In a suo motu petition concerning the non-functioning of 16 Permanent Lok Adalats, the Rajasthan High Court expressed strong displeasure with the State government’s affidavit and directed the principal secretary of the Department of Law and Legal Affairs to be personally present in court at the next hearing.

A division bench comprising Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Sandeep Shah observed:

“An affidavit has been filed in compliance with this Court’s direction dated May 13, 2025, but it is highly unsatisfactory.”

The Court had initiated proceedings after taking suo motu cognizance of a report published in Dainik Bhaskar, which highlighted that, following a State Government order dated April 9, as many as 16 Permanent Lok Adalats had ceased functioning. The report also noted that approximately 972 cases were pending in Jodhpur alone, with estimates suggesting that nearly 10,000 cases were awaiting resolution across the state.

During Thursday's hearing, amicus curiae and senior advocate Manish Sisodia criticized the government’s affidavit as “cryptic,” stating it failed to mention or attach the April 9 order that triggered the shutdown. The counsel representing the Member Secretary of the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority submitted a compilation of communications, which included two orders dated April 9.

The Court observed that, as per a communication dated November 19, 2024, the Legal Services Authority had proposed the extension of tenure for 21 members of Permanent Lok Adalats across 17 districts. Another communication of the same date referred to Rule 4(2) of the Permanent Lok Adalat (Other Terms and Conditions of Appointment of Chairman and Other Persons) Amendment Rules, 2016. This rule stipulates that the Chairman and Members of Permanent Lok Adalats shall serve for a term of five years or until the age of 65, whichever is earlier.

The amicus curiae emphasized that the use of the term "shall" in Rule 4(2) reflected a clear legislative intent that—subject to satisfactory performance and absence of disqualification or removal under Rule 5—the members must be allowed to complete their full term, even if initially appointed for one or two years.

Following these submissions, the Additional Advocate General appearing for the Principal Secretary sought additional time to file a detailed affidavit.

The Court, however, cautioned the Principal Secretary (respondent no. 4) to remain mindful of his responsibilities and directed that a personal affidavit be filed, clearly explaining why the tenure of the Chairpersons and Members could not be extended in accordance with Rule 4(2).

“Respondent no. 4 shall file his own personal affidavit giving all necessary details and specifically indicating why the tenure of the Chairman and Members of the Lok Adalats cannot be extended as per Rule 4(2),” the bench ordered.

Additionally, the Court directed that on May 22, 2025, the Principal Secretary must appear in person and bring all relevant records related to the appointment, extension, and refusal to extend the tenure of the members of the Permanent Lok Adalats.

The matter will be heard next on May 22, 2025.

Case Title: Suo Moto v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.