The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation challenging the state government’s decision to transfer land belonging to a veterinary institution for the construction of residential quarters for High Court judges and a super-speciality hospital.
The Division Bench of Justice DK Singh and Justice TM Nadaf held on Friday that the provision of official accommodation and related infrastructural facilities to judges formed an integral part of the constitutional framework that safeguarded judicial independence. The Court observed that facilities such as official residences, transportation, libraries and service-related allowances were necessary to ensure the effective functioning, dignity and institutional independence of the judiciary.
The independence of the judiciary was a basic feature of the Constitution and the service conditions of High Court judges, including housing facilities, were closely linked to preserving that constitutional mandate, noted the Court. It held that judges of the High Courts and the Supreme Court were entitled to fully furnished official accommodation as part of their service conditions and that such facilities were essential for maintaining judicial independence.
The Bench further observed that the state bears a constitutional obligation to provide accommodation commensurate with the status and dignity of High Court judges as constitutional functionaries.
The Court also took note of the existing shortage of official residences for judges. Referring to the sanctioned strength of 62 judges in the Karnataka High Court, it recorded that only 19 official residences were currently available. As a result, several judges were compelled to reside in rented accommodation, which was not befitting the stature of a constitutional authority, observed the Bench.
The litigation was filed by the Karnataka Veterinary Association, the Bangalore Veterinary College Alumni Association, the Senior Veterinarians’ Association and the Dairy Science College Alumni Association.
The petition challenged a government order directing the transfer of seven acres of land from the Karnataka Veterinary Animal and Fisheries Science University (KVAFSU). Of this, four acres were earmarked for constructing residential quarters for High Court judges, while the remaining three acres were allocated for the establishment of a super-speciality hospital.
The petitioners argued that the transfer of land would create a shortage of land available to the veterinary college and could jeopardise its recognition status. They contended that any reduction in available land could adversely affect the institution’s ranking and consequently result in a decline in financial support and grants from the Veterinary Council of India.
However, after examining the record, the High Court found no merit in the challenge. The Bench held that the four acres allocated for judicial housing constituted surplus land and that its transfer would not adversely affect the functioning, infrastructure, academic activities or regulatory compliance of KVAFSU. The Court concluded that the allotment of land adjacent to Nyayagrama for judicial quarters would neither impede the university’s operations nor run contrary to public interest.
On the contrary, the Court observed that the transfer advanced a larger constitutional objective by strengthening judicial independence, which formed the foundation of the constitutional scheme. It held that facilitating adequate residential infrastructure for judges served a significant public purpose and was consistent with the larger public interest.
The Court similarly rejected the challenge to the transfer of three acres of land for the construction of a super-speciality hospital. It noted that the college possessed substantial excess land beyond its present requirements and held that the allotment of a limited portion of such land for a public healthcare facility could not be regarded as detrimental to public interest.
The Bench observed that the establishment of a super-speciality hospital would serve the broader interests of the general public by improving access to advanced medical facilities. Consequently, it held that the State’s decision to allocate the land for healthcare infrastructure was justified and in furtherance of public welfare. Finding no infringement of public interest or any adverse impact on the functioning of the veterinary university, the Court dismissed the PIL and upheld the state government’s decision to transfer the land for both judicial housing and healthcare infrastructure projects.
The post Karnataka High Court rejects plea challenging land transfer for construction of judges quarters appeared first on India Legal.