Safiya Malik

The High Court of Kerala Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. delivered a judgment concerning the administration of justice in the Union Territory of Lakshadweep. The Court directed the constitution of a permanent committee titled the "Lakshadweep Judicial Administration and Infrastructure Committee" to address infrastructural and administrative issues affecting justice delivery in the islands. The Committee is mandated to function through consensus and periodic reviews, with the Principal District Judge, Kavaratti, designated as its Co-ordinator. The judgment concluded with clear directions to ensure the establishment of digital initiatives, infrastructure upgrades, judicial staff appointments, and the constitution of statutory authorities for effective administration of justice in Lakshadweep.

The proceedings originated from a writ petition filed in July 2020 by an advocate residing in Kalpeni Island seeking the appointment of Public Prosecutors and the establishment of Family Courts in Lakshadweep. A counter affidavit was filed by the Union Territory Administration, and subsequent directions were issued by the Division Bench requiring data regarding the functioning of courts, pendency of cases, and family court matters.

Also Read: Supreme Court Upholds Karnataka High Court’s Bail Grant to Accused | AL-Hind Not a Banned Organisation Under UAPA | Trial Court Directed to Expedite Proceedings

The case remained pending until January 2025, when it was noted that while the issue of Public Prosecutors had been partly addressed, larger concerns remained unresolved. These included judicial infrastructure, staff vacancies, facilities for the Lakshadweep State Legal Services Authority, Mediation Centres, appointments under the Juvenile Justice Act, and related matters. On 24 January 2025, the writ petition was converted into a suo motu petition titled "Re: Infrastructural and Other Issues Relating to Administration of Justice in the Lakshadweep Islands."

The judgment recorded the geographical and historical background of Lakshadweep. The islands, comprising 36 in total, are spread across the Arabian Sea with only ten inhabited. The District Court functions at Kavaratti, the Court of Munsiff at Andrott, and a Sub Judge Court at Amini. Travel between islands is primarily by ship, with air connectivity available only at Agatti. Monsoon conditions further complicate transportation and accessibility, creating unique challenges in justice delivery.

The Court referred to reports from the Union Territory Administration, the Registrar General of the High Court, and Amici Curiae. It detailed the evolution of judicial administration in Lakshadweep from the pre-colonial period through the British administration, the Scheduled District designation under the Scheduled Districts Act, 1874, and subsequent post-independence developments leading to the establishment of regular courts under the Laccadive, Minicoy, and Amindivi Islands (Civil Courts) Regulation, 1965.

During the course of the proceedings in 2025, joint meetings were convened between the Registrar General, District Judge, Kavaratti, the National Informatics Centre (NIC), Union Territory officials, and representatives of the Public Works Department. A Plan of Action was evolved to address issues such as e-filing, video conferencing, ICT infrastructure, uninterrupted power supply, filling staff vacancies, infrastructure for the Legal Services Authority, establishment of family courts, statutory appointments under various legislations, and welfare measures for Advocates and Mukhtyars.

Reports submitted recorded partial progress, including procurement and installation of video conferencing equipment, establishment of e-Sewa Kendras, provision of computers for the Legal Services Authority, constitution of Child Welfare Committees, and initiation of measures under the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017. Issues requiring continued attention included construction of new court annexes, recruitment rules for judicial staff, creation of a Directorate of Prosecution, permanent Public Prosecutor appointments, constitution of Juvenile Justice Boards, provision of Protection Officers, appointment of Probation Officers, and constitution of disposal committees under the NDPS Act.

The Amici Curiae also submitted notes stating further issues, including the need to notify e-filing rules for Lakshadweep, digitisation of statutory enactments, reconsideration of the practice of vesting interim charge of Lakshadweep courts with Kozhikode, and utilisation of Mukhtyars as mediators in alternative dispute resolution.

The Court, after hearing all parties, crystallised the issues under broad heads: e-filing and video conferencing, power supply, physical court infrastructure, non-judicial court staff, family court, legal services authority, public prosecutors, advocates, mukhtyars, authorities under the Juvenile Justice Act, mental healthcare, domestic violence authorities, probation officers, NDPS disposal committees, and other miscellaneous issues.

The Bench recorded that “Lakshadweep has ten inhabited islands, court services are available only on three. As pointed out earlier, the islands are separated by long distances and connected mainly by sea routes. Travelling to the nearest court, which may be on another island, often involves long journeys by boat, subject to weather conditions and limited transport schedules. This situation makes an ideal case for the introduction of digital initiatives in the justice delivery system.”

It further observed that “what is essential, however, is that e-filing and video conferencing facilities have to be extended to all inhabited islands, not just to the three islands where the courts are located. The need is greatest on islands without courts. For the present, it would be feasible to utilise the office of the Deputy Collector on each island for setting up e-Sewa Kendras. e-Sewa Kendras can assist the locals in using these initiatives.”

Regarding power supply, the Court recorded that “Reliable electricity is essential for the effective functioning of e-Courts, video conferencing, and e-filing, all of which depend on uninterrupted power. Therefore, this initiative has to be treated as a priority.”

On judicial infrastructure, the Bench noted that “the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India and Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India and Others has held that a sound court infrastructure is the foundation of a strong judicial system and the State has a constitutional duty to provide the judiciary with adequate facilities so it can deliver justice effectively.”

On staff vacancies, the Court stated that “Though staff is currently employed on deputation as an interim arrangement, it is imperative, in the interest of the independence of the judiciary and judicial efficiency, to create a separate establishment and an exclusive recruitment mechanism for the judiciary in Lakshadweep.”

The Court also observed on family courts: “If there are difficulties regarding the feasibility of having separate infrastructure for a Family Court due to the small number of cases, then the option of establishing a Family Court by giving additional charge to the District and Sessions Court, Kavaratti, can be considered.”

On the Legal Services Authority, it was recorded that “Dedicated physical infrastructure for the Legal Services Authority is also lacking. Presently, the Legal Services Authority operates from the District Court library in Kavaratti, while the Taluk Legal Services Committees function from rooms in the Sub Court and Munsiff Court. These arrangements are inadequate.”

Regarding Mukhtyars, the Court stated that “the Mukhtyars, many of whom are above seventy years old, and currently lack a statutory provision for a beneficial scheme, such as a welfare fund. However, in view of their long-standing contributions to the local residents, introducing a welfare scheme for the elderly existing Mukhtyars can be considered by the UT Administration.”

On juvenile justice, the Court observed that “the Juvenile Justice Board constituted under the Act was dissolved on 29 February 2020 and has not been reconstituted since. Despite communications dated 28 August 2024, no action had been taken.”

Concerning mental health, the Bench recorded that “Currently, individuals requiring mental health treatment are sent to healthcare centres in Kerala, as there are no facilities for their treatment and observation in the islands. This issue requires urgent attention.”

On the issue of advocates, the Court noted that “Advocates filing Vakalath in Lakshadweep courts generally do not affix the welfare fund stamp, and it was suggested that the practice of affixing the welfare stamp be made mandatory.”

The Court observed broadly that “When the judicial infrastructure in other States, including Kerala, is being strengthened and digital initiatives are being launched, the Lakshadweep Islands have to be included in the fold of this movement. It is in this context that the digital initiatives would have a direct impact on the lives of the residents. Let not the limited size of the Union Territory be a reason for overlooking its requirements.”

Accordingly, the following directions were issued by the Court:

• (A) The Lakshadweep Judicial Administration and Infrastructure Committee is constituted to address the infrastructure and other issues pertaining to the administration of justice in the Lakshadweep Islands. The composition of the Committee will be as follows:

• (i) Registrar General, High Court of Kerala;

• (ii) Principal District Judge, Kavaratti-cum-Member Secretary, Lakshadweep Legal Services Authority;

• (iii) District Collector, Kavaratti, Lakshadweep;

• (iv) Nominee of the Administrator, Lakshadweep;

• (v) Superintendent of Police, Kavaratti, Lakshadweep;

• (vi) Superintendent Engineer, Public Works Department, Lakshadweep;

• (vii) Registrar (Computerisation)-cum-Director (IT), High Court of Kerala;

• (viii) A representative of the National Informatics Centre.

• (B) The Administration of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep and the High Court Administration, within three weeks from the date of the judgment, will accordingly issue necessary orders.

• (C) The Co-ordinator of the Committee will be the Principal District Judge, Kavaratti.

• (D) The Committee may, at its discretion, invite other stakeholders to attend its meetings. The President of the Lakshadweep Bar Association should generally be invited.

• (E) The Committee will hold periodical meetings to review progress of initiatives, at least three times a year, physically or online, with at least one physical meeting in Kavaratti.

• (F) The Committee will endeavour to decide issues by consensus and implement within fixed time limits.

• (G) Reports of the meetings will be placed before the Portfolio Judge and the nominated Judge.

• (H) The Portfolio Judge and the nominated Judge can call for a meeting of the Committee, provide guidance, and preside if required.

• (I) Initially, the Committee will look into issues, including but not limited to:

• (i) Establishment of e-Sewa Kendras on each inhabited island using Deputy Collector’s offices as temporary spaces.

• (ii) Approval of electronic filing rules by the Union Administration and temporary adoption of the Electronic Filing Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021.

• (iii) Provision of inverters and solar panels for uninterrupted energy for courts and e-Sewa Kendras.

• (iv) Optical fibre connectivity to strengthen video conferencing and e-filing.

• (v) Finalisation of recruitment rules of judicial staff by the Administrator / Ministry of Home Affairs.

Also Read: Kerala High Court Closes Suo Motu Criminal Contempt Against Advocate | Accepts Unconditional Apology Under Rule 14(a) After Disruption in Magistrate Court

• (vi) Finalisation of the creation of the Prosecution Directorate pending before the Ministry of Home Affairs.

• (vii) Creation of a separate cadre for the judiciary in the Union Territory.

• (viii) Infrastructural issues faced by the courts, including construction of new buildings, repair and maintenance.

• (ix) Construction, repair and maintenance of Legal Services Authority premises, including residential quarters and other infrastructure.

• (x) Notification of officials and institutions under the Juvenile Justice Act, Domestic Violence Act, Probation of Offenders Act, Mental Healthcare Act, NDPS Act, etc.

• (xi) Protocol for notifying and initiating the process of filling anticipated vacancies in advance.

• (xii) Mental healthcare establishments and associated issues.

• (xiii) Other aspects outlined in the judgment not specifically mentioned above.

• (xiv) Any issue specifically directed by the Portfolio Judge and the nominated Judge.

• (J) For further directions on judicial administration, it will be open for the Co-ordinator of the Committee or as directed by the Portfolio Judge and nominated Judge to file an interim application in the disposed petition.

The Writ Petition was disposed of with these directions. The Court recorded appreciation for the assistance rendered by the Amici Curiae, counsel for the parties, and officers of the Lakshadweep Administration.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Respondents: Sajith Kumar V., Standing Counsel, Lakshadweep Administration; R.V. Sreejith, Standing Counsel, UT Administration of Lakshadweep; K.R. Ganesh; Adarsh Kumar; E.C. Ahamed Fazil; Enoch David Simon Joel, Amicus Curiae; Aashique Akthar Hajjigothi, Amicus Curiae; T.V. Vinu, Central Government Counsel; Elvin Peter P.J. (Sr.); Sabu George; Sidharth Sudheer; Shashank Devan; K.P.S. Jalaluddeen Mohmmed; Mini Gopinath; P.B. Subramanyan; B. Anusree; Manu Vyasan Peter; Meera P.; Aiswarya Mohan; Chitra Johnson.

Case Title: Suo Motu Re: Infrastructural and Other Issues Relating to Administration of Justice in the Lakshadweep Islands

Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:63497

Case Number: W.P. (C) No. 7547 of 2025

Bench: Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar, Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A.