Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.

» Home
Thursday, November 21, 2024

West UP Deserves Statehood But Has Not Even A Bench

Posted in: General Practice
Mon, Aug 6, 18, 13:46, 6 Years ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 29594
West UP which deserved statehood right since 1947 has not even a single bench of a high court since last more than 70 years


It has to be said right at the outset that it is most disgusting, disheartening and deplorable that West UP which deserved statehood right since 1947 has not even a single bench of a high court since last more than 70 years! What bigger proof is needed than this to highlight that West UP has always received a step motherly treatment from Centre for reasons known best to it? West UP's population at 9 crore is more than all states except Bihar, Maharashtra and UP of which it too is a part and accounts for nearly half of the population of UP!

Here too West UP has area of 98,933 square km which is more than even Bihar with 94,000 square km! Still it has not even bench leave alone high court! on what ground can this be ever justified?

It is on record that Sampoornanand had recommended a high court bench to be created for West UP at Meerut way back in 1955 after more than 100 elected representatives met him and apprised him of the same but the then PM Jawaharlal Nehru turned down the legitimate demand even though he had allowed a bench to be created at Lucknow in 1948 on July 1 more than 70 years ago! This despite the glaring fact that Allahabad is just about 200 km away from Lucknow! Still why Lucknow with just 12 districts and area of 62,000 square km was given preference over West UP?

Needless to say, at that point of time even Uttarakhand formed part of UP and together with West UP accounted for 40 districts still why not a single bench was created? Why the people especially litigants of hilly areas now forming a separate state called Uttarakhand along with West UP were compelled to travel thousands of kilometers all the way to Allahabad to get justice? Why did Jawaharlal Nehru not accede to the commendable recommendation by the then UP CM Sampoornanand to create a high court bench in Meerut in 1955 which would have considerably reduced the distance as compared to Allahabad not just from 26 districts of West UP but also from the hilly areas district numbering 13 which now form part of Uttarakhand but which till 2000 formed part of UP and had to travel so far all the way to Allahabad?

What is even more reprehensible is that when Centre led by the then PM late Mrs Indira Gandhi herself appointed Justice Jaswant Singh Commission headed by former Supreme Court Judge Justice Jaswant Singh in late 1970s to look into where all high court benches are needed had explicitly recommended that UP must have 3 more benches at Agra, Dehradun and Nainital apart from the one at Lucknow but not even one bench was created by Centre which is totally incomprehensible even though Centre took no time in creating a high court bench for Maharashtra at Aurangabad which already had bench at Nagpur and Panaji, for Tamil Nadu at Madurai and for West Bengal in Jalpaiguri which already had a bench at Port Blair for just 3 lakh people of Andaman and Nicobar islands! It was so baffling to see that Centre could not come up with any cogent and convincing argument to justify denying even a single bench to UP!

It is not hidden from anyone that UP has maximum pending cases in the country both in the high court at more than 10 lakh whereas other big states have just about 1 lakh and some have just few thousands and some like Sikkim have just 100 still have high court and same is the case also in the lower courts with more than 60 lakh pending cases which is highest in India yet has just one bench only! Not just this, UP is among the largest states, is the most populated state with more than 19 lakh population as per the 2011 census, maximum MPs in Lok Sabha at 80, maximum MPs in Rajya Sabha at 31, maximum MLAs in Vidhan Sabha at 404 and in Vidhan Parishad at 104, maximum PM including the present PM Narendra Modi who represents Varanasi, maximum villages more than one lakh whereas no other state has more than 5000 villages, maximum districts at 75, maximum Judges in high court at 160, maximum Judges in lower courts at nearly 2500, maximum poverty, maximum cases of dacoity, robbery, riots, murders etc and here too West UP owes for more than half of them and still it has neither high court nor bench!

It is not hidden from anyone that Allahabad high court is the oldest high court in India along with Calcutta and Madras High Court which completed its 150 years in 2016 and is also among the biggest in Asia yet has just one bench at Lucknow which is so close to Allahabad! This is what is most condemnable! If Lucknow is capital then so are Bhubaneshwar which is capital of Odisha, Bhopal which is capital of Madhya Pradesh, Thiruvananthapuram which is capital of Kerala and Dehradun which is capital of Uttarakhand but they have neither high court nor bench then why Lucknow was accorded VVIP treatment at the cost of West UP? Why Centre did not take into account that the high court and benches of 8 states including Delhi, Gwalior bench of Madhya Pradesh high court, Jaipur bench of Rajasthan high court among others and above all even Lahore high court in Pakistan are nearer to West UP as compared to Allahabad?

Why West UP with more than 26 districts and more than 9 crore population are punished since independence to travel all the way to Allahabad in which a whole night is spent and many times without reservation also since 1947 till 2018 to attend court hearings? Why 2 benches were approved straightaway for Dharwad and Gulbarga by Centre for just 4 and 8 districts in Karnataka in 2008 which already had bench at Hubli even though Karnataka has just less than 2 lakh pending cases whereas UP has more than 10 lakh pending cases and West UP alone has more than 5 lakh pending cases which is more than whole of Karnataka put together and populationwise also Karnataka has just 6 crore population and West UP has 9 crore population still it has not even a bench? Why Centre didn't approve former UP CM Mayawati's laudable recommendation to create West UP as a separate state in 1995 when she was CM?

Why Centre approved statehood for just 88 lakh people of Uttarakhand with 13 districts in 2000 but not even a bench for more than 9 crore population and 26 districts of West UP leave alone statehood as recommended by former UP CM Mayawati? Why even after so many UP CM like ND Tiwari, Rajnath Singh among others recommended a high court bench for West UP was it not accepted by Centre? Why Centre has repeatedly succumbed to those opposing a bench in West UP?

With what face Centre approves one more bench for Maharashtra in 2018 which already had 3 benches at Kolhapur for just 6 districts but stubbornly refuses even a single bench for West UP for 26 districts even though Justice Jaswant Commission had recommended 3 benches for UP? With what face Centre repeatedly assures lawyers of West UP to end their 6 month strike as was done in 2001, 3 to 4 month strike as was done in 2014-15 and one to 2 month strike as normally happens year after year since last many decades apart from the strike of Saturday continuously from May 1981 till August 2018 as also many times on Wednesdays and now also from 6thto 8thAugust the lawyers of West UP of more than 20 districts will be on strike and this can intensify further if Centre fails to address this vexed issue once and for all yet takes no action in this regard? With what face can Centre cite the lameless excuse of not getting recommendation from the State Chief Minister or State Chief Justice for creating a bench which is just not required as per Section 51 of the States Reorganisation Act of 1956 which postulates that Centre can create a high court bench for UP, Bihar and Jammu and Kashmir by directly bringing it up in Parliament? None other than former Attorney General while he was in office as Attorney General in 2001 had categorically said that, "Centre is empowered to create a high court bench anywhere in UP without any recommendation from the Chief Justice or Chief Minister or anyone else in this regard"!

With what face can Centre ignore what its own top leader and former PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee himself demanded – the creation of a bench in West UP and that too right inside Parliament in 1986? With what face can Centre ignore what Satyapal Singh who is Union Minister and BJP MP from Baghpat had demanded in Parliament a long time back that UP need 5 benches at Meerut, Agra, Jhansi, Gorakhpur and Varanasi? With what face can Centre not listen even to its own other senior Union Cabinet Ministers like Home Minister Rajnath Singh, Dr Mahesh Sharma, Gen VK Singh among others who have all demanded bench in West UP at some point of time or the other?

With what face can Centre not listen event o its own former Union Ministers like Sanjeev Baliyan who just recently forcefully raised the demand for a bench in West UP on several grounds and rightly asserted that for just 10,000 lawyers of Allahabad, the neck of more than 8 crore people of West UP cannot be strangulated? With what face can Centre not listen to so many of its other BJP MPs like Rajinder Agarwal from Meerut, BJP MP Vijaypal Singh Tomar who too recently raised it in Parliament among others and not relent even though its own national BJP President Amit Shah too had assured the lawyers that a high court bench would be created here as the demand is totally justified?

Why Centre even disregarded what former Chairman of Supreme Court Bar Association BN Krishnamani said so eloquently that, "only by the creation of a high court bench in any of the districts in West UP will the people living there get real justice"? If UP can't be given more benches and West UP can't have even one bench which actually deserves statehood in the real sense then all benches in India must be disbanded right now because it is the people of West UP who are suffering the most because of no bench here and have to travel the most!

What a pity thatAssam with just about 2 crore population had 7 high court benches before Manipur, Meghalaya and Tripura were given high court itself for just 27, 29 and 36 lakh population, Sikkim with just 6 lakh population and less than 100 pending cases has high court and above all even Port Blair with just 3 lakh population has bench but West UP with more than 9 crore population and more than half of the total pending cases of UP has not even a single bench of high court! Why Centre is clinging with the recommendation made by the Law Commission in 1956 in its fourth report that more benches should not be created while not caring for the 230threport of Law Commission made in 2009 which recommended creation of more benches and here too why just UP is being singled out?Why can't one bench at least be approved straightaway for West UP at any of the 26 districts?

Why should the more than 9 crore people of West UP be denied "speedy Justice", "justice at doorsteps" and "affordable cheap justice"? Why should the people be made to travel so far even after more than 70 years of independence? It is a national tragedy that West UP which deserves statehood since independence has not even a bench more than 70 years later in 2018! No PM till date has dared to show the political will to address it till now even though there have been repeated agitations, repeated strikes, repeated shutdown of West UP many times and what not over it! Why the constitutional right of more than 9 crore people of West UP of having access to "speedy and cheap justice" is being denied even after more than 70 years of independence? Can Centre answer?

Rajendra Singh Jani, Advocate,
President, Meerut Bar Association,
Chairman of Central Action Committee for Establishment of High Court Bench in West UP,
Chamber No. 7, Civil Court, Near Western Kutchery Gate, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh.

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Rajendra Singh Jani, Advocate
Member since Aug 1, 2018
Location: Meerut, Uttar Pradesh
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
India is going on grate path of welfare-state. Mahatma Gandhi's greatest ambition for India was to wipe every tear from every eye
Social justice means a way of life with liberty, equality and fraternity as the principles of life.
BJP after always repeatedly assuring the lawyers of West UP that they will make sure that a high court bench is created soon here as soon as it comes to power has reneged on its tall promises and has done virtually nothing on this score till now
To start with, I say this not as a lawyer of West UP but as a good citizen of India that the unending protest of lawyers of West UP severely affects the litigants who have to wait repeatedly to get justice. But who is responsible for this
It is most baffling to note that Centre since 1947 till 2018 has consistently, callously, blatantly and brazenly disregarded the numerous hardships faced by the more than 9 crore people of West UP in travelling nearly 700 to 750 km
Uttarakhand High Court in the landmark case of Lalit Kumar v Union of India & Ors in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 203 of 2014 dated 12 June 2018 directed the Centre to establish a Regional Bench of Armed Forces Tribunal in the State of Uttarakhand within four months.
High Court of Kerala has in a historic move directed the Indian Railways to treat identity cards issued to lawyers by respective Bar Councils as a valid identity proof to undertake a train journey/travel.
Constitution of Special District Courts to try cases as per the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Foreign law Firms cannot Practice in India, but they are free to give legal advice regarding foreign law on diverse international legal issues on a fly in and fly out basis if it does not amount to practice.
Each and every person who is humane whether he/she is Indian or Pakistani or anyone else is overjoyed on learning the news of the release of Abhinandan
crime against women are multiplying most rapidly in UP and this is most felt in West UP which is the worst affected of all the regions of UP.
In our country around 5 lakh accidents take place every year and 1.5 lakh deaths occur. In world highest number of deaths due to the accidents take place in India. It is our responsibility to control these deaths and promote road safety.
It was decided unanimously by all the lawyers of 22 districts of West UP to go on strike on November 25, 2019 and observe it as  protest day. The lawyers of West UP are not happy with the statement of Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad about the creation of a high court bench in West UP
parents of a married son are not entitled to claim filial compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Rambabu Singh Thakur v/s Sunil Arora serious note of the increase in the number of tainted candidates facing criminal cases entering politics. It has issued a slew of directions in this latest, landmark and extremely laudable judgment which we shall discuss later.
J&K High Court Bar Association v. UOI dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought prohibition of use of pellet guns. How long can security forces restrain themselves if public becomes unruly and start pelting stones, bottles and what not
Harmanbhai Umedbhai Patel vs Bindu Kumar Mohanlal Shahupheld an order passed by the Bar Council of India (BCI) dismissing a complaint alleging professional misconduct by a lawyer. There was no professional misconduct found on the part of the lawyer.
Kangana Ranaut vs Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai restraining the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai from carrying out any further demolition at Kangana Ranaut's residence in Bandra
The Telangana Fire Works Dealers Association vs. P Indra Prakash has modified the order of the Telangana High Court which imposed a complete and immediate ban on the sale and use of firecrackers across the state during Diwali to fall in line with the directions imposed by the National Green Tribunal on November 9
The non-availability of birth certificate is issued when the person does not have a birth proof. One can visit the municipal corporation, gram panchayat or chief medical officer in the area where he or she is born and apply for this document, showing address proof and proofs of 2 more witnesses on an affidavit.
M. Thangaraj (Ex. MC) v. The District Collector, Dindigul to follow the ritual of taking a procession around the temple (Girivalam) has recently on January 18, 2021 observed that all the religious processions should spread positivity and brotherhood and in no manner should be a cause for any communal disturbance.
K Raju v. UOI only senior citizens/parents are entitled to file an appeal against an order passed by the Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007.
Kolkata Municipal Corporation authorities to take action against people found slaughtering cattle including cows and/or exhibiting for sale flesh of slaughtered cattle and/or selling cattle meat.
Legal Industry and the Enhancement of the Technology Towards the Progressive Development In An Amicable Manner
Omnarayan Sharma Vs MP issued directions to the District Legal Services Authorities and the State Authority for ensuring implementation of poverty alleviation schemes promulgated under provisions of Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 and NALSA
Javed v Uttar Pradesh that the cow should be declared the national animal and cow protection should be made a fundamental right of the Hindus because we know that when the country's culture and its faith get hurt, the country becomes weak.
The ‘Green Channel’ is an automated and transparent system for gaining approval for certain type and combination of mergers and acquisition.
Hasae @ Hasana Wae vs UP that dilution of constitutional autonomy of the High Courts would threaten the concept of judicial federalism envisaged in the Constitution and affirmed by judicial precedents.
Madhya Pradesh vs Pujari Utthan Avam Kalyan Samiti that the presiding deity of the temple is the owner of the land attached to the temple and Pujari is only to perform puja and to maintain the properties of the deity.
Alkesh Vs MP in a case under SC/ST Act, the caste of the complainant is of paramount importance and is a sine qua non and that it can't be assumed that the complainant would forget to mention in the FIR that the assailants had made aspersions against his caste.
The non-availability of birth certificate is a document to register unregistered birth. It can also be used in case the applicant has lost his birth certificate to a fire, flood or any other reason.
a Dalit man named Lakhbir Singh aged 35 years who was a food server with no political affiliation of any kind or any past criminal record would first be beaten black
Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). Kapil Sibal states The whole Act is an attempt to aggrandize the power of the State.
Char Dham Highway expansion in full court room exchange took the extremely commendable, clear, cogent, composed, courageous and convincing stand that concerns of defence forces cannot be overridden.
Bindu v. Allahabad that as per Article 233(2), a person seeking appointment as a District Judge must be practicing as an advocate for continuous 7 years (without any break) on the date of application.
TC Gupta v. UOI that the petitioner-advocate who in more than one matters, has indulged in filing Original Applications in the Tribunal as well as writ petitions in the High Court and has personally signed the pleadings etc without having been specifically authorized in this regard by the litigants which cannot be glossed over.
Swaran Kaur vs Punjab that entitlement for the grant of family pension to the dependent parents needs to be seen after the widow or the children loose their eligibility for the grant of the said benefit.
Zubair Ahmed Teli Vs. Union Territory of J&K that there is no requirement of prior consideration of the social investigation report by Juvenile Justice Board while considering a bail plea under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection Act,
Chandrashekhar R vs Karnataka that Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution embodies the principle of religious tolerance which is a characteristic of Indian civilization disposed of a public interest litigation alleging that the contents of Azan
Suresh Kumar vs CP upholding the dismissal of a police head constable who was caught with 75 dirhams while on duty of checking passengers passports of the Indira Gandhi International Airport in 1996, observing that the police officers who break law must be dealt with iron hands.
Mohd Abdul Khaliq Vs UP that the Central Government would take the request appropriate decision to ban cow slaughter in the country and to declare the same as a protected national animal.
Nikhil Singh Vs UOI that: As would be evident from the chart supplied by Dr KN Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, most of the Airports/Airstrips in the State of Bihar are non-functional.
While striking entirely the right chord as the lawyers anticipated also, we saw how just recently it was none other than the Executive Committee of the Supreme Court Bar Association
Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President Dr Adish C Aggarwala who recently got elected as President after surpassing many of his strong competitors with most strongest being Mr Dushyant Dave
Al Tawaf Hajj And Umrah Travel And Tourism vs UoI that: Haj Pilgrimage and the ceremonies involved therein and the ceremonies involved therein fall within the ambit of a religious practice, which is protected by the Constitution of India.
It is ‘shockingly bizarre’ that UP has maximum pending cases among all States that is more than 10 lakhs in High Courts and about a crore in lower courts and has maximum population
South Delhi Municipal Corporation vs BN Magon that an advocate’s office run from a residential building is not subject to property tax under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act as a business building.
Meena Pradhan vs Kamla Pradhan that a will is required to fulfill all the formalities required under Section 63 of the Succession Act.
Whenever you are in doubt, or when the self becomes too much, recall the face of the poorest and the weakest man/woman
Top