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.
Legal Services India

» Home
Saturday, December 21, 2024

Just One HC Bench So Close To Allahabad Is Most Bizarre

Posted in: General Practice
Wed, Jul 12, 23, 10:25, 1 Year ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 4879
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

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 and still has just one High Court Bench only so close to Allahabad High Court at Lucknow only and nowhere else. This despite the irrefutable fact that it is Western UP which owes for more than half of the total pending cases of Uttar Pradesh but still has not even a single High Court Bench even though Justice Jaswant Singh Commission headed by a former Supreme Court Judge had recommended a High Court Bench for West UP as it owes for more than half of the total pending cases of UP as acknowledged also by the Commission and total three High Court Benches for undivided Uttar Pradesh in 1980s were recommended yet not one created even though on its recommendations High Court Bench created at Aurangabad in Maharashtra which already had multiple High Court Benches and so also at Jalpaiguri in West Bengal which had a Bench at Port Blair in Andaman and Nicobar for just 3 lakh people and so also at Madurai in Tamil Nadu. The age old question that still looms large is: Why is Centre so adamant on not creating a High Court Bench in West UP?

Needless to say, Eastern UP alone having both High Court at Allahabad and a single Bench created way back in 1948 so close to Allahabad at Lucknow makes just no sense at all. When Eastern UP can have High Court and a Bench then why can’t West UP which owes for more than half of the total pending cases of UP not have even a single High Court Bench? Please just spare a food of thought for it which directly affects more than 10 crore people of West UP who have to travel whole night and half day all the way right uptill Allahabad to seek justice!

It cannot be lightly dismissed that former Chief Minister Mayawati in 1995 had recommended Statehood for West UP naming it as Harit Pradesh which means fit to have High Court itself and had called for dividing UP into five parts but most intriguingly Centre is just not ready to concede even a single High Court Bench and is just clinging to its blind opposition to a Bench in West UP just likes a drunkard clings himself to a lamppost not to light himself on the way but to hide his own darkness from the rest of the world! Why Centre still nourishes the totally baseless, biased and most misconceived notion that West UP needs no Bench? Why former PM late Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee demanded a High Court Bench for West UP at Meerut in Parliament as Leader of Opposition in 1986 and even the then Congress government had conceded that West UP is in dire need for a Bench? Why way back in 1955 the then Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh – Sampoornanand had recommended a High Court Bench at Meerut? For far too long for more than 75 years this issue is still pending decision which I find totally incomprehensible!

Nothing on earth can justify the denial of a High Court Bench to West UP since last more than 75 years! It is heart-rending to see how hard the lawyers of West UP have protested and agitated so hard for a High Court going on strike for 6 months continuously as in 2001, one month hunger strike as in 1978, historic padyatra in 1989 and strike for a month in 2009-10 and so also strike for 5 and a half months as in 2014-15 and strike every Saturday from May 1981 till July 2023 which means more than 42 years and many times even on Wednesday also which was later discontinued keeping the interest of the litigants in mind and still no Bench! Why has Centre wedded itself to the illogical stand which is absolutely preposterous that only Eastern UP is alone best suited to have both High Court and a single Bench and no other region whether it is West UP or Bundelkhand or Purvanchal should ever even dream of it?

What leaves me totally fluttered, flummoxed and flabbergasted is to see how Centre has repeatedly cocked a snook at the most legitimate claim for a High Court Bench in West UP! Centre favours both High Court and a single Bench in Eastern UP only and is adamant not to allow even a single Bench in any other region of UP. This act is an autocratic act due to which the litigants have to travel whole night and half day not even till Lucknow but right uptill Allahabad which means more than 700 km on average far away from even Lahore High Court in Pakistan and it is certainly not a democratic act! Why the legitimate aspirations of the more than 10 crore people of West UP for a High Court Bench has been strangled so brazenly, so boldly and so blindly? Centre has a lot of explaining to do on it.

It is really very pleasing to note that even our PM Shri Narendra Modi himself concedes that:
Today Uttar Pradesh has got a completely new identity. The state has the maximum number of expressways and several airports. It has a large number of MSME units, which gives the state a strong base for small-scale industries. UP also leads in the country in creating a start-up ecosystem for new entrepreneurs. The economy of UP has got a new momentum due to the combined power of security and employment. Really terrific. No denying it.

But the moot question that arises here which keeps nagging my mind also is:
Why UP lagging so behind in justice delivery system? Why there is just one Bench in whole of UP at Lucknow only so near to Allahabad and why the litigants of West UP have been attached not even with Lucknow but right uptill Allahabad which means more than 230 km away from even Lucknow to seek justice in High Court? It is the poorest of the poor who are worst affected yet Centre is most happy by creating more and more international airports at different cities but not a single High Court Bench created in any city except Lucknow in last more than 75 years! This is the real tragedy! Why we see that the 230th Report of the Law Commission of India recommending more High Court Benches for different States prepared under the Chairmanship of eminent former Supreme Court Judge Dr AR Lakshmanan has not been most strangely implemented even after 14 years of its landmark recommendations having been submitted?

Why has Centre always most callously and so also repeatedly and most deliberately preferred to not put its weight behind the most legitimate claim of West UP for a High Court Bench? It definitely deserves a food for thought as to why Centre has so deliberately, derisively and determinedly decided to ride roughshod over the legitimate claim of West UP for a Bench? So, the question to be really asked here is: Why has Centre never cared for the sentiments of more than 10 crore people for a High Court Bench in West UP? The people of West UP feel most empty and completely down-and-out due to Centre’s reckless, retrograde and reprehensible approach in tackling this most serious Bench issue which is long waiting adjudication and for which even the MPs and MLAs of ruling party have forcefully supported the demand for a Bench in West UP and still we see no action on the ground!

Denial of even a single High Court Bench to West UP is not just a minor handicap but has now become an albatross around UP’s neck which has to be handled right now before it becomes too late! Why so much of inexplicable delay in creating a Bench in West UP? The flimsy argument that recommendation is needed from UP Chief Justice or from UP CM or from UP Governor is totally unsustainable as Centre is fully empowered to create at its own volition a High Court Bench in West UP as was clearly clarified also by former CJI Mr Ranjan Gogoi while listening to a PIL filed by a woman lawyer KR Chitra in November 2018 and had appreciated the dire need of Bench in West UP but while dismissing the petition had very clearly held that it was for Centre and Centre alone who has to decide it. So how can Centre extricate or abdicate itself from this onerous responsibility of ensuring a High Court Bench in West UP which directly affects a huge portion of UP’s population in a big way?

What is more shocking and pinching to note is the irrefutable fact that Centre has most foolishly refused to see the clear writing on the wall! Centre needs to step out of its comfort zone and take some strong, substantial and sensible stand on this Bench issue at the earliest as 75 years have already lapsed. Why can’t Centre do some out-of-the-box thinking on Bench issue in West UP?

By all accounts, when peaceful states like Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka can have multiple High Court Benches and so also West Bengal then why Uttar Pradesh termed by former UN Secretary General Ban ki Moon as rape and crime capital of India be deprived of more Benches and especially West UP which has not even a single High Court Bench and where even women lawyers are not safe and get killed right outside their house as we saw happening with a woman lawyer in Meerut just recently and for which even Justice Jaswant Singh Commission appointed by Centre itself had recommended a High Court Bench and yet not a single created so many decades later which compelled the lawyers of West UP to form a Central Action Committee and go on strike very Saturday as a mark of token protest against this most arbitrary, most whimsical and most atrocious discrimination perpetrated on the more than 10 crore people of West UP whose population is more than most of the States in India and yet has not even a Bench leave alone having High Court? This is the real rub!

For Telangana whose population is about 3.5 crore where people earlier demanded Bench Centre in 2014 on June 2 created it as a separate state and for just 4 and 8 districts of Karnataka created two High Court Benches in Dharwad and Gulbarga in 2008 but why Centre always keep dishing lame excuses for denying West UP even a single High Court Bench leave alone giving High Court by creating it as a separate state as recommended by former CM Mayawati while she was Chief Minister in 1995? This is the real rub! It cannot be definitely left unattended, unaddressed and Centre cannot pretend to always remain unruffled by all this mind-boggling fact that it is West UP which owes for maximum pending cases in UP and still most perplexingly has not even a single Bench and so also UP has maximum pending cases still has just one Bench only!

Is this not the biggest injustice on earth that a peaceful state like Maharashtra which tops in the latest justice index ranking list where women are safe totally alone even at night as conceded by former UP Chief Justice Dilip Babasaheb Bhosale whose native state is Maharashtra still has maximum High Court Benches and UP where women are not safe even in national highway in broad daylight along with family while listening to a dacoity and loot case of women and girls in Bulandshahar in West UP has just one and here too West UP which owes for maximum pending cases has none? Most disgraceful! Nothing on earth can be more shameful than this!

What is the point of denying a High Court Bench to West UP since 1947 till 2023 is beyond my comprehension, to say the least! Centre needs to do a tight ropewalk on this long festering issue but must definitely address it at the earliest as it brooks no more delay anymore!

All told, the legal and the constitutional right of all the 10 crore citizens of West UP to get ‘speedy justice and justice at doorsteps cannot at any cost be sacrificed shamelessly at the altar of political inexpediency and legislative lethargy! Moreover, there can be no gainsaying that UP must definitely have maximum High Court Benches among all states in India and not minimum and this alone explains why Satyapal Singh who is former Mumbai Police Commissioner and former Union Cabinet Minister in NDA regime most vocally raised the demand for 5 High Court Benches in Meerut, Agra, Gorakhpur, Varanasi and Jhansi but Centre is just not ready to create even one! This is the real rub that definitely pinches the most!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

Legal Services India

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
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
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.
West UP which deserved statehood right since 1947 has not even a single bench of a high court since last more than 70 years
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.
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