NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on Thursday a PIL filed by lawyer and BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party) leader, Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, seeking a direction to establish a Revenue Judicial Service Cadre for adjudication of the land disputes cases.
As per the causelist uploaded in the top court, the plea is scheduled to be taken up for hearing on April 2.
The petitioner, Upadhyay in his Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed in the apex court, sought a direction to the Centre and States to establish a Revenue Judicial Service Cadre for adjudication of the land disputes in spirit of the judgement of the Allahabad High Court in Chandra Bhan against Deputy Director of Consolidation case.
He further sought the SC's direction to the Centre & States to prescribe minimum Legal Qualification and Judicial Training Module in consultation with the High Court for Consolidation/Revenue Officers adjudicating the Title, Succession, Inheritance, Possession and other Property Rights.
"Direct & declare that the adjuducation of title, succession, inheritance, possession and other property rights by the public servants without formal legal education and judicial training is legally impermissible. The top court should also direct and declare that the adjudication of the title, succession, inheritance, possession and other property rights shall be supervised and monitored by the respective State High Court also," Upadhyay said in his PIL.
The petitoner said, there is a clear distinction between judicial officers with formal legal education and those without it.
In the context of adjudicating land and title disputes, officers with legal education or background are equipped to apply settled principles of property law, appreciate evidentiary standards, and interpret statutory and personal laws through reasoned analysis, thereby enabling decisions that reflect due application of mind.
In contrast, officers lacking such legal education are not institutionally or intellectually equipped to undertake this exercise, increasing the likelihood of errors in the determination of civil rights errors which, in light of statutory finality, acquire irreversible consequences.
He also said that departmental or in-service training cannot cure this foundational defect. Such training is limited in scope, lacks the depth and rigour of formal legal education, and does not ensure consistent application of judicial standards.
Moreover, he added that there exists no uniform or enforceable guarantee that such training is systematically imparted or adequately completed, rendering reliance on it insufficient to justify conferment of binding adjudicatory powers over civil rights.