Kerala High Court Directs Formation Of 'Lakshadweep Judicial Administration & Infrastructure Committee' To Improve Access To Justice In UT

The Kerala High Court on Thursday (August 21) directed the formation of a body called the 'Lakshadweep Judicial Administration and Infrastructure Committee' for finding long-terms solutions to improve the judicial administration and infrastructure of the Union Territory (UT) of Lakshadweep.

The committee shall consist of the Registrar General of the High Court, Principal District Judge of Kavaratti, District Collector of Kavaratti, nominee of the UT Administrator, Superintendent of Police (Kavaratti), Superintendent Engineer of PWD, Registrar (Computerisation) and representative of National Informatics Centre (NIC).

The writ petition was filed by a lawyer resident in Kalpeni of Lakshadweep Islands in 2020 outlining the issues related to the judicial system in the Union Territory. In 2025, a suo motu writ petition was registered by the Kerala High Court by converting the aforesaid writ petition.

The Special Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. observed:

"With the positive stand taken by the Union Territory Administration during the hearing of this petition and in the meetings, many issues were resolved by consensus of UT Administration and the High Court Administration. Pursuant to our directions over the last six months, joint meetings were held, the officers met, discussed the issues, found solutions, and evolved timelines...However, for long-term solutions, these informal initiatives need to be formalised in the form of a permanent committee - “Lakshadweep Judicial Administration and Infrastructure Committee”."  

In the 60-page judgment, the Court goes in detail into the topography and legal history of the Union Territory. Thereafter, it deals with different topics e-filing and video conferencing court system, 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 Health Care, authorities under the Domestic Violence Act, Probation Officers, Committee under the NDPS Act, and other topics.

e-filing and video conferencing court system

The Court noted that the facilities should be extended to all inhabited island in the Union Territory and not just the three islands where courts are located. Since e-filing rules have not yet been notified fo the UT and the the national e-filing portal does not list it, the Court thought it fit that this be taken up with the NIC.

"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. The e-Sewa Kendras can be manned by regular staff or volunteers. The e-Sewa Kendras help to overcome the digital divide...We reiterate and emphasise that extending these facilities to all inhabited islands in Lakshadweep is of utmost necessity to reduce the disadvantages of distance and isolation, and to make justice accessible to all the residents of the islands," it was observed. 

Power supply

The Court suggested installation of solar plants in court complexes and where it is not feasible, usage of diesel generator or inverters to ensure uninterrupted power supply. It further observed:

"The process of securing a stable power supply for judicial infrastructure in the islands has to be expedited. 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."

Physical Court Infrastructure

The Court noted that construction of new annexes are proposed in the three islands of Kavaratti, Amini and Andrott, where courts are presently situated. It also remarked on the importance of maintaining heritage buildings. It felt that the official quarters for the District Judge at Kavaratti and the ChiefJudicial Magistrate at Amini do not require immediate attention.

The Court further observed:

"...A court complex is not merely a building; it is the seat of justice. Strengthening infrastructure enhances access to justice, improves efficiency, and bridges the gap between the ideals of justice and their realisation. This legal position, underscored by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, applies equally to judicial infrastructure in Lakshadweep. All aspects of court infrastructure in Lakshadweep have to be taken up by the UT Administration on a priority basis."

Non-judicial court staff

The Court noted that UT Administration has agreed to form a committee with representatives of its service department and the District Judiciary, Kavaratti, to discuss the proposal for formulating a separate cadre and service for the judiciary in the UT. This was directed to be taken up on a priority basis.

"An exclusive recruitment mechanism for the judicial department in Lakshadweep is imperative and needs to be created by framing separate recruitment rules within a fixed time frame. Till that time, the transfer and posting of court staff should be effected with the concurrence of the District Judge. However, since no separate recruitment rules have yet been framed for the direct recruitment of ministerial staff to the judiciary in Lakshadweep, this position continues."

Family Court

Regarding establishment of a Family Court in the UT, the Court remarked:

"Establishing a Family Court may be necessary for giving effect to the various provisions under the Family Courts Act, 1984 (Act of 1984) and for fulfilling the scheme of the Act. 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."

Legal Services Authority

The Court noted that the present authority for the union territory is operating from the District Court library in Kavaratti and is lacking in a dedicated physical infrastructure. The UT administration had stated that an appropriate building would be identified in this regard.

Regarding establishment of a mediation centre, the Court noted:

"Although a Mediation Centre has been established on paper in Lakshadweep, no trained mediators or operational centres currently exist. A formal Mediation Centre has to be established to address matrimonial and property disputes effectively. Experienced Senior Mukhtyars could be enrolled as mediators, in addition to those listed under Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure (Alternative Dispute Resolution) Rules, 2008. Mediation training, subject to approval by the Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee, should be undertaken. Emphasis has to be placed on developing a mediation infrastructure in Lakshadweep to ensure effective and timely dispute resolution."

Public Prosecutors

The Court emphasised the need to fill up the vacant posts of Assistant Public Prosecutors and to discontinue the practice of continuing contractual appointments indefinitely.

Advocates

The Court noted that though a Bar Association was formed by the advocates in the island, there exists no Welfare Fund Scheme. The Bar Council of Kerala expressed its willingness to enrol the advocates practicing in Lakshadweep to its welfare schemes, including the Kerala Advocates' Welfare Fund if the Lakshadweep Bar Association submits an application in this regard. 

Mukhtyars

Though the amicus curiae and the Bar Association sought for the abolishment of the mukhtyar system, the Court felt that this was not within the scope of the writ petition. It also noted that the Mukhtyars were not represented in the proceedings.

"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...," the Court further noted.

Authorities under the Juvenile Justice Act

The Court noted the submission of the UT Administration that CWC (Child Welfare Committee) has been constituted and support persons under the POCSO Act are being appointed. The helpline number '108' merging all services, including childline services, is also now functional.

"Regarding the child centre services and care institutions, the UT Administration designated one quarter as a “One Stop Centre” to function as a Childline, Special Home, Shelter Home, Observation Home, and Place of Safety, supervised by the Women & Child Department..Housing all categories in a single One Stop Centre may be inconsistent with the statutory mandate. This aspect will have to be considered by the UT Administration."

Mental Health Care

Noting that mental health care is a subject within the schemes of the Legal Services Authority, the Court observed:

"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. The Legal Services Authority should take note of the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) scheme, which provides for various measures to assist mentally ill individuals, including skill development programs and support for independent living. The Legal Services Authority should also explore ways to ensure proper support for the mental healthcare services in Lakshadweep."

Probation Officers 

The Court recorded that there is no probation officer in the islands at present and observed that this aspect has to be looked into by the UT Administration.

Committees under the NDPS Act

The Court noted that a District Level Drug Disposal Committee has been notified by the UT Administration as mandated under the Act.

Portfolio Judge of the High Court for Lakshadweep

"Considering the need for special attention, a separate Portfolio Judge of the High Court has been nominated for the Lakshadweep district...Since the Portfolio Judge for the district may change from time to time, for the sake of continuity of these measures, the Chief Justice may nominate one High Court Judge for the purpose of monitoring along with the Portfolio Judge. Guidance can be provided by the Portfolio Judge and the nominated Judge," the Court observed. 

Giving detailed directions for all the priority requirements for the improvement of administration of justice in the Union Territory, the Court disposed of the suo motu writ petition.

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

Case Title: Suo Motu v. Union of India and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 510

Counsels for the respondents: Sajith Kumar V. - SC - Lakshadweep Administration, R.V. Sreejith - SC - U.T. Administration Of Lakshadweep, K.R. Ganesh, Adarsh Kumar, E.C. Ahamed Fazil, T. V. Vinu - CGC, 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

Amici Curiae: Enoch David Simon Joel, Aashique Akthar Hajjigothi

Click to Read/Download Judgment