Himachal Pradesh High Court Warns Sukhu Government: Release ₹10 Crore or Face Contempt Action
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has issued a stern warning to the Sukhvinder Singh Sukhu-led state government for failing to release essential judicial funds, threatening to initiate contempt proceedings if ₹10 crore is not deposited with the High Court by November 13, 2025.
Judicial Reprimand Over Financial Neglect
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma took serious note of the non-release of funds since September 2025, observing that the continued financial neglect is “disrupting the normal functioning of the courts”.
The Bench directed the Finance Secretary to personally appear before the Court with a bank draft of ₹10 crore payable to the Registrar General of the High Court. The order explicitly warned that failure to comply would result in the issuance of a contempt notice.
The court stated:
“Let the Secretary (Finance) come present in this Court along with necessary draft of ₹10 crore, in favour of the Registrar General, High Court of Himachal Pradesh, failing which contempt notice will be issued as the lack of payment is hampering this Court from running its day-to-day functioning.”
Contempt Warning Under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
The Bench further remarked that the State’s conduct appeared to “prejudice and interfere in the due course of judicial proceedings and the administration of justice”, invoking Sections 2(c), 2(i), and 3(i) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
These provisions define criminal contempt to include acts that:
-
Scandalize or lower the authority of the court,
-
Prejudice judicial proceedings, or
-
Obstruct the administration of justice.
However, the court offered a resolution — if the pending amount is deposited promptly, the Finance Secretary would be excused from appearing in person on the next hearing date, November 13.
Suo Motu PIL on Judicial Infrastructure and Financial Arrears
This direction arises from a suo motu Public Interest Litigation (PIL) initiated by the High Court in 2023, following repeated delays in financial disbursements affecting the judiciary’s operations.
The court observed that over ₹10 crore remains unpaid, including:
-
₹6.88 crore for general administrative expenses, and
-
₹4.07 crore for the procurement of court vehicles.
The PIL had been prompted by grievances regarding delayed payments to retired judges, inadequate funds for court maintenance, and stalled judicial infrastructure projects.
Non-Compliance with Supreme Court Directive
The High Court also noted the state’s non-compliance with a Supreme Court directive mandating the adoption of the Andhra Pradesh model for financial benefits to retired judges.
The Supreme Court had ordered that arrears accrue from October 1, 2014, but the Himachal Pradesh government implemented the scheme only from May 14, 2025, leaving a ten-year financial gap in judicial payments.
This partial implementation violates the principles of Article 141 of the Constitution of India, which makes Supreme Court judgments binding on all courts and authorities.
Judicial Infrastructure and Administrative Delays
Beyond the issue of financial arrears, the court criticized the state’s persistent delays in establishing additional judicial institutions and meeting statutory obligations under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
Key pending matters include:
-
Creation of 7 courts of Additional District Judges and 39 Civil Judge courts — a proposal pending since July 2023.
-
Establishment of a Permanent Lok Adalat, which remains unfulfilled despite being a statutory requirement.
-
A proposal to increase the monthly stipend of law interns from ₹25,000, which continues to be stalled.
The Bench underscored that continued financial constraints under the guise of “fiscal exigency” cannot justify neglecting judicial functioning — a core constitutional responsibility under Articles 21 and 39A, which guarantee access to justice and mandate the state to ensure free and fair legal aid.
Constitutional and Statutory Framework
-
Article 21 – Right to Access Justice:
The right to a fair, speedy trial and functioning judiciary is an extension of the right to life and liberty. Any administrative or financial neglect that disrupts this process amounts to a constitutional violation. -
Article 50 – Separation of Judiciary from Executive:
The article directs the state to maintain judicial independence — fiscal neglect directly undermines this principle. -
Article 144 – Binding Nature of Supreme Court Orders:
The non-implementation of the apex court’s directive on retired judges’ benefits amounts to constitutional non-compliance. -
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (Sections 2 & 3):
Defines criminal contempt and empowers courts to act against willful disobedience or obstruction of justice. -
Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987:
Obligates the state to establish Lok Adalats and promote legal access — a statutory duty that Himachal Pradesh has yet to fulfil.
Judicial Precedents on State Accountability
-
All India Judges Association v. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 288
The Supreme Court emphasized that financial independence of the judiciary is essential to maintain its dignity and efficiency. -
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2016) 5 SCC 1
Reinforced that judicial infrastructure and functioning are integral to the independence of the judiciary, which the executive cannot compromise. -
State of Bihar v. Bal Mukund Shah (2000) 4 SCC 640
The Court held that the failure to release judicial funds and fill vacancies is an administrative failure impacting citizens’ access to justice.
Conclusion: Fiscal Neglect Equals Judicial Erosion
The Himachal Pradesh High Court’s order sends a strong message — financial indiscipline by the executive cannot justify judicial paralysis.
The Court’s warning of contempt action is not merely punitive; it underscores the constitutional duty of the state to maintain the judiciary’s functioning and uphold the rule of law.
As the next hearing approaches on November 13, the State Government must act decisively to restore institutional faith — by releasing the ₹10 crore immediately and ensuring sustained financial support for judicial infrastructure.

Comments
Post a Comment