Court’s Decision
The Kerala High Court, through a suo motu writ petition, addressed critical infrastructural, administrative, and legal service deficiencies affecting the justice delivery system in Lakshadweep. The Court observed that the “unique topography and isolation of the islands cannot become a barrier to access to justice” and laid down a detailed framework to modernise and strengthen the judicial system in the Union Territory.
The Court issued multiple directions covering e-filing, video conferencing, uninterrupted power supply, court infrastructure, appointment of staff, establishment of family courts, strengthening of the Lakshadweep Legal Services Authority, appointment of juvenile and probation officers, and creation of welfare mechanisms for local advocates and Mukhtyars. It also mandated long-term monitoring of these reforms.
Facts
Lakshadweep, comprising 36 islands with only ten inhabited, faces unique logistical challenges. Courts are operational only on three islands—Kavaratti, Amini, and Andrott—forcing litigants from other islands to travel long distances, often by ship in difficult weather conditions.
Initially filed in 2020 by an advocate seeking appointment of public prosecutors and setting up family courts, the matter evolved into a broader concern for judicial administration. Recognising persistent infrastructural and systemic deficiencies, the Court converted the case into a suo motu writ petition in January 2025 titled “Infrastructural and Other Issues Relating to Administration of Justice in Lakshadweep.”
Reports from the High Court Administration, District Judge, and Amici Curiae highlighted deficiencies in ICT facilities, power supply, court buildings, staffing, legal aid infrastructure, and statutory authorities under child protection and domestic violence laws. The Bench noted that the peculiar geographical and historical context of Lakshadweep required a tailored judicial response.
Issues
- Whether access to justice in Lakshadweep was being hampered due to infrastructural and logistical shortcomings.
- Whether digital initiatives like e-filing and video conferencing could be effectively implemented across all inhabited islands.
- Whether the UT Administration was discharging its constitutional duty under Articles 21 and 39A to ensure fair trials and free legal aid.
- Whether the creation of a separate judicial cadre and dedicated recruitment rules for court staff was necessary.
Petitioner’s Arguments
Since this was a suo motu writ petition, the High Court itself took cognizance. Reports placed before the Bench revealed that litigants from remote islands faced severe hardships in accessing courts. With monsoons often disrupting transport, residents were practically denied their right to speedy justice.
Amici Curiae submitted detailed notes highlighting gaps in family courts, availability of statutes and regulations, digital filing rules, and historical reliance on Mukhtyars. They argued that justice delivery must be reimagined with technology and decentralisation at its core, so that islanders were not excluded from constitutional protections.
Respondent’s Arguments
The Union Territory Administration defended its efforts, pointing out that funds had been sanctioned for ICT hardware, including video conferencing units, and steps were underway to expand bandwidth by laying optical fibre cables. It admitted challenges in staffing and infrastructure but assured the Court of progress, such as procurement of computers, sanction of inverters, and proposals for new annexes to court buildings.
It, however, contended that resource constraints and geographical isolation slowed progress. The UT Administration also highlighted that legal services authorities were functioning, though in limited capacity, and measures for welfare of advocates and appointment of statutory officers were under consideration.
Analysis of the Law
The Court analysed Articles 21 and 39A of the Constitution, emphasising that the right to a fair trial and equal justice cannot be compromised due to geography. It drew attention to the Family Courts Act, 1984, the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and other statutory mandates requiring proper authorities and infrastructure.
The Court also noted Regulation 23 of the Laccadive, Minicoy, and Amindivi Islands (Civil Courts) Regulation, 1965, which empowers the District Judge to appoint court staff. Current practice of deputations without consultation of the judiciary was held inconsistent with judicial independence.
On judicial infrastructure, reliance was placed on All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India (2018) 17 SCC 555 and Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India (2012) 6 SCC 502, where the Supreme Court stressed that robust court infrastructure is a constitutional necessity.
Precedent Analysis
- All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India (2018) 17 SCC 555) — Held that State has a constitutional duty to provide adequate infrastructure to judiciary. Relied upon to direct UT Administration to prioritise construction and maintenance of court complexes.
- Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India (2012) 6 SCC 502) — Stressed that courts cannot function effectively without proper facilities. Cited to highlight that Article 21’s guarantee of speedy trial requires modern infrastructure.
- Puthiyapura Sheikh Koya Thangal v. P.P. Koyammakoya (2012 (3) KHC 192) — Provided historical background of customary laws in Lakshadweep; referred to contextualise the legal evolution of the islands
Court’s Reasoning
The Bench held that the constitutional promise of access to justice applies with equal force to every citizen, regardless of geography. It found that the absence of adequate infrastructure, trained staff, and statutory authorities amounted to systemic denial of justice.
On e-filing and video conferencing, the Court observed:
“These facilities in many cases may remove the need for sea travel to file cases or attend hearings, ensure continuity during inclement weather, and extend legal aid and consultations to remote islands.”
On power supply, it emphasised that digital infrastructure cannot function without uninterrupted electricity and directed exploration of solar and diesel alternatives.
On staffing, it ruled that judiciary in Lakshadweep requires an exclusive recruitment mechanism, not ad hoc deputations. On family courts and legal services, the Court reiterated that statutory mandates must be enforced without delay.
Conclusion
The High Court issued a comprehensive set of directions:
- Installation of video conferencing and e-filing facilities on all inhabited islands, beginning with e-Sewa Kendras.
- Ensuring stable electricity supply through solar power or diesel backup.
- Construction of new annexes at court buildings in Kavaratti, Amini, and Andrott, with Vulnerable Witness Deposition Centres.
- Creation of a separate judicial cadre and amendment of recruitment rules for court staff.
- Immediate establishment of a Family Court at Kavaratti, with proposals for Kadmat and Minicoy.
- Strengthening of the Lakshadweep Legal Services Authority with staff, infrastructure, and vehicles.
- Appointment of Child Welfare Committees, Probation Officers, and Protection Officers as mandated by law.
The Court stressed long-term monitoring, directing periodic reports from the Registrar General and UT Administration.
Implications
This judgment is a landmark in ensuring that isolation does not mean exclusion from justice. It sets a precedent for remote regions across India, showing how courts can creatively deploy technology, administrative reforms, and statutory mandates to secure constitutional rights.
It also places accountability on the Union Territory Administration, making clear that financial constraints cannot justify denial of access to justice. The ruling could inspire reforms in other geographically challenging regions like Andaman & Nicobar Islands and North-Eastern hill districts.
FAQs
Q1. Why did the Kerala High Court take suo motu cognizance?
Because systemic deficiencies in Lakshadweep’s justice system persisted despite earlier petitions, the Court initiated suo motu action to ensure constitutional compliance.
Q2. How will e-filing and video conferencing help island residents?
It will reduce the need for inter-island travel, particularly during monsoons, and enable litigants to file cases and attend hearings digitally.
Q3. What directions were issued on judicial staffing?
The Court directed creation of a separate judicial cadre in Lakshadweep, ending the practice of deputations, to strengthen judicial independence.
