 8 (State of Rajasthan):It is stated herein that the grant meant for the Fast Track Courts has already been availed of. The State Government has already written to the Central Government for sanctioning further grant, to which the Central Government has reported that the Fast Track Scheme is a one time Scheme and, therefore, no further-7-sanction could be made. Learned Solicitor General is present in Court. He prays for and is allowed four weeks' time to obtain instructions.List all the matters after six weeks.[ Alka Dudeja ] [ Suraj Prakash ] Court Master Court Master

4$ T.C.(C)No. 22 OF 2001ITEM No.37 Court No. 1 SECTION XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSTransferred Case (Civil) No.22 of 2001 ( For Prel. Hearing ) BRIJ MOHAN LAL Petitioner (s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent (s) (With appln . for directions) (Office Report with quarterly reports received from High Courts and State Govt. for directions.) With T.C.(C) No.23 of 2001 T.P.(C) Nos.407-410 of 2001 S.L.P. (C) No.7870 of 2001 S.L.P. (C) No.10645 of 2001 Date : 14/07/2003 These Petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.B. SINHA For Petitioner (s) Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri,Adv. Mr. PS Narasimha, Adv. Mr. Ananga Bhattacharya, Adv. Mr. P Sridhar, Adv. for M/s. P.S.N. & Co.,Advs. For Respondent (s) UOI Mr. Raju Ramachandran, ASG Mr. Prateek Jalan, Adv. Mr. P. Parmeswaran,Adv. State of U.P. Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Adv.Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Adv....2/-

-2- State of Gujarat/ Ms. Hemantika Wahi,Adv. State of Mizoram Ms. Sadhna Sandhu, Adv. State of H.P. Mr. J.S. Attri, Adv. State of Madhya Mr. SK Agnihotri, Adv. Pradesh State of Jharkhand Mr. Ashok Mathur, Adv. State of J&KMr. Altaf H. Naik, Adv. Genl.Mr. Anis Suhrawardy, Adv. State of Manipur Mr. Khwairakpam Nobin Singh,Adv. State of Meghalaya Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv. State of Rajasthan Mr. Ranji Thomas, Adv. Ms. Bharati Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, Adv. State of A.P. Mr. T.V. Ratnam,Adv. Mr. K Subba Rao, Adv. State of Punjab Mr. R.K. Rathore, Addl.Adv.GeneralMr. Manish Khandelwal, Adv.Mr. RS Suri, Adv. State of Nagaland Mr. Sanjay K Shandilya, Adv. Ms. VD Khanna, adv. State of Karnataka Mr. Sanjay R Hegde, Adv. Mr. Satya Mitra, Adv. State of Sikkim Mr. A Mariarputham, Adv. & Rajasthan HighMs. Aruna Mathur, Adv. CourtMr. Anurag D Mathur, Adv. State of Arunachal Mr. Anil Shrivastava, Adv. Pradesh State of West Bengal Mr. TC Sharma, Adv. Ms. Neelam Sharma, Adv.Mr. Ajay Sharma, Adv. State of Assam Ms. Krishna Sarma, Adv. Ms. Asha G. Nair, Adv. Mr. V.K. Sidatharan, Adv. M/s. Corporate Law Group, Advs....3/--3-

State of Tripura Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv.Ms. Vani Singh, Adv. U.T., Pondicherry Mr. VG Pragasam, Adv. NCT, Delhi, U.T. Mr. R.K. Rathore, Adv. Andaman&Nicobar, Mr. Manish Khandelwal, Adv. Dadra&Nagar Haveli, Mr. D.S.Mahra, Adv. Lakshadweep Mr. Satbir Pillania, Adv. State of Kerala Mr. K.R. Sasiprabhu, Adv. State of Haryana Mr. Praveen Kumar Rai, Adv. State of BiharMs. Sunita R. Singh, Adv.Mr. B.B. Singh, Adv. State of GoaMs. A Subhashini, Adv. State of Tamil NaduMr. P.N. Ramalingam,Adv.Mr. V. Balaji, Adv. State of Maharashtra Mr. S.S. Shinde, Adv.Mr. Mukesh K. Giri, Adv. No. 2 in TC 22 Ms. Kamini Jaiswal,Adv. for impleading party Ms. Rachna Gupta,Adv. in TC 22 in TC 22 Ms. Rachana Srivastava,Adv. in TP 407-10 Mr. K Ram Kumar, Adv. No. 1 in SLP 7870 Mr. Prashant Bhushan,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E RLearned counsel appearing for the respective States prays for and are allowed four weeks' time to...4/--4-file an affidavit indicating therein the manner in which the appointments were being made on Fast Track Courts and also within what period the remaining posts of Fast Track Courts would be filled up. The respective High Courts shall also take a report from the Presiding Officer from each Fast Track Courts about the disposal of the cases and submit the same to this Court through the counsel for the respective States.List these cases after two months.(Alka Dudeja) (Suraj Parkash) Court Master Court Master

æ T.C.(C)No. 22 OF 2001ITEM No.32 Court No.1 SECTION XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Transferred Case(Civil) No.22/2001 BRIJ MOHAN LAL Petitioner (s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent (s)(Office Report with Quarterly Reports received from High Courts and State Government for Directions and with appln.(s) for directions) WithSLP(C)No.10645/2001,T.C.(C)No.23/2001,T.P.(C) No.407-410/2001,SLP(C)No.7870/2001 Date : 21/04/2003 These Petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.B. SINHA For Petitioner (s) Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri,Adv. For Respondent (s) Union of India Mr. Kirit N Raval, SG Mr. Prateek Jalan, Adv. Mr. P Parmeswaran, Adv. State of Assam Ms. Krishna Sarma, Adv. Ms. Asha G Nair, Adv. For Corporate Law Group, Advs. State of Arunachal Mr. Anil Shrivastav, Adv. Pradesh State of Andhra Mr. T V Ratnam, Adv. Pradesh Mr. K Subba Rao, Adv. State of Bihar Mr. B B Singh, Adv. UT Chandigarh Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Adv. NCT of Delhi, UTs Mr. Ashok Bhan, Adv. Of Andaman & Nicobar Mr. T A Khan, Adv. Lakshadweep, Dadra Mr. D S Mahra, Adv. & Nagar Haveli Mr. Satvir Pillania, Adv. Mr. R K Rathore, Adv. State of Gujarat Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Adv. Ms. Sumita Hazarika, Adv. State of Haryana Mr. Praveen Kumar Rai, Adv.

State of H.P. Mr. J S Attri, Adv. State of Jharkhand Mr. Ashok K Mathur, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Pathak, Adv. State of Kerala Mr. Ramesh Babu M R, Adv. State of Karnataka Mr. Sanjay R Hegde, Adv. Mr. Satya R Mitra, Adv. Mr. Anil K Misra, Adv. State of Manipur Mr. KH Nobin Singh, Adv. State of Mizoram Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Adv. Ms. Sumita Hazarika, Adv. State of Meghalaya Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv. State of Maharashtra Mr. S S Shinde, Adv. Mr. Mukesh K Giri, Adv. State of Nagaland Ms. V D Khanna, Adv. Mr. S K Shandilya, Adv. Govt of Pondicherry Mr. V G Pragasam, Adv. State of Punjab Mr. R K Rathore, Addl.Adv.Genl. Mr. R S Suri, Adv. State of Rajasthan Mr. Ranji Thomas, Adv. Ms. Bharati Upadhyaya, Adv. Mr. D K Thakur, Adv. Mr. V N Raghupathy, Adv. High Court of Rajasthan Mr. A Mariarputham, Adv. Ms. Aruna Mathur, Adv. For Arputham Aruna & Co., Advs. State of Sikkim Mr. A Mariarputham, Adv. Ms. Aruna Mathur, Adv. For M/s. Arputham, Aruna & Co., Advs. State of Tripura Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv. State of U.P. Mr. Ravi P Mehrotra, Adv. Ms. Deepti R Mehrotra, Adv. Mr. Garvesh Kabra, Adv. State of Uttaranchal Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Rohit Singh, Adv. State of W.B. Mr. Bhaskar P Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma, Adv. Ms. Neelam Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Sharma,Adv. Mrs Rachna Gupta,Adv. Mr. Javed Mahmud Rao,Adv. Mr. S K Agnihotri, Adv. Mr. A D N Rao, Adv. Mr. P S Narasimha, Adv. Mr. Ananga Bhattacharya, Adv. Mr. Sridhar P, Adv. for M/s. P S N & Co., Advs.

Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Adv. Mr. K Ram Kumar, Adv. Mr. Anis Suhrawardy, Adv. Mr. J P Dhanda, Adv. Mr. B S Banthia, Adv. Mr. Raj Kumar Mehta, Adv. Ms. Revathy Raghavan, Adv. Ms. A Subhashini, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List after two weeks. (D.P. WALIA)(S. KRISHNAN)COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

¼! T.C.(C)No. 22 OF 2001ITEM No.23 Court No.13 SECTION XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Transferred Case(Civil) No.22/2001 BRIJ MOHAN LAL Petitioner (s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent (s)(Office Report with Quarterly Reports received from High Courts and State Government for Directions) WithSLP(C)No.10645/2001,T.C.(C)No.23/2001,T.P.(C) No.407-410/2001,SLP(C)No.7870/2001 Date : 03/03/2003 These Petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BRIJESH KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.B. SINHA For Petitioner (s) Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri,Adv. For Respondent (s) Union of India Mr. Prateek Jalan, Adv. Mr. P Parmeswaran, Adv. State of Assam Ms. Krishna Sarma, Adv. Ms. Asha G Nair, Adv. Mr. V K Sidatharan, Adv. For Corporate Law Group, Advs. State of Arunachal Mr. Anil Shrivastav, Adv. Pradesh Mr. Jyoti Dutt, Adv. State of Andhra Mr. T V Ratnam, Adv. Pradesh Mr. K Subba Rao, Adv. State of Bihar Ms. Sunita R Singh, Adv. UT Chandigarh Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Adv. NCT of Delhi, UTs Mr. Ashok Bhan, Adv. Of Andaman & Nicobar Mr. T A Khan, Adv. Lakshadweep, Dadra Mr. D S Mahra, Adv. & Nagar Haveli Mr. Satvir Pillania, Adv. Mr. R K Rathore, Adv. State of Gujarat Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Adv. Ms. Sumita Hazarika, Adv. State of Haryana Mr. Praveen Kumar Rai, Adv. State of Kerala Mr. Ramesh Babu M R, Adv.

State of Karnataka Mr. Sanjay R Hegde, Adv. Mr. Satya R Mitra, Adv. Mr. Anil Misra, Adv. State of Manipur Mr. KH Nobin Singh, Adv. State of Mizoram Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Adv. Ms. Sumita Hazarika, Adv. State of Meghalaya Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv. State of Nagaland Ms. V D Khanna, Adv. Mr. S K Shandilya, Adv. Govt of Pondicherry Mr. V G Pragasam, Adv. State of Punjab Mr. R K Rathore, Addl.Adv.Genl. Mr. R S Suri, Adv. State of Rajasthan Mr. Ranji Thomas, Adv. Ms. Bharati Upadhyaya, Adv. Mr. D K Thakur, Adv. Mr. V N Raghupathy, Adv. High Court of Rajasthan Mr. A Mariarputham, Adv. Ms. Aruna Mathur, Adv. For Arputham Aruna & Co., Advs. State of Sikkim Mr. A Mariarputham, Adv. Ms. Aruna Mathur, Adv. Mr. Anurag D Mathur, Adv. For M/s. Arputham, Aruna & Co., Advs. State of Tripura Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv. State of U.P. Mr. Ravi P Mehrotra, Adv. Ms. Deepti R Mehrotra, Adv. Mr. Garvesh Kabra, Adv. State of W.B. Mr. Bhaskar P Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma, Adv. Ms. Neelam Sharma, Adv. Mrs Rachna Gupta,Adv. Ms. Rachana Srivastava,Adv. Mr. Javed Mahmud Rao,Adv. Mr. P S Narasimha, Adv. for M/s. P S N & Co., Advs. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Adv. Mr. K Ram Kumar, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R In I.A. No. 6 (filed by U.T. of Chandigarh) and I.A. No. 8 (filed by Rajasthan High Court), issue notice. Response thereto may be filed within six weeks. Status reports by the States of Meghalaya and Andhra Pradesh have not yet been filed. As prayed, three weeks' time is allowed for the purpose.

Mr. P S Narasimha, learned counsel appearing for the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh is requested to examine the reports which have been submitted on behalf of the different States and prepare a chart indicating the questions which may generally arise for consideration. Any other suggestion, if necessary, may also be indicated in the chart.List this matter after six weeks. (D.P. WALIA)(VIJAY AGGARWAL)COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

V& T.C.(C)No. 22 OF 2001ITEM No.34 Court No. 1 SECTION XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Transferred Case (Civil) No.22 of 2001@@ CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC ( For Prel. Hearing ) BRIJ MOHAN LAL Petitioner (s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent (s) (Office Report with quarterly reports received from High Courts and State Govt. for directions.) With T.C.(C) No.23 of 2001 T.P.(C) Nos.407-410 of 2001 S.L.P. (C) No.7870 of 2001 S.L.P. (C) No.10645 of 2001 Date : 27/01/2003 These Petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.B. SINHA HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE AR LAKSHMANAN For Petitioner (s) Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri,Adv. For Respondent (s) UOI Mr. KN Rawal, SG Mr. Prateek Jalan, Adv. Mr. P. Parmeswaran,Adv. State of U.P. Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Adv. Ms. Sangeeta Sharma, Adv. Mr. Garvesh Kabra, Adv. State of Gujarat/ Ms. Hemantika Wahi,Adv. State of Mizoram Ms. Sumita Hazarika, Adv. State of H.P. Mr. Naresh Kumar, Adv. Mr. V.N. Raghupathy,Adv. ...2/-

-2- State of Madhya Mr. SK Agnihotri, Adv. Pradesh Mr. Anil Pandey, Adv. Ms. Anuradha Mutatkar, Adv. State of Jharkhand Mr. Ashok Mathur, Adv. Mr. Arup Banerjee, Adv. State of Manipur Mr. Khwairakpam Nobin Singh,Adv. State of Meghalaya Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv. State of Rajasthan Mr. Ranji Thomas, Adv. Ms. Bharati Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. DK Thakur, Adv. Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, Adv. State of A.P. Mr. T.V. Ratnam,Adv. Mr. K Subba Rao, Adv. State of Punjab Mr. RS Suri, Adv. State of Nagaland Mr. Sanjay K Shandilya, Adv. Ms. VD Khanna, adv. State of Karnataka Mr. Sanjay R Hegde, Adv. Mr. Satya Mitra, Adv. State of Sikkim Mr. A Mariarputham, Adv. Ms. Aruna Mathur, Adv. Mr. Anurag D Mathur, Adv. State of Arunachal Mr. Anil Shrivastava, Adv. Pradesh Ms. Jyoti Dutt, Adv. State of West Bengal Mr. TC Sharma, Adv. Ms. Neelam Sharma, Adv. State of Assam Ms. Krishna Sarma, Adv. Ms. Asha G. Nair, Adv. Mr. V.K. Sidatharan, Adv. M/s. Corporate Law Group, Advs. State of Tripura Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv. U.T., Pondicherry Mr. VG Pragasam, Adv. NCT, Delhi, U.T. Mr. Ashok Bhan, Adv. Andaman&Nicobar, Mr. T.A.Khan, Adv. Dadra&Nagar Haveli, Mr. D.S.Mahra, Adv. Lakshadweep Mr. Satbir Pillania, Adv. State of Kerala Mr. K.R. Sasiprabhu, Adv. Mr. John Mathew, Adv. Ms. K. Sangeeta, Adv. Mr. Sushil Tekriwal, Adv. ...3/- -3-

State of Haryana Mr. Praveen Kumar Rai, Adv. No. 1 in SLP 7870 Mr. PS Narasimha, Adv. Mr. Ananga Bhattacharya, Adv. Mr. P Sridhar, Adv. for M/s. P.S.N. & Co.,Advs. No. 2 in TC 22 Ms. Kamini Jaiswal,Adv. Ms. Shomila Bakshi, Adv. for impleading party Ms. Rachna Gupta,Adv. in TC 22 in TC 22 Ms. Rachana Srivastava,Adv. in TP 407-10 Mr. K Ram Kumar, Adv. No. 1 in SLP 7870 Mr. Prashant Bhushan,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R.....L.....I....T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T....J At the request of learned Solicitor General, let the matters be adjourned for four weeks. In the meantime, learned counsel appearing for various defaulting States shall inform the Court as to when they would be able to set up all the posts for which the funds have already been received by them. List these matters after four weeks..SP1 (Alka Dudeja) (S. Krishnan) Court Master Court Master

¸* T.C.(C)No. 22 OF 2001ITEM No.36 Court No. 2 SECTION XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Transferred Case (Civil) No.22 of 2001@@ CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC ( For Prel. Hearing ) BRIJ MOHAN LAL Petitioner (s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent (s) (Office Report with quarterly reports received from High Courts and State Govt. for directions.) With T.C.(C) No.23 of 2001 T.P.(C) Nos.407-410 of 2001 S.L.P. (C) No.7870 of 2001 S.L.P. (C) No.10645 of 2001 Date : 09/12/2002 These Petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.N. KHARE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN For Petitioner (s) Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri,Adv. For Respondent (s) UOI Mr. KN Rawal, SG Mr. Prateek Jalan, Adv. Mr. P. Parmeswaran,Adv. State of U.P. Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Adv. Ms. Deepti R Mehrotra, Adv. Mr. Garvesh Kabra, Adv. State of Gujarat/ Ms. Hemantika Wahi,Adv. State of Mizoram Ms. Aruna Gupta, Adv. Mr. Naresh Kumar, Adv. Mr. V.N. Raghupathy,Adv. ...2/-

-2- State of Madhya Mr. SK Agnihotri, Adv. Pradesh State of Jharkhand Mr. Ashok Mathur, Adv. State of Manipur Mr. Khwairakpam Nobin Singh,Adv. State of Meghalaya Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv. State of Rajasthan Mr. Ranji Thomas, Adv. Ms. Bharati Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. DK Thakur, Adv. Mr. Javed Mahmud Rao,Adv. State of A.P. Mr. T.V. Ratnam,Adv. Mr. K Subba Rao, Adv. State of Punjab Mr. RS Suri, Adv. State of Nagaland Mr. Sanjay K Shandilya, Adv. Ms. VD Khanna, adv. State of Karnataka Mr. Sanjay R Hegde, Adv. Mr. Satya Mitra, Adv. Statee of Sikkim Mr. A Mariarputham, Adv. Ms. Aruna Mathur, Adv. Mr. Anurag D Mathur, Adv. State of Arunachal Mr. Anil Shrivastava, Adv. Pradesh State of West Bengal Mr. Baloi C Rai, Sr. Adv. Mr. TC Sharma, Adv. State of Assam M/s. Corporate Law Group, Advs.(Not Present) State of Tripura Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv. Mr. Rahul Singh, Adv. U.T., Pondicherry Mr. VG Pragasam, Adv. (Not Present) NCT, Delhi, U.T. Mr. TA Khan, Adv. Andaman&Nicobar, Mr. DS Mahra, Adv. Dadra&Nagar Haveli, Lakshadweep No. 1 in SLP 7870 Mr. PS Narasimha, Adv. Mr. Ananga Bhattacharya, Adv. Mr. P Sridhar, Adv. for M/s. P.S.N. & Co.,Advs. ...3/- -3-

No. 2 in TC 22 Ms. Kamini Jaiswal,Adv. for impleading party Ms. Rachna Gupta,Adv. in TC 22 in TC 22 Ms. Rachana Srivastava,Adv. in TP 407-10 Mr. K Ram Kumar, Adv. No. 1 in SLP 7870 Mr. Prashant Bhushan,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R.....L.....I....T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T....J.SP2 The office has reported that States of Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Haryana, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Nagaland, Orissa, West Bengal and Union Territories of Andaman & Nicobar, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Lakshadweep and Pondicherry have neither filed their response, despite service of notice, nor the status report indicating therein the time which they would require for setting up the remaining Fast Track Courts. When the matter was taken up today, none appeared on behalf of States of Assam, Bihar, Haryana, Orissa and Union Territory of Pondicherry. It is really a very sorry state of affairs. Under these circumstances, we have no option, but to direct the office to send fresh notices to the Chief Secretaries of the aforesaid States to file their response and status report within six weeks from the date of receipt of the notices. ...4/- -4- Learned counsel appearing for the States of Andhra Pradesh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal and Union Territories of Andaman & Nicobar, Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Lakshadweep pray for and are granted six weeks' time to file status report and also the period, which they would require for setting up the remaining Fast Track Courts. List the matters after the expiry of the said period..SP1 (Alka Dudeja) (S. Krishnan) Court Master Court Master

d T.C.(C)No. 22 OF 2001.UP 10 2; Draft, smtst; -n -PA4 -dFX-NORMAL -y -e; dumbpL.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T....RITEM No.63 Court No. 3 SECTION XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS TRANSFERRED CASE (C) NO. 22 OF 2001@@ CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC Brij Mohan Lal Petitioner (s) VERSUS Union of India and Ors. Respondent (s) ( Office report with quarterly reports received from High Courts and State Government for directions ) With T.C. (C) No. 23 of 2001 S.L.P (C) No. 7870 of 2001 S.L.P.(C) No. 10645 of 2001 T.P.(C) Nos. 407-410 of 2001 Date : 16/09/2002 This Petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.N. KHARE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN For Petitioner (s) in TC 22 Mr. CS Ashri, Adv. in SLP 10645 and Mr. TV Ratnam, Adv. res.in TP 407-10 & Mr. K Subba Rao, Adv. R-2 in SLP 7870 & R-2 in TC 23 For UOI Mr. HN Salve, SG Mr. Prateek Jalan, Adv. Mr. P Parmeswaran, Adv. For Respondent (s) No. 2 in TC 22 Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Adv. for impleading party Ms. Rachna Gupta, Adv. in TC 22 in TC 22 Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Adv. ...2/-

-2- in TP 407-10 Mr. K Ram Kumar, Adv. No.1 in SLP 7870 Mr. PS Narasimha, Adv. for Impleading party Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Adv. in SLP 7870 Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Adv. Ms. Deepti R Mehrotra, Adv. Mr. Garvesh Kabra, Adv. States of Gujarat Ms. H Wahi, Adv. & Mizoram Ms. Sadhna Sandhu, Adv. Mr. VN Raghupathy, Adv. State of Manipur Mr. HNK Singh, Adv. General Mr. KH Nohin Singh, Adv. State of Rajasthan Mr. Ranji Thomas, Adv. Mr. Javed Mahmud Rao, Adv. Ms. Bharati Upadhyay, Adv. State of H.P. Mr. Naresh K Sharma, Adv. State of Arunachal Mr. Anil Shrivastava, Adv. Pradesh Ms. Jyoti Dutt, Adv. State of Goa Ms. A Subhashini, Adv. State of Sikkim Mr. A Mariarputham, Adv. Ms. Aruna Mathur, Adv. Mr. Anurag D Mathur, Adv. Mr. PS Narasimha, Adv. Mr. Ananga Bhattacharya, Adv. Mr. P Sridhar, Adv. Mr. ADN Rao, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R.....L.....I....T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T....J The High Courts and the States, who were required to file status reports, have not filed the same. They may do so within four weeks. List thereafter..SP1 (Alka Dudeja) (S. Krishnan) Court Master Court Master

T.C.(C)No. 22 OF 2001ITEM No.301 (P.H.) Court No. 1 SECTION XVIA A/N MATTER S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Transferred Case (Civil) No. 22/2001 BRIJ MOHAN LAL Petitioner (s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent (s) (With appln.(s) for intervention/impleadment)withT.C.(C) No. 23/2001 (The Bar Council of A.P. vs. Union of India &Ors.),SLP(C) No. 7870/2001 (Union of India vs. Bar Council of AndhraPradesh & Ors.) (with prayer for interim relief),SLP(C) No. 10645/2001 (Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. Bar Councilof A.P. & Ors.) (with appln.(s) for exemption from filing c/c of theimpugned judgment and with prayer for interim relief),TP(C) Nos. 407-410/2001 (Union of India vs. K. Mahender Reddy& Ors.) (with appln.(s) for ex-parte stay) Date : 26/04/2002 These Petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KIRPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.G. BALAKRISHNAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARIJIT PASAYAT For Petitioner (s) in TC 22/01 Mr. K S Saini, Adv. Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri, Adv. in SLP 10645/01 Mr. T V Ratnam, Adv. Mr. K Subba Rao, Adv. in SLP 7870/01 and Mr. Harish N Salve, SG TP 407-410/01 Mr. Prateek Jalan, Adv. Mr. P Parmeswaran, Adv. For Respondent (s) Mr. Harish N Salve, SG Mr. Prateek Jalan, Adv. Mr. P Parmeswaran, Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Rao, Adv. Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Adv. Mr. T V Ratnam, Adv. Mr. K Subba Rao, Adv. ....2/-.PA

: 2 : Mr. P S Narasimha, Adv. Mr. Ananga Bhattacharjee, Adv. for M/s. P S N & Co., Advs. Mr. Narender Verma, Adv. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Adv. Mr. K Ram Kumar, Adv. Mr. B Sridhar, Adv. Ms. Rachna Gupta, Adv. Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R........L.......I........T........T.......T.......T.......T.......J.SP2 Arguments concluded. Judgment reserved..SP1 Kalyani. (JANKI BHATIA) @@ AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA COURT MASTER @@ A AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

þ T.C.(C)No. 22 OF 2001ITEM No.22 (P.H.) Court No. 2 SECTION XVIA A/N MATTER S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Transferred Case (Civil) No. 22/2001 BRIJ MOHAN LAL Petitioner (s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent (s) (with appln.(s) for intervention/impleadment)withT.C.(C) No. 23/2001 (The Bar Council of A.P. vs. Union of India &Ors.),SLP(C) No. 7870/2001 (Union of India vs. Bar Council of AndhraPradesh & Ors.) (with prayer for interim relief),SLP(C) No. 10645/2001 (Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. Bar Councilof A.P. & Ors.) (with appln.(s) for exemption from filing c/c of theimpugned judgment and with prayer for interim relief),TP(C) Nos. 407-410/2001 (Union of India vs. K. Mahender Reddy& Ors.) (with appln.(s) for ex-parte stay) Date : 05/04/2002 These Petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KIRPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.G. BALAKRISHNAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARIJIT PASAYAT For Petitioner (s) in TC 22/01 Mr. K S Saini, Adv. Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri, Adv. in SLP 10645/01 Mr. T V Ratnam, Adv. Mr. K Subba Rao, Adv. in SLP 7870/01 and TP 407-410/01 Mr. Prateek Jalan, Adv. Mr. P Parmeswaran, Adv. For Respondent (s)/ Applicant (s) in intervention/implead- ment applications Mr. Prateek Jalan, Adv. Mr. P Parmeswaran, Adv. Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Rao, Adv. Mr. T V Ratnam, Adv. Mr. K Subba Rao, Adv. ....2/-.PA

:2: Mr. P S Narasimha, Adv. Mr. Ananga Bhattacharjee, Adv. for M/s. P S N & Co., Advs. Mr. B Sridhar, Adv. Mr. K Ram Kumar, Adv. Mr. Narender Verma, Adv. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Adv. Ms. Rachna Gupta, Adv. Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R.............L.....I.....T........T........T........T.......T.......J It is stated that a number of Fast Track Courts have not yet been established and the same should be established as expeditously as possible. It will be desirable, in our opinion, that all the Fast Track Courts which are proposed to be established should be constituted and made operative as early as possible. Adjourned. List after two weeks. (D.P. WALIA) (S.L. GOYAL) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

\230 T.C.(C)No. 22 OF 2001ITEM No.301 (P.H.) Court No. 2 SECTION XVIA A/N MATTER S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Transferred Case (Civil) No. 22/2001 BRIJ MOHAN LAL Petitioner (s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent (s)withT.C.(C) No. 23/2001 (The Bar Council of A.P. vs. Union of India &Ors.),SLP(C) No. 7870/2001 (Union of India vs. Bar Council of AndhraPradesh & Ors.) (with prayer for interim relief),SLP(C) No. 10645/2001 (Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. Bar Councilof A.P. & Ors.) (with appln.(s) for exemption from filing c/c of theimpugned judgment and with prayer for interim relief),TP(C) Nos. 407-410/2001 (Union of India vs. K. Mahender Reddy& Ors.) (with appln.(s) for ex-parte stay) Date : 15/03/2002 These Petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KIRPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.G. BALAKRISHNAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARIJIT PASAYAT For Petitioner (s) in TC 22/01 Mr. K S Saini, Adv. Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri, Adv. in SLP 10645/01 Mr. T V Ratnam, Adv. Mr. K Subba Rao, Adv. in SLP 7870/01 and Mr. Harish N Salve, SG TP 407-410/01 Mr. Prateek Jalan, Adv. Mr. P Parmeswaran, Adv. For Respondent (s) Mr. Harish N Salve, SG Mr. Prateek Jalan, Adv. Mr. P Parmeswaran, Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Rao, Adv. Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Adv. Mr. T V Ratnam, Adv. Mr. K Subba Rao, Adv. Mr. P S Narasimha, Adv. Mr. Ananga Bhattacharjee, Adv. for M/s. P S N & Co., Advs. Mr. Narender Verma, Adv. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Adv. Mr. K Ram Kumar, Adv. Mr. B Sridhar, Adv.

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R........L.......I........T........T........T........T.......T.......J Learned Solicitor General has placed on record guidelines proposed for the Scheme of the Fast Track Courts. Response by the counsel be filed before the next date of hearing. List on 5th April, 2002 at 10.30 A.M. Kalyani (S.L. GOYAL) COURT MASTER

T.C.(C)No. 22 OF 2001ITEM No.17 Court No. 2 SECTION XVIA A/N MATTER S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Transferred Case(Civil) No.22/2001 BRIJ MOHAN LAL Petitioner (s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent (s) WithTC(C) No. 23/2001 (The Bar Council of A.P. vs. Union of India & Ors.),SLP(C)No.7870/2001 (Union of India vs. Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh& Ors.) (with appln.(s) for impleading party and with prayer forinterim relief),SLP(C)No.10645/2001 (Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. Bar Council ofA.P. & Ors.) (with appln.(s) for exemption from filing c/c of theimpugned judgment and with prayer for interim relief) andTP(C) Nos.407-410/2001 (Union of India vs. K. Mahender Reddy & Ors.)(with appln.(s) for ex-parte stay). Date : 11/01/2002 These Petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KIRPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.G. BALAKRISHNAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARIJIT PASAYAT For Petitioner (s) Mr. K.S. Saini, Adv. in TC 22/01 Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri,Adv. in TC 23/01 & SLP 10645/01 Mr. T V Ratnam, Adv. in SLP 7870/01 & Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, ASG. TP 407-410/01 Mr. Prateek Jalan, Adv. Mr. P Parmeswaran, Adv. For Respondent (s) Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, ASG. Mr. Prateek Jalan, Adv. Mr. P. Parmeswaran, Adv. Mr. Gopal Subramanium, Sr. Adv. Mr. Bipakkhi Borathakur, Adv. Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Adv. Mr. P.S. Narasimha, Adv. Mr. P. Sridhar, Adv. for M/s. P S N & Co., Advs. Mr. K Ram Kumar, Adv. ....2/-

: 2 : UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R........L.......I........T........T.......T.......T.......T.......J.SP2 The matters are adjourned. List after four weeks..SP1 Kalyani. (S.L. GOYAL) @@ AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA COURT MASTER @@ A AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

* T.C.(C)No. 22 OF 2001ITEM No.301 Court No. 2 SECTION XVIAPart-Heard A/N MATTER S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Transfer Case(Civil) No.22/2001@@ CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC BRIJ MOHAN LAL Petitioner (s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent (s) (for directions) WithSLP(C)No.10645/2001(With appln. for impleading party and with prayer for interim relief)T.C.(C)No.23/2001,T.P.(C) No.407-410/2001 ,(With appln. for ex-parte stay)SLP(C)No.7870/2001(With appln. for impleading party and with prayer for interim relief) Date : 07/12/2001 These Petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KIRPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.G. BALAKRISHNAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARIJIT PASAYAT For Petitioner (s) Mr. K S Saini, Adv. in TC 22/01 Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri,Adv. For UOI Mr. H N Salve, S.G. Mr. Prateek Jalan, Adv. Mr. P. Parmeswaran,Adv. For Appearing parties: Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, Sr. Adv. Ms. Kamini Jaiswal,Adv. Ms. Shomila Bakshi, Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Rao, Adv. Mr. T V Ratnam, Adv. Mr. K Subba Rao, Adv. Mr. P S Narasimha, Adv. Mr. P Sridhar, Adv. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Adv. Mr. K Ram Kumar, Adv. ....2/-

2. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R................L.......I.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T....J.SP2 Learned Solicitor General states that a draft Scheme will be evolved with regard to the manner in which appointments are to be made of the presiding officers of the Fast Track Courts. There will be various options which would be available and it will be for the High Court concerned to consider which one or more options to follow. We, however, make it clear that when any recruitment is made to the Fast Track Courts from out of the judicial officers who have superannuated, care should be taken by the High Court concerned to see that the incumbent has not had unclean record. If the past ACRs of the incumbent are such which show that a person concerned was not fit enough to be elevated as a High Court Judge, he should not be appointed on the Fast Track Courts. Learned Solicitor General states that the draft Scheme would be placed before the Court on the next date of hearing. To be listed on a Friday, after four weeks as part-heard..SP1 (S.L. Goyal) (Kanchan Jain) Court Master AR-cum-PS

T.C.(C)No. 22 OF 2001ITEM No.2 Court No. 2 SECTION XVIA A/N MATTER S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Transferred Case(Civil) No.22/2001 BRIJ MOHAN LAL Petitioner (s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent (s) WithT.C.(C)No.23/2001 (The Bar Council of A.P. vs. Union of India& Ors.),SLP(C)No.7870/2001 (Union of India vs. Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh& Ors.) (with appln.(s) for impleading party and with prayer forinterim relief and office report),SLP(C) No. 10645/2001 (Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. Bar Councilof A.P. & Ors.) (with appln.(s) for exemption from filing c/c of theimpugned judgment and with prayer for interim relief) andT.P.(C) No.407-410/2001 (Union of India vs. K. Mahender Reddy &Ors.) (with appln.(s) for ex-parte stay). Date : 04/10/2001 These Petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KIRPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. SANTOSH HEGDE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. VENKATARAMA REDDI For Petitioner (s) in TC 22/01 Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri,Adv. For U.O.I. Mr. Harish N. Salve, SG. Mr. Prateek Jalan, Adv,. Mr. P Parmeswaran, Adv. State of A.P. Mr. T V Ratnam, Adv. Mr. K. Subba Rao, Adv. For Respondent (s) No.2 Hight Ct. of Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Adv. Punjab & Haryana Ms. Shomila Bakshi, Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Rao, Adv. Bar Council of AP Mr. P. S. Narasimha, Adv. Mr. P.Sridhar, Adv. for M/s PSN & Co., Advs. Mr. K Ram Kumar, Adv. For Applicant (s) Mr. Sanjeev Kapoor, Adv.in impleadment appln. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Adv.in SLP 7870/2001 .....2/-

: 2 : UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R........L.......I........T........T.......T.......T.......T.......J.SP2 Counter affidavits be filed, if not already on record, within two weeks. Rejoinder be filed within two weeks thereafter. List for directions for hearing after four weeks. Learned Solicitor General states that on the next date of hearing he will also place before the court the statistics indicating how the fast track courts are faring after they have started functioning..SP1 Kalyani. (S.L. GOYAL)@@ AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA COURT MASTER @@ A AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Search This Case

Indian Kanoon Google Scholar Google

Supreme Court Resources

SC Case Status by Diary Number Search by CNR Number Supreme Court of India Official SC Website (external)

High Court Case Status

Check case status for High Courts across India

Allahabad High Court

Uttar Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh High Court

Andhra Pradesh

Bombay High Court

Maharashtra

Calcutta High Court

West Bengal

Chhattisgarh High Court

Chhattisgarh

Delhi High Court

Delhi

Gauhati High Court

Assam

Gujarat High Court

Gujarat

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Himachal Pradesh

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Jammu & Kashmir

Jharkhand High Court

Jharkhand

Karnataka High Court

Karnataka

Kerala High Court

Kerala

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Madhya Pradesh

Madras High Court

Tamil Nadu

Manipur High Court

Manipur

Meghalaya High Court

Meghalaya

Orissa High Court

Odisha

Patna High Court

Bihar

Punjab & Haryana High Court

Punjab / Haryana / Chandigarh

Rajasthan High Court

Rajasthan

Sikkim High Court

Sikkim

Telangana High Court

Telangana

Tripura High Court

Tripura

Uttarakhand High Court

Uttarakhand