JUDGMENT 1. - By This writ petition filed by way of public interest litigation, the petitioner, inter alia, claims basic and minimum facilities and amenities for the advocates and litigants since they do not exist in most of the court premises in the State. The petitioner has given facts and figures which show that by and large for the legal practitioners there are no chambers & Bar rooms and for litigants there are no waiting rooms or sheds. Besides, there are no toilets. They have to sit, wait and even answer the call of nature under the open sky. 2. In Ajmer district total number of advocates, who are members of various Bar associations, is 1166. There are very few chambers in the court premises at various places in the district, and hardly any facilities are available to the advocates and litigants at Ajmer, Puskhar, Beawar, Kekri, Sarwar, Kishangarh, Nasirabad etc. 3. In the district of Alwar, total number of advocates,who are members of various bar associations, is 1376. Only a few chambers for advocates are available in the district court. At various other places in the District, there are no chambers or other facilities for the lawyers and litigants. Most of the advocates at Alwar, Bansur, Behror, Khatoomar, Kishangarh Bas, Laxmangarh, Mundawar, Rajgarh, Thanagazi, Tijara etc. have to sit in the open without any shelter in the court premises. 4. In district Baran, total membership with the various Bar associations is 257. There are few chambers at Chhabra. Most of the advocates have no chambers nor any other facilities and amenities have been provided to them at Chhabra, Anta, Atru, Mangrole, Shahbad, Chipa Board etc. The legal practitioners and litigants have to sit in the open. 5. In district Jhalawar, the total number of advocates, who are members of the different Bar associations, is 273. There are no chambers nor any other facilities have been created for them at Jhalawar, Aklera, Bhawani Mandi, Pirawa, Chaumahala, Khanpur etc. The advocates are sitting in open places. At Aklera the advocates are sitting on both sides of the road in a market place due to the location of the court premises. At Khanpur also, the advocates are sitting in the open. It has been pointed out in the petition that the court itself is running in a room provided by the Gram Panchayat. 6. At Aklera the advocates are sitting on both sides of the road in a market place due to the location of the court premises. At Khanpur also, the advocates are sitting in the open. It has been pointed out in the petition that the court itself is running in a room provided by the Gram Panchayat. 6. It is not necessary for us to specifically refer to the conditions prevailing in the other districts, as they are almost identical to the ones mentioned above. It is well known that in this desert State, during summer season, which lasts for almost nine months, the heat is intolerable and the temperature soars upto 47 - 50 degrees Celsius. The advocates and the litigant public have to remain in the sweltering heat. There are no rest rooms (toilets), no Bar rooms and no litigant sheds and no chambers. There is no adequate arrangement for potable water. The advocates as well as the litigant public have to face inhuman conditions. 7. Winter also brings no comfort to the lawyers and the litigants. During winter, the temperature at various places in the State of Rajasthan plummets considerably and some areas experience severe cold as the temperature reaches freezing point. The Advocates & litigants during the winter - months have to brave the cold since there is hardly any place for them in the premises of the courts which can given them shelter. At some places like Sriganganagar, Hanumangarh, Sikar, Jhunjhunu, Alwar, Bharatpur, Dausa, Kotputli & Dholpur, one encounters dense for during the winter - months. This aggravates the misery of the Advocates & litigants since they have to sit in the open. 8. During rainy - season, the suffering of the Advocates & litigants increases manifolds as there is no protection for them from rain. Their files & books are always in the danger of being soaked. 9. Thus the lawyers and litigants - the officers of the court and consumers of justice, have to brave hear, rain and cold. It is inhuman to subject them to the prevailing conditions. It also affects their dignity. It amounts to clear violation of article- 21 of the Constitution. It is the imperative duty of the State to create facilities in the court complexes, so that the litigants and the Advocates are not exposed to vagaries of nature and are treated in humane manner. It also affects their dignity. It amounts to clear violation of article- 21 of the Constitution. It is the imperative duty of the State to create facilities in the court complexes, so that the litigants and the Advocates are not exposed to vagaries of nature and are treated in humane manner. The State is required to provide proper infrastructure for the effective functioning of the courts. In many places, the infrastructure is lacking. The administration of justice cannot be allowed to suffer for want of funds. There is no doubt that the State has to decide the priorities for spending money, but the requirements of the courts cannot be ignored. Creating proper and adequate infrastructure for the courts should be the top priority of the State. 10. Sometimes, due to inaction of the State the courts are compelled to issue directions, which have financial implications. The State must loosen the strings of its purse, for providing the infrastructure, so that the courts can function effectively and efficiently. In All - India Judges' Association & others v. Union of India & others, AIR 1993 SC 2493 , the Court gave certain directions to the States with regard to performing their obligatory duties, which had financial implications. The observations are apposite and may be quoted : "Although the report made the recommendations in question to further the implementation of the constitutional mandate to make proper justice available to the people, the mandate has been consistently ignored both by the executive and the legislature by neglecting to improve the service conditions. By giving the directions in question, this Court has only called upon the executive and the legislature to implement their imperative duties. The Courts do issue directions to the authorities to perform their obligatory duties whenever there is a failure on their part to discharge them. The power to issue such mandates in proper cases belongs to the Court. As has been pointed out in the judgment under review, this Court was impelled to issue the said directions firstly because the executive and the legislature had failed in their obligations in that behalf. Secondly, the judiciary in this country is a unified institution judicially though not administratively. Hence, uniform designations and hierarchy, with uniform service conditions are unavoidable necessary consequences. Secondly, the judiciary in this country is a unified institution judicially though not administratively. Hence, uniform designations and hierarchy, with uniform service conditions are unavoidable necessary consequences. The further directions given, therefore, should not be looked upon as an encroachment on the powers of the executive and the legislature to determine the service conditions of the judiciary. They are directions to perform the long overdue obligatory duties. The contention with regard to the financial burden likely to be imposed by the directions in question is equally misconceived. Firstly, the Courts do from time to time hand down decisions which have financial implications and the Government is obligated to loosen its purse recurrently pursuant to such decisions. Secondly, when the duties are obligatory, no grievance can be heard that they cast financial burden. Thirdly, compared to the other plan and non - plan expenditure, we find that the financial burden caused on account of the said directions is negligible. We should have thought that such plea was not raised to resist the discharge of the mandatory duties. The contention that the resources of all the States are not uniform has also to be rejected for the same reasons. The directions prescribe the minimum necessary service conditions and facilities for the proper administration of justice. We believe that the quality of justice administered and the caliber of the persons appointed to administer it are not of different grades in different states. Such contentions are ill - suited to the issues involved in the present case. 11. Again in All India Judges' Association & others v. Union of India & others, (2002) 4 SCC 247 , the Supreme Court directed the States to take steps which may be necessary for increasing efficiency of the courts. Those steps obviously had financial implications. 12. We have cited these decisions to buttress the point that financial constraints of the State should not come in the way of creating necessary infrastructure for the courts, lawyers & litigants for the proper administration of justice. 13. A part of the funeral oration on Mr. Those steps obviously had financial implications. 12. We have cited these decisions to buttress the point that financial constraints of the State should not come in the way of creating necessary infrastructure for the courts, lawyers & litigants for the proper administration of justice. 13. A part of the funeral oration on Mr. Justice Story, delivered more than 150 years back by Daniel Webster, which is quoted in the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in (3) All India Judges' Association v. Union of India & others, (1992) 1 SCC 119 , highlights the importance of the judicial Institutions : "Justice, Sir, is the greatest interest of man on earth. It is the ligament which holds civilised nations together. Wherever her temple stands, and so long as it is duly honoured, there is a foundation for social security, general happiness and the improvement and progress of our race. And whoever labours on this edifice with usefulness and distinction, whoever clears its foundations, strengthens its pillars, adorns its entablatures, or contributes to raise its august dome still higher in the skies, connects himself in name and fame and character with that which is and must be as durable as the frame of human society." The State controls the purse. The requirements of the courts must be fulfilled by the State. Out of he total budget outlay, only.071% is being allocated to the administration of justice. We are conscious of the fact that the State has to meet huge expenditure on various projects & salaries of the employees, but the requirements of the courts must be attended to with promptitude. It is trite that too little action & that too, too late does not have desired effect. It is time tested truth that a stitch in time saves nine. 14. The judiciary is one of the three pillars of the democracy. Its requirements of infrastructure cannot be ignored. The High Court knows as to what is needed for making the judicial system effective and efficient. The demand raised by the High Court for creating infrastructure for the courts, ordinarily must be accepted by the State without delay as delay compounds the difficulties of the Judicial administration. Unless the Bench and the Bar have proper facilities, they cannot give their best. The Bench and the Bar are two wheels of the same chariot. The demand raised by the High Court for creating infrastructure for the courts, ordinarily must be accepted by the State without delay as delay compounds the difficulties of the Judicial administration. Unless the Bench and the Bar have proper facilities, they cannot give their best. The Bench and the Bar are two wheels of the same chariot. In case the advocates do not even have the basic facilities, how can they render able assistance to the court? In order to energize the system, it is important that the lawyers are liven minimum basic facilities. They must be allowed to work in conditions, which are dignified & honourable. 15. Since in most of the places there are no facilities for toilets in the court premises, an advocate or litigant has no option but to answer the call of nature in the open. We shudder to think how lady lawyers and female litigants would be managing in such circumstances. No State, which is committed to upholding the dignity of the courts & human rights, can allow such a situation to continue. 16. Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution confers the right on a citizen to practise an profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. The right will lose its efficacy in case one does not have right to discharge his professional functions with dignity and in humane conditions. Article 42 of the Constitution, inter alia, casts a duty on the State to make provision for securing just and humane conditions of work. This the State can achieve by administrative and/or legislative action. The benefit of the aforesaid directive principle contained in Article 42 of the Constitution must be extended to the lawyers. Article 19(1)(g) must be interpreted in the light of Article 42. Article 42, to the extent referred above, complements Article 19(1)(g). The Supreme Court in (4) Minerva Mills Ltd. & others v. Union of India & others, AIR 1980 SC 1789 , (paras 16, 115 and 117) and (2) Mohd. Hanif Quareshi & others v. State of Bihar, AIR 1958 SC 731 , has applied the directive principles to fine - tune the width and ambit of the fundamental rights. The Supreme Court in (4) Minerva Mills Ltd. & others v. Union of India & others, AIR 1980 SC 1789 , (paras 16, 115 and 117) and (2) Mohd. Hanif Quareshi & others v. State of Bihar, AIR 1958 SC 731 , has applied the directive principles to fine - tune the width and ambit of the fundamental rights. Fundamental right to health and medical care was culled out by the Supreme Court by reading Article 21 of the Constitution with directives contained in Article 39(e), 41 and 43 thereof, so as to ensure that the lives of workmen are dignified, meaningful and purposeful. (see Consumer Education & Research Centre & others v. Union of India & others, (1995) 3 SCC 42 - paras 24, 30 and 31) and Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation, (1996) 2 SCC 682 . The Supreme Court for interpreting Article 371D and 302, took aid of the directive principles enshrined in Article 50 and Articles 39 & 43 respectively (see Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh & Others v. L.V.A. Dixitulu & others, (1979) 2 SCC 34 - paras 66 to 78) and (9) Jalan Trading Co. (P) Ltd. & others v. D.M. Aney & another, (1979) 3 SCC 220 . 17. In D. Bhuvan Mohan Patnaik & others v. State of Andhra Pradesh & others, AIR 1974 SC 2092 , the Supreme Court reading Article 21 of the Constitution with Article 42 thereof, observed as follows: "....We cannot do better than say that the directive principle contained in Article 42 of the Constitution that "The State shall make provision for securing just and humane conditions of work" may benevolently be extended to living conditions in jails." 18. Therefore, even in respect of convicts the Supreme Court extended directive principles contained in Article 42 of the Constitution to improve their living conditions in jails. 19. Taking cue from the aforesaid decisions, we hold that under Article 19(1)9g) read with Article 21 and Article 42 lawyers have right to discharge their profession functions with dignity and in congenial, just and humane conditions. 20. As already pointed out, there are no chambers, Bar rooms, litigants' sheds and toilets at several court premises. The lawyers and litigants have no protection against heat, rain and cold. This situation affects their dignity, health and well being. 20. As already pointed out, there are no chambers, Bar rooms, litigants' sheds and toilets at several court premises. The lawyers and litigants have no protection against heat, rain and cold. This situation affects their dignity, health and well being. The State is bound to create just and humane conditions in the court premises for lawyers and litigants. While this right for legal practitioners flows from Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 read with Article 42, for the litigants it emanates from Article 21 of the Constitution. That apart, the administration of justice suffers for lack of infrastructure. 21. Looking to the lack of facilities for the lawyers and litigants, we by order dated June 2, 2004 directed the Law Secretary to the Govt. of Rajasthan, Finance Secretary to the Govt. of Rajasthan and the Registrar General of this court to prepare a plan whereby the basic necessities relating to the infrastructure, bar - rooms, litigants' shed, toilets in the courts etc. could be created. We also directed the State to ensure that drinking water be made available in the courts. For this purpose, we ordered the State to install Water Coolers in every court premises so that the judicial officers, advocates and the litigant public could have the facility of cold water during the hot summer months. We also directed that each Water Cooler to be fitted with a Water Purifier. It appears that pursuant to our order, a meeting took place of the concerned authorities. As regards the provision for potable water in the court premises is concerned, the direction was immediately carried out by the State by sanctioning a sum of Rs. 55 lacs and the said amount was also made available. Insofar as the creation of the infrastructure is concerned, the stand of the State has not been what we expected. Total estimated cost worked out by the P.W.D. for construction of Bar rooms, toilets and litigants' sheds, is 613.67 lacs. For parting with about Rs. 6 crores for providing the minimum basic amenities the State wants to take its own sweet time. This surprises us. The sufferings of the officers of the court and consumers of justice must be removed without undue delay. 22. For parting with about Rs. 6 crores for providing the minimum basic amenities the State wants to take its own sweet time. This surprises us. The sufferings of the officers of the court and consumers of justice must be removed without undue delay. 22. In keeping with the dignity of the courts and having regard to the convenience of the members of the Bar and the litigant public, we consider it appropriate to direct the State to provide Bar - Rooms, litigants' shed and toilets in each of the court - precincts all over the State. The work shall & must be executed and completed by the year 2006. The work shall be commenced in time so that the State does not ask for extension of time to execute the works. With the aforesaid directions & observations, the writ petition is disposed of. The State shall file a compliance report on or before December 31, 2006. In case the compliance report is not filed, the matter shall be listed after the period, which has been allowed to the respondents to complete the work.order accordingly. *******