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

Centre Must Now Create HC Bench In West UP

Posted in: Judgment Reviews
Wed, Nov 21, 18, 16:04, 6 Years ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 15 - hits: 3816
many other UP Chief Ministers like ND Tiwari, Rajnath Singh and others too suported the demand for a high court bench in West UP but Centre never cooperated

At the very outset, it must be stated first and foremost that the Supreme Court has not rejected the petition to create a high court bench in West UP as had been widely reported in some newspapers in Hindi but has only clarified that the decision to create a high court bench in West UP does not come under the purview of judicial orders and it is for the Centre to decide finally on it. It also cannot be dismissed lightly that the Supreme Court appreciated the good issues raised in the petition by a women advocate KR Chitra who had filed the petition for social organisation which is an NGO named “Fight For Human Rights” and conceded the strong points raised validly by her as the people of West UP of more than 26 districts numbering more than 9 crore are compelled to travel all the way to Allahabad which is about 600 to 750 km away from most of the districts as both High Court is in Eastern UP at Allahabad and a single bench just about 200 km away from Allahabad at Lucknow since July 1, 1948 and ever since then not a single bench has been created any where in any hook and corner of UP! This despite the glaring fact that many former UP CM like first and foremost Sampoornanand in 1955 had very stoutly and strongly raised the legitimate demand for the creation of a high court bench in West UP at Meerut but Nehru didn’t accept his landmark and laudable recommendation!

Not just this, even many other UP Chief Ministers like ND Tiwari, Rajnath Singh and others too suported the demand for a high court bench in West UP but Centre never cooperated in taking this landmark and laudable recommendation to its logical conclusion! What is more, even this is not enough! In 1995-96, the then UP CM wrote to Centre that West UP be created as a separate state to be named “Harit Pradesh” but again Centre did not accept it which if accepted would have ensured not just high court bench but high court itself for West UP!

What is worst is that Centre did not even accept the most historic recommendation of Justice Jaswant Singh Commission to create 3 high court benches for the then undivided UP at Agra, Nainital and Dehradun while wasting no time to create a high court bench for Maharashtra at Kolhapur even though Bombay High Court already had benches at Nagpur and Panaji as also at Jalpaiguri in West Bengal even though Bengal already had bench for just 3 lakh people of Andaman and Nicobar islands and at Madurai in Tamil Nadu! How long will Centre keep trotting out lame excuses for not creating a high court bench in West UP?

Why this present dispensation tends to be oblivious of the unpalatable truth that their topmost leader and former PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee had himself supported the creation of a bench in West UP and had raised this sensisitive issue right in Parliament in Lok Sabha when he was the Opposition Leader in 1986? Why Centre also overlooks that it own national President Amit Shah, PM Narendra Modi and top Union Cabinet ministers like Home Minister Rajnath Singh, Gen VK Singh, Dr Mahesh Sharma, Satyapal Singh who had even demanded 5 benches for UP at Meerut, Agra, Varanasi, Gorakhpur and Jhansi and many others including former Union Ministers like Sanjeev Baliyan and all the elected representatives from West UP? Why Centre also overlooks that it is West UP which owes for more than half of the total pending cases of UP and this all the more necessitates the urgent setting up of a high court bench in West UP?

Why Centre also ignores that UP CM Yogi Adityanath himself had earlier supported the demand for more benches in UP and as MP had demanded high court bench for Gorakhpur in 1998 and was under the wrong impression that Supreme Court has to create bench in UP which the Supreme Court just recently has clarified that it is for the Centre to take a final call on it? Why Centre has no issue if one more bench is created for a peaceful state like Maharashtra which already had 3 benches at Kolhapur for just 6 districts but is not ready to concede for a bench of high court in any hook and corner of UP except the one created more than 70 years ago by Nehru at Lucknow for just 12 districts not even for more than 25 districts of West UP? Why Centre ignores what the former UP Chief Justice Dilip Babasaheb Bhosale who just recently relinquished office had said while he was Chief Justice of UP that, “Women in UP are not safe even on national highways with their families whereas in Mahrashtra women can venture out anywhere alone at any time without any fear” still see the stark reality that Maharashtra has 4 benches and UP just one and West UP which reports maximum cases has none?

Why Centre ignores that Allahabad High Court is among the oldest high courts in India along with Calcutta and Bombay and is the biggest court in whole of Asia which has maximum Judges 160 still has just one bench only which is the least in India and yet nothing has been done other than what Nehru did 70 years back when he created a bench for Lucknow for just 12 districts and since then status quo continues unabashedly which is most repugnant and reprehensible? Why Centre ignores that cases in High Courts far exceed the lower courts pending cases also still UP has just one bench only and so is the case with other big states like Rajasthan and others? Why Centre ignores that this is despite the irrefutable and irreversible truth that the 230th report of Law Commission of India had categorically and convincingly supported the setting up of more benches in UP?

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 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? Disgraceful!

How can it be ignored that Supreme Court has now itself made the position clear on this all important topic? How long will Centre keep passing the ball of decision making on Supreme Court even now when the Supreme Court has explicitly made it clear its unflinching stand on this all important issue? How long will Centre keep overlooking the tremendous problems faced by the people of West UP in travelling whole night many times without reservation all the way to Allahabad, huge expenses incurred in staying expenses, hiring lawyer expenses etc?

How long will Centre ignore that the high court and bench of 8 states are closer to West UP than Allahabad High Court? How long will Centre ignore that even Lahore High Court in Pakistan is nearer to West UP as compared to Allahabad? How long will Centre ignore that the poupulation of West UP alone is more than several states put together still why it has not even a high court bench leave alone high court as ideally should have been the case by creating it as a separate state as recommended rightly by former UP CM Mayawati?

How long will Centre ignore that lawyers of West UP have gone on strike for 6 months, 4 to 5 months, for a month and for several weeks in last few decades while pursuing relentlessly their legitimate and firm demand for a high court bench to be set up in West UP? How long will Centre ignore that lawyers of more than 20 districts have been going on strike relentlessly every Saturday since May 1981 till now even 38 years later? How long will Centre ignore that lawyers of West UP have on many occasions even gone on strike every Wednesday demanding the creation of a high court bench in West UP still it never showed the foresight to address this key issue?

What practical purpose is served by ensuring that there is just a single bench for such a large and lawless state like UP slammed by former UN Secretary General Ban ki moon as “rape and crime capital of India” which has maximum population more than 22 crores as UP CM Yogi Adityanath and PM Narendra Modi keep mentioning time and again, maximum villages more than one lakh whereas no other state has more than 5000 villages, maximum towns more than 900, maximum districts at 75, maximum MPs for Lok Sabha at 80, maximum MPs for Rajya sabha at 31, maximum MLAs in Vidhan Parishad at 104, maximum MLAs in Vidhan Sabha at 404, maximum pending cases at more than 10 lakh which is more than 10 small states put together and here too West UP owes for more than half of them, maximum Judges in High Courts at 160, maximum Judges in lower courts which is more than several states put together, maximum Mayors, maximum elected represnetatives, maximum incidents of crime, maximum incidents of riots and communal violence etc? It is a crying national shame for which we all need to hang our heads in shame and sorrow! Centre must now step on the gas and act right now by promptly ordering the creation of a high court bench in West UP without forwarding any lame excuse of any kind which just doesn’t wash!

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
Arun Kumar Bhadoria v State, Improve Working Conditions For Police And Ensure Minimum Three Promotions For All Cops
Senior Citizen Welfare Organization & Another v State of Uttarakhand & Another in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 52 of 2013 with far reaching consequences, the Uttarakhand High Court on June 12, 2018 has issued a slew of directions for welfare and protection of rights of senior citizens in the state.
in Arun Kumar v State of Uttarakhand and other [Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2112 of 2011] dated July 6, 2018 issued a slew of landmark directions to ensure that road safety is enhanced to the best possible extent.
It is a matter of deepest regret that both the Congress and the BJP which have ruled India from 1947 to 2018 fully and firmly support the unrestricted, unaccounted and undisclosed political donations to political parties from foreign countries.
Delhi High Court in Jasmeen Kaur v Union of India and others in W.P.(C) 7040/2018 while holding merit over technical grounds has opened up a closed opportunity for an aspiring medico to register for the second round of counselling for deemed universities after the due date. How can merit be defeated on technical ground?
What will the lawyers of West UP do on August 4? Strike like they do every Saturday since May 1981.
The State of Rajasthan v Mohan Lal, Minced no words in sending out a clear and categorical message to all courts below that courts must see that the public doesn’t lose confidence in the judicial system.
Alim v State of Uttarakhand, The Uttarakhand High Court issued a slew of directions for the welfare of cows and other stray cattle in the state.
Chhitij Kishore Sharma v Mr Justice Lok Pal Singh while holding that contempt proceedings cannot be initiated against a Judge of Court of Record, on allegations of committing a contempt of his own Court has dismissed as not maintainable.
ection 377 of the IPC has been decriminalised partially by a Five Judge Constitution Bench of Supreme Court for sex between consenting adults on a batch of petitions filed.
In Mohammed Imran v Maharashtra has directed the state authorities to reconsider the candidature of a successful aspirant for judicial service, whose selection for appointment was cancelled on the ground of 'Moral Turpitude' and even high court had turned down his plea against cancellation.
Swapnil Tripathi v Supreme Court of India has clearly and convincingly held that the Court proceedings shall be live-streamed in the larger public interest.
dismissed the plea by Associated Journals Ltd (AJL), who are the publisher of National Herald newspaper and who challenged the Centre's order to vacate the premises
Adultery is the symptom of broken marriage and not the reason of broken marriage.
Anil Kumar v UOI that no authority can claim a privilege not to comply with its judgment.
Madras High Court has been very categorical in drawing a red line for itself on which it just cannot tread upon! Each and every Court in India must always bear this in mind while ruling in such sensitive and emotional cases
ICJ has held upfront that Pakistan violated the Vienna Convention in the Kulbhushan Jadhav case and it should review and reconsider his conviction and sentencing while allowing India consular access to the Indian national.
Lord Ram did not fight shy to even sacrifice his life for the cause of justice and for satisfying what his people thought was right! Lord Ram always wanted that justice must be available to the poorest of the poor! He was not happy to see even a single person being unhappy in his kingdom
AS Marimuthu Vs The Ministry of Telecommunications slammed BSNL for virtually grabbing the property belonging to one AS Marimuthu without any compunction by paying a paltry sum of just Rupee one.
critical and comprehensive analysis of the case kapore chand vs. kadar unnisa begum
Pankaj Bansal v. State (Govt of NCT Delhi) that was pronounced as recently as on June 9, 2023 has decisively ruled that the discretion of an applicant
Top