File report on installing ACs in trial courts in 2 weeks: HC to govt

High Court Pressures Government on Air Conditioning Installation

The Bombay High Court has intensified its push for the installation of air conditioning units in trial courts across Goa, granting the state government just two weeks to submit a comprehensive status report on the matter. During a recent hearing on a petition seeking AC facilities in trial courts in Mapusa, the court expressed growing impatience with the prolonged delays in implementing this essential infrastructure improvement. The division bench comprising justices Suman Sham and Amit Jamsandekar made it clear that if no tangible progress is demonstrated by the next scheduled date, the High Court will consider issuing consequential orders and may direct responsible officers to appear personally before the bench to explain the delays.

The Challenge of Heat and Humidity in Court Complexes

The case highlights a longstanding dispute over working conditions in judicial facilities, with court employees and bar associations across the state repeatedly emphasizing the urgent need for climate control systems. The Mapusa Bar Association presented compelling arguments during the proceedings, noting that summers are rapidly approaching and that existing delays have already stretched well beyond reasonable timelines. The association's representatives stressed that despite various administrative approvals and the floating of tenders for selecting agencies to execute the work, critical financial concurrence remains outstanding, effectively stalling progress on this crucial infrastructure project.

Court officials and staff members have consistently described the working conditions in trial courts during summer months as deplorable and nearly impossible to manage. The Mapusa Bar Association made a compelling case that air conditioning is not a luxury amenity but rather a dire necessity for maintaining functional court operations. The bar association emphasized that the building currently housing these courts is an old structure that was not originally designed to withstand the extreme climatic conditions that Goa experiences, particularly during the sweltering months from April through August when temperatures regularly soar near 40 degrees Celsius and humidity levels reach oppressive heights.

Administrative Obstacles and Financial Hurdles

The bar association further pointed out that this issue has remained pending for an extended period and should have been resolved long ago, especially given that other court complexes across the state have already been equipped with adequate air conditioning facilities. This existing disparity demonstrates both the pressing need for such measures and the proven willingness and capability of the state authorities to undertake such projects when properly prioritized.

It is impossible to work in the summer months when heat and humidity levels are at their peak, and air conditioning should be treated as a matter of necessity rather than luxury for judicial functioning.

During the court proceedings, the government representative acknowledged that while administrative approval and tender processes had been completed, and an agency had been selected to execute the installation work, a critical hurdle remained unresolved. The state has not yet secured the necessary financial concurrence required to move forward with the actual installation phase of the project. This bureaucratic bottleneck has effectively frozen progress despite the apparent readiness of other procedural elements. The High Court's directive for a status report within two weeks puts direct pressure on government officials to expedite this financial clearance process and demonstrate concrete movement toward implementation.

Setting Precedent for Worker Welfare

The bench's warning about potential consequential orders represents a significant escalation in the court's approach to this matter. By threatening to direct officers responsible for the delays to appear personally before the High Court, the judges are signaling that mere excuses and explanations will no longer suffice. This judicial pressure mechanism is designed to cut through administrative inertia and ensure that decision-makers at higher levels give this project the urgent attention it requires. The court's stern approach reflects a broader judicial concern about ensuring dignified and functional working conditions for court staff members who play vital roles in the administration of justice.

The High Court's intervention in this matter sends an important message about judicial commitment to ensuring appropriate working conditions for all court personnel. The courts have previously recognized that judicial and non-judicial staff members serve as the backbone of court functioning and deserve treatment with parity. This principle extends beyond just judges and lawyers to encompass the numerous support staff who work tirelessly to keep the judicial system operational. The push for air conditioning facilities reflects a broader acknowledgment that employees cannot be expected to perform their duties effectively in extremely uncomfortable conditions that compromise both their health and productivity.

The case also underscores the ongoing tension between budget constraints and the necessity of providing basic infrastructure improvements. While government officials have sometimes cited financial burden as a reason for delays, the High Court has made clear that such excuses are insufficient justification for denying workers reasonable working conditions. The court's directive for the state to augment power supplies if necessary, even at additional cost, demonstrates judicial determination to prioritize worker welfare over narrow budgetary considerations. This principled stance sets an important precedent for how other government institutions should approach infrastructure improvements in judicial facilities.

The two-week deadline set by the High Court marks a critical juncture in this prolonged dispute. Government agencies must now move swiftly to obtain the necessary financial approvals and demonstrate tangible progress toward the installation of air conditioning systems in trial courts. The bar association and court employees will be watching closely to see whether this judicial directive finally results in concrete action or whether further delays and excuses emerge. The outcome of this case will likely influence how seriously government authorities treat similar infrastructure and welfare concerns raised by court employees in the future.

In conclusion, the Bombay High Court's directive represents a firm stance on ensuring that Goa's trial courts are equipped with essential air conditioning facilities to provide dignified working conditions. The two-week deadline for a status report, combined with the threat of consequential orders, demonstrates the court's determination to cut through administrative delays and bureaucratic obstacles. The case highlights the ongoing challenge of balancing fiscal constraints with the fundamental need to maintain functional and humane working environments in judicial institutions. As the government works to meet this deadline, the resolution of this matter will serve as a significant indicator of the state's commitment to supporting its judicial infrastructure and the dedicated professionals who work within it.