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, January 11, 2025

Why Centre Cannot Create More High Court Benches In UP?

Posted in: Judiciary
Sun, Aug 13, 23, 20:42, 1 Year ago
star star star star star
5 out of 5 with 2 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 9347
maximum number of pending cases more than 10 lakhs in High Court and nearly a crore in lower courts should have minimum number of High Court Benches

Why is Centre so adamant that Uttar Pradesh which tops among all the States in India in having the maximum number of pending cases more than 10 lakhs in High Court and nearly a crore in lower courts should have minimum number of High Court Benches? Why is Centre so adamant that West UP which owes for more than half of the total number of pending cases of the whole of Uttar Pradesh should have not even a single High Court Bench? Why is Centre so adamant that Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru took the most extraordinary and best decision on earth to create just one High Court Bench only at Lucknow known famously as Nawab City on July 1, 1948 which means more than 75 years ago and nowhere else in whole of Uttar Pradesh which is among the largest States of India?

It must be asked: Why is Centre so adamant that while overhaul of criminal code is imperative and the colonial mindset has to be abandoned but simultaneously is dead determined that not a single city in whole of Uttar Pradesh other than the Nawab City is fit to have even a single High Court Bench? Did Lucknow really deserved a Bench when it is so close to Allahabad where High Court itself is located? The point really is this: Why one flimsy excuse or other is invented to deny West UP and other needy regions of UP like Bundelkhand, Purvanchal even a single High Court Bench?

The moot question is: Why Centre can demonstrate the will power to transfer Nainital High Court from Nainital to Haldwani and Guwahati High Court to some other place but when it comes to Uttar Pradesh, most strangely, it is neither prepared to shift Allahabad High Court to some other place or Lucknow High Court Bench to some other place as the minimum distance as per the criteria set in 1981 between High Court and Bench should not be less than 300 km and distance between Allahabad and Lucknow is just about 200 km or at least create a new High Court Bench in any other needy place in whole of Uttar Pradesh as recommended by Justice Jaswant Singh Commission headed by former Supreme Court Judge who recommended three High Court Benches for undivided UP yet not one created and Maharashtra which already had multiple High Court Benches was given one more at Aurangabad in 1985? Why Centre so brazenly bulldozes any attempt to create even a single High Court Bench other than at Lucknow where it should never have been created at the first place as it is so close to Allahabad? If Lucknow is capital then so is Bhopal but it has neither High Court nor Bench and same is the case with Bhubaneshwar, Thiruvananthapuram, Raipur, Dehradun Dispur etc!

I am certainly not talking off the hat when I say that 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 which is more than 16 small States put together 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 in 1985 which already had multiple High Court Benches at Nagpur and Panaji and so also at Jalpaiguri in West Bengal which already had a Bench at Port Blair in Andaman and Nicobarfor just 3 lakh people and so also at Madurai in Tamil Nadu. This is exactly that I find most startling!

The age old question that still looms large is: Why is Centre so adamant on not creating a High Court Bench in West UP and so also in Bihar and is most happy that more and more international airports are created here which will only serve to benefit the "richest of the rich" and not the "poorest of the poor"?

It must be mentioned that on August 14, 2023 the lawyers of whole of UP will observe as Protest Day and will work with black band on their hands as not just women and children but even the lawyers themselves are getting killed in increasingly large numbers all across UP at one point of time or the other! An advocate named Azad Ahmed killed recently in Sultanpur and so also an advocate named Abdul Mugish shot dead in broad daylight in crowded place in Aligarh and a woman lawyer in Meerut was shot dead right outside her house by fearless criminals some time back!

Why the hell is it that Maharashtra which tops among all the States in Justice Index Ranking List and so also Karnataka which gives tough fight to it for first place have multiple High Court Benches and why Uttar Pradesh slammed by former UN Secretary Ban ki Moon as the rape and crime capital of India has only one and Bihar slammed by many Union Cabinet Ministers as lawless has not even a single High Court Bench? How long will Centre keep mercilessly blaming the Chief Justice or Chief Minister or Governor of the State for not creating more High Court Benches in these most needy States like UP, Bihar and Rajasthan which has largest area and still has just one Bench at Jaipur?

It is palpably clear even to a layman that there is more to it than meets the eye. The most egregious attack on Article 14 of the Constitution is denial of even a single High Court Bench to whole of West UP which comprises of 30 districts and has population of more than 10 crores which means more population than most of the States in India who have their own High Court! The former Chief Minister of Mayawati recommended that West UP in 1995 to be created as a separate State to be named Harit Pradesh and so also Bundelkhand but Centre is not ready to create even a single High Court Bench which is definitely most frustrating to see!

To top it all, it is most heart wrenching to see that the litigants of West UP are made to travel like donkeys and slaves all the way not even till Lucknow but right uptill Allahabad which is more than 230 km far away from Lucknow which means whole night and half day from most of the districts to seek justice as Centre did not implement the landmark recommendations to create 3 High Court Benches in undivided UP in mid 1980s and most shamelessly approved one Bench as recommended for Maharashtra which already had multiple High Court Benches at Nagpur and Panaji and so also for West Bengal at Jalpaiguri which already had a Bench at Port Blair for just 3 lakh people of Andaman and Nicobar islands! Centre’s hypocrisy on this is hard to miss from 1947 to 2023!

For the sake of argument, let us accept that Maharashtra, Karnataka, Assam, West Bengal and Madhya Pradesh needs multiple High Court Benches but how can we ever afford to gloss over the irrefutable fact that UP has maximum number of pending cases among all the States in India and still has just one Bench only and that too at Lucknow where it was just not required. Worst of all, the litigants of West UP attached not with Lucknow but right uptill Allahabad which is more than 230 km away and this is in simple terms the peak point of absurdity of the highest order! Still Centre refuses to do anything on this which cannot be ever condoned!

It must be asked: Why has Centre always buried itself in Pandit Nehru’s mindset that only Lucknow known famously as Nawab City is alone fit in whole of UP for a High Court Bench created by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru more than 75 years ago in 1948 and no other place is fit for it as they are presumed to be absolutely legally worthless cities just not fit to be given even a single High Court Bench under any circumstances?

Why no party in Centre has dared to take any initiative in this direction even though Justice Jaswant Singh Commission appointed by Centre itself also recommended for three High Court Benches for UP which is maximum and yet not one created? It is well nigh impossible for any CJI to ignore the chilling ground reality which clearly demonstrates that it is lawless Bihar, West UP and other regions of UP like Bundelkhand and Purvanchal which needs High Court Bench as there is not even single in any of these regions and it is Eastern UP alone which has both High Court and a single Bench so close to each other which is the most blatant, blind and brazen discrimination and an open mockery is made of Article 14 of Constitution which promises right to equality as a fundamental right reduced to only in paper and not in practice!

The 230th Report of the Law Commission of India which so strongly recommended to create more High Court Benches in all States is still gaining dust in last 14 years and Centre is only interested in showing "tearing hurry" to implement the recommendations of the Law Commission of India on uniform civil code which has still not yet been submitted! This is truly the most unfortunate part!

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
Rahendra Baglari v. Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M) writ petitioner for adjoining a Judicial Magistrate and the High Court and its Registry as Respondents to his plea against the order passed by the said Magistrate.
Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal vs.Uttarakhand long standing or established status quo brought about by judgments interpreting local or state laws, should not be lightly departed from.
Maharashtra has 4 high court benches at Panaji, Nagpur, Aurangabad and Kolhapur apart from High Court at Mumbai but on the contrary UP which has maximum pending cases in India
It is most shocking to see that a peaceful, one of the most developed and most prosperous state like Maharashtra has 4 high court benches at Panaji, Nagpur, Aurangabad and Kolhapur
I am neither a member nor supporter of BJP or any other political party nor a member of any of BJP's affiliated organizations like the RSS or VHP or any other organization.
Kirti vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited advocates cannot throw away legal rights or enter into arrangements contrary to law. It was also made clear that any concession in law made in this regard by either counsel would not bind the parties.
Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) on December 28, 2020 had expressed shock and deep concern on the arbitrary, illegal and brazen exercise of brute power by the police against lawyers, including the search conducted at the premises of an advocate representing some of the accused in the North-East Delhi riots cases.
media trial during criminal investigation interferes with administration of justice and hence amounts to contempt of court as defined under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Jamal v. Maharashtra dismissed a plea filed by the National President of BJP Minority Morcha – Jamal Anwar Siddiqui seeking 'X' category security.
Duroply Industries Limited and anr. Vs Ma Mansa Enterprises Private Limited in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction has recalled its own order of an injunction passed in a trademark dispute as the Judge presiding over the case had appeared for one party in respect of the same trademark in the past.
At the outset, it must be stated rather disconcertingly that it is India's misfortune that UP which has the maximum population more than 23 crore as Yogi Adityanath
At the outset, it has to be stated without mincing any words that it merits no reiteration that Judges age for retirement must be now increased to 75
Rajeev Bhardwaj v. H.P while dismissing a plea seeking a declaration of a sitting Judge's dissenting view as Coram non-judice and non est in the eyes of law.
Adv KG Suresh vs UOI has declared as unconstitutional the bar on lawyers representing parties in matters before the Maintenance Tribunals constituted under the Maintenance Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (Maintenance Act).
Bar Council of India ensured that there is an entrance exam now for all those lawyers who want to practice which has to be cleared before lawyers can start practicing.
It is a matter of grave concern that while our Constitution enshrines the right to equality as postulated in Article 14 but in practice what we witness is just the reverse.
seeking interim bail/parole for the under-privileged and under-trial prisoners/convicts keeping in view the terrible havoc unleashed by the second wave of the Covid-19 pandemic.
When an intellectual giant like Fali Sam Nariman whom I personally rate as the world's top jurist and it is not just me but his extremely impeccable credentials are acknowledged in legal field, it is not just India but the whole world which listens to him in silence
Treasa Josfine vs Kerala that a woman who is fully qualified cannot be denied of her right to be considered for employment on the ground that she is a woman and because the nature of the employment would require her to work during night hours.
Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs constituted a Committee to suggest reforms in our criminal justice system which has been facing repeated criticism for its various drawbacks
Congress government's rule in Centre, Kapil Sibal who was Union Law Minister had written very categorically to UP Government for creating a high court bench for West UP at Meerut
completely about the truthfulness of the retracted confession and should corroborate his/her confession as it is unsafe to convict an accused person solely on the basis of the retracted confession
Thabir Sagar vs Odisha the practice of Advocate's clerks filing affidavits on behalf of parties is unacceptable. Such a practice is in gross violation of Rule 26 of the Orissa High Court Rules. It has therefore rightly directed its Registry to ensure that steps are taken forthwith to stop the practice of accepting such affidavits
COVID situation in UP, the Allahabad High Court has issued revised fresh guidelines for the functioning of all the Courts and Tribunals subordinate to it.
amended its rules to make criticism and attack of Bar Council decisions by members a misconduct and ground for disqualification or suspension or removal of membership of a member from the Bar Council.
CJI NV Ramana who was appointed as the 48th CJI on 6th April, 2021 and took oath as CJI on 24th April 2021 has very rightly expressed his concern on the social media noise and how it adversely impacts the institutions also like judiciary to a great extent which actually should not be the case.
At the crucial meeting of the Central Action Committee. of more than 20 districts of Bar Association of West UP held at Aligarh
Why UP which is among the largest States, has maximum population more than 24 crore which is more than even Pakistan
When finances are needed for the purpose of improving the judicial system at the lower levels, there is reluctance to make such finances available.
rarely ever booked and made to face the consequences which only serves to further encourage men in uniform to take it for granted to indulge in worst custodial torture
Tarun Saxena vs Union of India as ultra vires Section 17 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 which bars lawyers from representing parties in matters before the Maintenance Tribunals
Dhanbad district of Jharkhand was mowed down by an autorickshaw has sent shivers down the spine. The ghastly incident happened on morning of July 28 near the Magistrate colony of Dhanbad that was close to the Judge's residence.
Suman Chadha & Anr. vs. Central Bank of India in that the wilful breach of the undertaking given to the Court can amount to Contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act.
Rajasthan High Court Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts 2020 which shall be applicable to the proceeding of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan and all the Subordinate Courts of the Rajasthan with immediate effect.
Arun Singh Chauhan v/s MP deprecate the conduct of a practicing advocate who chose not to answer the repeated queries of the Court pertaining to the maintainability of his petition seeking issuance of a writ of quo warranto and regarding the non-impleadment of a necessary party
Dr.Mukut Nath Verma vs UoI Allahabad High Court imposed Rs 5 lakh costs on an advocate Dr Mukut Nath Verma after concluding that he unauthorisedly filed a writ petition on behalf of suspended and absconding IPS officer Mani Lal Patidar and also levelled serious allegations against state authorities and thereby misleading the Court.
Anil JS vs Kerala that instances of allegations about the police disrespecting the citizens were arriving at its doors with alarming regularity and therefore issued certain general directions in its judgment.
If there is one Judge on whom I have blind faith for his exemplary conduct throughout his brilliant career and who can never favour wrongly even his own son
Indianisation of our legal system is the need of the hour and it is crucial to make the justice delivery system more accessible and effective.
the gang war of different gangs have now reached right up to the court premises itself which are supposed to be the holiest shrines for getting justice.
It is not just for enjoying life or going for some holiday trip that lawyers of West UP repeatedly keep going on strike since last many decades.
CM Yogi Adityanath UP has progressed by leaps and bounds which one certainly cannot deny but why is it that it has just one High Court Bench only and that too just approximately 200 km away at the city famously called Nawab City
Just changing name of Allahabad to Prayagraj won't change the ground reality. It is a proven fact that High Court is still called Allahabad High Court and not Prayagraj High Court.
It is most shocking that all the Chief Justices of India from 1947 till 2000 were never shocked nor were any world famous jurist like Nani Ardeshir Palkhiwala, Ram Jethmalani, Shanti Bhushan, Prashant Bhushan among many others
Raggu Baniya @ Raghwendra vs UP has directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to instruct the District Magistrates of all the districts to re-evaluate the cases for remission after 14 years of incarceration even if appeals in such cases are pending in the High Court.
Union Minister of State for Law and Justice – SP Singh Baghel who is also an MP from Agra again in Western UP and who just recently took over has made it clear that his ministry was open to the setting up of a Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Western UP.
Anil Kumar and Anr. Vs Amit that the practice of advocates acting as power of attorney holders of their clients and also as advocates in the matter, is contrary to the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961.
Shashank Singh vs/ Honourable High Court of Judicature at Allahabad that under Article 233 of the Constitution of India, a Judicial Officer regardless of his or her previous experience, as an Advocate, cannot apply and compete for appointment to any vacancy in the post of District Judge.
It must be stated at the very outset that it is quite bewildering and baffling to see that the state of UP which Ban ki moon who is the former UN Secretary General had slammed as the rape and crime capital of India
most powerfully raised vocally the legitimate demand for a High Court Bench in West UP which is the crying need of the hour also.
Top