Rajasthan High Court. document
As the term of office of its presidency and members does not exceed its term, permanent Lok Adalats in up to 16 districts in Rajasthan has ceased to operate. The delays triggered by recent government orders have completely stopped their actions since April 8, preventing resolutions to resolve numerous pending disputes.
A judicial court in the Rajasthan High Court stated that the adoption of media coverage highlighted the development, which the division noted that the matter had attracted serious concerns about judicial contact. While the report cites a backlog of 972 cases in Jodbur alone, the bench estimates that the total number of affected cases in all 16 districts could exceed 10,000.
The state Legal Services Bureau issued an order on May 3 clarified that members whose term ends on April 8 cannot participate in dispute resolution. As for settlements based on compromises, the permanent Lok Adalats is known for its rapid and cost-effective remedies, especially in civil disputes.
The judges, composed of the high court’s principal seat in the Jodhpur High Court, Shree Chandrashekhar and Sandeep Shah, said the court could not waive its responsibility to ensure a fair and rapid trial under the pretext of policy. The bench cites the Supreme Court’s ruling in Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India (2012), pointing out that judicial review remains open if considered arbitrary, capricious or Mala Fide’s policy decision.
The court, as respondents, listed several senior officials, including the Chief Secretary, other Chief Secretary (Financial), the Department of Personnel Secretary, the Chief Legal Secretary and the Deputy Minister of the State Legal Services Bureau and directed them to submit a reply.
Senior advocate Manish Sisodia was appointed Amicus Curiae to assist the court.
The affected judicial districts include Balotra, Baran, Bikaner, Churu, Dausa, Dholpur, Jhalawar, Jhalawar, Jodhpur (Metro and Rural), Kota and Kota, Merta City, Nagaur, Pratapgarh, Rajsamand, Rajsamand, Sawai Madhopur and Sikikar. In many of these cases, the judgment has been written, but the judgment has not been published due to the expiration of the term – putting the litigant in a state of uncertainty and undermining the alternative dispute resolution framework.
publishing – May 16, 2025-05-9:57 pm ist
