HP High Court Orders Finance Secy To Appear With ₹10 Crore Draft Over State's Failure To Release Funds For Judiciary; Warns Of Contempt

However, the Court also clarified that if the outstanding amount, which is to be sanctioned for the day-to-day running of the judiciary, is cleared and disbursed before the next date, the finance secretary does not have to appear in person.

The Court held that the State's continued failure to release funds was hampering the day-to-day functioning of the judiciary, amounting to interference in the administration of justice and attracting the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma remarked that: “The lack of payment is hampering this Court from running its day-to-day functioning... apparently, prima facie, prejudicing and interfering and intending to interfere in the due course of judicial proceedings.”

Further the Court observed that “action of the State is apparently, prima facie, prejudicing and interfering and intending to interfere in the due course of judicial proceedings and the administration of justice under Sections 2(c), 2(i) and 3(i) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, apart from the violation of the order of the Apex Court.”

The Court heard the matter under a suo motu public interest litigation initiated in 2023, which was prompted by persistent delays in the payment of administrative expenses to both retired justices and courts.

It was informed by the registrar to the High Court that the total pending payment from the state government is more than Rs. 10 crore, which includes general administrative expenses and new court vehicles purchased.

The Court also observed that in July 2023, a request was made for the creation of 7 courts of Additional District Judges and 39 courts of Civil Judges, the first phase out of need for 10 courts of Additional District Judges and 87 Courts of Civil Judges, which is still pending and in spite of various requests, the State Government has not acted on the same.

Further, the Court noted that the State has not constituted any permanent Lok Adalat despite its statutory duty under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, and even the stipend of law interns could not be enhanced due to “financial exigencies.”

The matter has been listed on 13 November 2025 for compliance.

Case Name: Court on its motion v/s State of H.P. and ors

Case No.: CWPIL No.46 of 2023

For the Petitioner: Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pranjal Munjal, Advocate, as Amicus Curiae

For the Respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents- State