Rajasthan High Court: In a suo motu matter based on a news report published in the Hindi daily newspaper Dainik Bhaskar dated 13-05-2025, regarding a grave issue related to “Access to Justice,” i.e., State Government, vide an order dated 09-04-2025, rendered 16 permanent Lok Adalats (PLAs) non-functional, a Division Bench of Shree Chandrashekhar and Sandeep Shah, JJ., expressed its displeasure at the vague response from the State and issued direction to respondent 4 (Principal Secretary, Law and Legal Affairs Department) to file personal affidavit with relevant information and records on denial of tenure of Chairman and Members of PLAs.
The report pointed out that the impact of the shutdown was visibly severe in Jodhpur, where approximately 972 cases remained pending. It was further stated that around 10,000 cases across Rajasthan are likely affected due to the cessation of functioning of these Lok Adalats.
The Court, vide order dated 13-05-2025, noted the serious ramifications of shutting down the functioning of Lok Adalats, which are an essential part of the legal services delivery mechanism aimed at ensuring “access to justice” and took suo moto cognizance of the matter
In response to the Court’s directive, the State filed an affidavit dated 15-05-2025. However, the Court found this affidavit to be “highly unsatisfactory”, as it lacked any substantive explanation or reference to the government’s 09-04-2025 order, and notably, failed to even annex a copy of the said order.
The Court noted that the Amicus criticised the cryptic nature of the affidavit and noted that it failed to address the impunged order or produce a copy of it. He submitted that the use of the word “shall” in Rule 4(2) of the Permanent Lok Adalat (Other Terms and Conditions of Appointment of Chairman and Other Persons) Amendment Rules, 2016 makes it clear that the tenure of the Chairman and Members of PLAs must be five years or until the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier—subject to satisfactory performance and the absence of disqualification or removal under Rule 5.
The Court noted that the counsel for respondent 5 submitted communications and orders dated 09-04-2025 as well as a communication from 19-11-2024 which was proposed by the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority seeking the extension of tenure of 21 PLA members in 17 districts.
The Court noted that despite the clear language of Rule 4(2), the State’s actions appeared arbitrary. The Court asserted that “the expression ‘shall’ used in Sub-Rule 2 to Rule 4 clearly demonstrates the legislative intention that irrespective of initial appointment being made for a period of 1 year or 2 years the Chairman and other Members of the Permanent Lok Adalats shall continue for a term of 5 years or till the age of 65 years whichever is earlier…” The Court further stated that the affidavit on record failed to provide any rationale or legal justification for the departure from this norm.
The Court adjourned the matter to 22-05-2025, with the following directions —
-
Directed the Respondent 4 to file a personal affidavit explaining in detail why the tenure of Chairman and Members of PLAs cannot be extended under Rule 4(2);
-
Be physically present in Court on the next date with all relevant records pertaining to appointment, extension, and refusal of extension.
[Suo Moto v. State of Rajasthan, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10003/2025, Decided on 15-05-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Manish Sisodia, Sr. Advocate, Amicus Curiae with Mr. Deepesh Birla and Mr. Harshvardhan Rathore, Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr. Rajesh Panwar, AAG with Mr. Ayush Gehlot, Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG with Mr. Harshvardhan Singh, Counsel for the Respondents