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
Thursday, December 19, 2024

Constitution Is Perfect But Our Understanding, Implementation Isn’t: Dushyant Dave & KG Raghavan

Posted in: Civil Laws
Wed, Nov 27, 24, 18:24, 3 Weeks ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 13407
The Constitution of India is a perfect instrument and India is what it is today because of the Constitution.

However good the Constitution may be, if those who are implementing it are not good it will prove to be bad. Therefore, providing law and procedure for its implementation may not result as desired if the persons who are implementing the same have mala fide intention or do not respect the law and its procedure.-- Dr BR Ambedkar

It has to be definitely conceded with grace on the most auspicious occasion of November 26 when our Constitution was prepared 75 years ago what eminent, senior and learned advocates of Apex Court Dushyant Dave and KG Raghavan said endorsing that:
The Constitution of India is a perfect instrument and India is what it is today because of the Constitution. This was their most enlightening opinion while they waited to make an urgent mentioning in a petition that pertained to Muda scam before the Karnataka High Court. It must be noted here that when Dushyant Dave who is former President of Supreme Court Bar Association appeared before a Bench of Hon’ble Mr Justice M Nagaprasanna through video conference, spotted KG Raghavan too logged in for the hearing and greeted his counterpart on Constitution day.

For sure, KG Raghavan very rightly pointed out that:
The Constitution of India is a beautiful document, an almost perfect instrument and one had to keep in mind that no instrument could be perfect. The Constitution was the only thing that was keeping the country going. We must be eternally grateful to Dr Ambedkar and his colleagues in the Constituent Assembly. But for them, we wouldn’t have been where we are today. And as you’ll agree sir, there’s no perfect instrument.

To this, Dushyant Dave pointed out that while Constitution is a perfect document, a lot depend on those who implement and this was correctly prophesied by Dr BR Ambedkar as well. Dushyant Dave also while speaking up on his thoughts said plainly and pragmatically that:
But it is a perfect instrument. It is our understanding and implementation that are imperfect. It is a joy to read the debates. What foresight and intellect. Their prophecy is all turning out to be true today. Dr Ambedkar very simply but profoundly said that if a landslide (election victory) were to occur, it was quite possible for the democracy to retain its form but give place to dictatorship in fact.

It is definitely as clear as broad day sunlight that which State needs more High Court Benches and which State does not need even a single High Court Bench! But the most unpalatable truth is that neither any Chief Justice of India nor any Prime Minister of India till date has ever bothered to take any initiative in this regard in last nearly 80 years of independence to do anything substantial to correct the most biggest Himalayan blunder committed in 1948 by creating only one High Court Bench for the most populated State of India with maximum number of pending cases that is Uttar Pradesh at Lucknow so near to Allahabad and nowhere else and worst of all attached litigants of 30 districts of West UP and people of hilly areas of undivided UP with not even Lucknow which falls 230 km earlier but right uptill Allahabad to seek justice which in itself is the biggest betrayal of Constitution in India and justice as litigants of West UP have to travel whole night and half day averaging 700 to 800 km and the condition of hilly areas was even worst! For 54 long years the litigants of hilly areas suffered like donkey as the most landmark recommendations of Justice Jaswant Singh Commission headed by former Supreme Court Judge appointed by Centre itself nearly 50 years ago to create High Court Bench in Dehradun and Nainital in hilly areas of undivided UP and so also permanent seat in West UP In Agra as recommended was not implemented most unfairly and Maharashtra which already had multiple High Court Benches and one more was created at Aurangabad! Yet hardly anyone ever bothers to even think about it! Can there be a more bigger dictatorial decision on earth than this? Most unfortunate indeed!

We must be open about it. We can’t change the system unless we talk openly about it. There is no point in pushing this beneath the carpet. It is nothing but plain stupidity and sheer absurdity of the highest order that West UP owing for majority of the cases of UP has not even a single Bench and Eastern UP alone has both High Court and a single Bench so near to each other!

One is totally clueless on the rationale behind denying West UP even a single Bench inspite of owing for majority of pending cases of UP! Abolish all the high court benches in India if West UP cannot be given bench because West UP which owes for majority of pending cases not just in Uttar Pradesh but even in any other region of India and in any other State also and Centre till date is dead determined never to allow even a single Bench in any nook and corner of Uttar Pradesh other than the one so near to Allahabad at Lucknow in Eastern UP and worst of all attached 30 districts of West UP with not even Lucknow but with Allahabad which is 230 km away from even Lucknow due to which litigants of West UP have to travel 700 to 800 km on average all the way whole night and half day till Allahabad to seek justice which in itself is the biggest betrayal and open murder of Constitution and justice and makes litigants of West UP a laughing stock as it throttles the basic right of litigants of West UP to get justice at doorsteps! But no one in power in Centre really cares about it! This is the real rub!

By all accounts, UP must be treated as primus inter pares which means first among equals! But the most unfortunate part is that UP, lawless Bihar and Rajasthan are placed in the last row by depriving them from having multiple High Court Benches most chillingly with West UP and Bihar having none and PM and CJI watching like a helpless, hapless and hopeless spectator! I am astounded, ashamed, appalled and aghast at how much temerity Centre has demonstrated in bulldozing the most legitimate demand for a High Court Bench in West UP, Purvanchal, Bundelkhand and lawless Bihar right since independence till date! In news channels we hear repeated incidents of crime, violence and communal incidents in UP and lawless Bihar and still Centre has treated these states like a beggar when it comes to creation of more High Court Benches in these States even though the 230th Report of Law Commission of India recommended creation of more High Court Benches in States!

It was Dr BR Ambedkar who recommended creation of Eastern UP, Western UP and Central UP as three different States but his most landmark recommendations were thrown in dustbin and even after 75 years they are still lying in dustbin! Let me go first and foremost to the root of the matter by asking few most elementary questions. Which person in his/her right senses or any political party believing in what the Constitution stands for about the very concept of equality as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution ever try to justify the denial of even a single High Court Bench to West UP knowing it fully well that it is West UP which owes for more than half of the total pending cases of Uttar Pradesh (as acknowledged even by Justice Jaswant Singh Commission appointed by Centre itself) which is the most populated State of India with maximum number of pending cases among all the States in India and still has been mercilessly deprived from having even a single High Court Bench?

Why only Eastern UP has been equipped with both High Court at Allahabad and a single High Court Bench in Lucknow so close to Allahabad and nowhere else and worst of all attached litigants of West UP with not even Lucknow but right uptill Allahabad to seek justice which in itself is the biggest injustice as majority of pending cases are from West UP as conceded even by Justice Jaswant Singh Commission? Denial of even a single High Court Bench to West UP has well shred the modicum of civility that remains in Indian politics knowing fully well that West UP owes for majority of cases of UP for whom even Justice Jaswant Singh Commission appointed by Centre itself recommended permanent High Court Bench in West UP yet not created but for States like Maharashtra which already had multiple High Court Benches at Nagpur and Panaji we saw how one more was created at Aurangabad in Maharashtra even though it is Maharashtra which tops the State List Ranking in Justice Index and UP and lawless Bihar figures very lower down and still Centre does not favour more High Court Benches in UP and even a single in West UP and Bihar! How long will affordable justice at doorsteps remain a pipe dream for more than 10 crores people of West UP?

What makes my blood boil the most is that Centre since last 78 years has treated UP, lawless Bihar and Rajasthan in most ruthless manner by giving them either one Bench or not even a single like Bihar which is most deplorable! It is truly most incomprehensible that why Centre took no time in 2014 to approve both High Court and Capital for Telangana with just 3 crore people but not a single High Court Bench for West UP with more than 10 crores people even ten years later in 2024!

Denial of even a single Bench to West UP stands as a testament to how shamelessly, sinisterly and surreptitiously Centre has discriminated against West UP! Now it is being reported in media that Andhra Pradesh with just 4 crore population which was created separate from Telangana in 2014 has approved a Bench in Kurnool with Assembly endorsing it but we see no such action in Uttar Pradesh! How can Centre discriminate so ruthlessly with impunity and yet our Supreme Court most shockingly never saying a word on it! This must change now! The earlier, the better! This will be the best tribute that can be paid to the Constitution!

What we see in case of distribution of High Court Benches in different States most unequally and most disgracefully is by Centre giving few elite States like Maharashtra, Assam, Karnataka, West Bengal and Madhya Pradesh multiple High Court Benches leaving out big States like UP, Rajasthan and Bihar to suffer most unjustly with just one or no Bench which makes a complete mockery of the very concept of justice, truth and equality as enshrined in Constitution and is definitely the biggest disrespect to it and many like me term it as murder of Constitution!

Why Centre keeps mocking at UP knowing fully well that it is UP which tops the States list in having maximum number of pending cases and has maximum population and here too it is West UP which owes for more than half of the total pending cases of UP and has more population than most of the States in India including Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal, Assam among others who have multiple High Court Benches apart from High Court but West UP has ruthlessly been deprived from having even a single High Court Bench ?

Why is it ignored that even legal giants like Ram Jethmalani, Soli J Sorabjee, Kapil Sibal etc have time and again reiterated the dire need for setting up a high court bench in West UP? Why is it ignored that Soli J Sorabjee as Attorney General had said in 2001 that:
Centre can create a High Court Bench in West UP without any recommendation from the State Government or the Chief Justice. Why is it ignored that even former Supreme Court Bar Association President BN Krishnamani had said that:
Only by the creation of a high court bench in West UP will the people living there get real and effective justice. It should not be denied to them rather should be given at the earliest. Why is it conveniently ignored that incumbent President of Supreme Court Bar Association Kapil Sibal had recommended for High Court Bench in West UP at Meerut when he was Union Law Minister in UPA regime? Why is it ignored that former UP CM Sampoornanand recommended a High Court Bench for West UP in 1955 at Meerut but Centre overruled him!

The incumbent UP CM Mr Yogi Adityananth himself more than 25 years ago demanded High Court Bench in Parliament for Gorakhpur and in 2015 even presented a Private Member Bill in Parliament for the same with tears in eyes! The former UP CM Ms Mayawati recommended partition of UP into few parts in 1995 with West UP to be created as a separate State to be named Harit Pradesh and she still affirms by it! But on ground we see not even a single High Court Bench approved even though incumbent CM Mr Yogi Adityanath recommended for a High Court Bench in West UP to Allahabad High Court in January 2024 only to be withdrawn the very next day for some undisclosed reasons! These are all bone chilling facts and they cannot be just swept beneath the carpet!

Let me put it this way: Why is Centre mutilating Article 14 of Constitution by denying West UP even a single Bench and equipping Eastern UP alone with both High Court and a Bench? Why Maharashtra tops in latest Justice Index Ranking States list and still has maximum Benches and UP even though figuring in bottom and owing for maximum cases still one Bench only? Why West UP owing for more than half of the total pending cases has no Bench? This is nothing but sheer subversion of Constitution itself and what it stands for!

What is worst is that even after 75 years we hardly notice any big change in Bench distribution and the 230th Report of Law Commission of India which recommended creation of more High Court Benches in States is still gathering dust after more than 14 years! Why even Apex Court not once in last 75 years has dared to take suo motu cognizance of it under Article 142 of Constitution is truly incomprehensible? Why not one Bench created in last 75 years in Uttar Pradesh which owes for maximum pending cases among all States and West UP owes for more than half of them yet no Bench?

The billion dollar question is: When will Centre bring the curtains down on the most pressing issue of setting up a High Court Bench in West UP which has been hanging fire for a mind boggling time of more than 78 years? When will Centre go full throttle in ensuring that the creation of a High Court Bench in West UP is done now without any more dilly-dallying on one pretext or the other? On a broader plane, what must weigh maximum in Centre’s scheme of things is its commitment to ensure that the litigants of West UP gets justice at doorsteps which is its Constitutional obligation also which is possible only by the creation of a High Court Bench in any of the district of West UP at the earliest!

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
Present space law framework in the country. Space has heightened the curiosity of mankind for centuries. Due to the advancement in technology, there is fierce competition amongst nations for the next space war.
The scope of Section 151 CPC has been explained by the Supreme Court in the case K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy
Co-operative Societies are governed by the Central Co-operative Societies Act 1912, where there is no State Act. In West Bengal they were governed by the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act
Registration enables an NGO to be a transparent in its operations to the Government, Donors, to its members and to its urgent community.
The ingredients of Section 18 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are
Drafting of legal Agreements and Deeds in India
ST Land rules in India,West Bengal
The paper will discuss about the provisions related to liquidated damages. How the law has evolved. Difference between the provisions of England and India.
A privilege may not be a right, but, under the constitution of the country, I do not gather that any broad distinction is drawn between the rights and the privileges that were enjoyed and that were taken away.
It is most hurting to see that in India, the soldiers who hail from Jammu and Kashmir and who join forces either in Army or in CRPF or in BSF or in police or in any other forces against the will of majority
Pukhraj v/s State of Uttarakhand warned high caste priests very strongly against refusing to perform religious ceremonies on behalf of lower caste pilgrims. It took a very stern view of the still existing practice of exclusion of the SC/ST community in Haridwar.
This article aims to define delay in civil suits. It finds the general as well as specific causes leading to pendency of civil suits and over-burdening of courts. This articles suggests some solutions which are pragmatic as well as effective to reduce the burden of the courts and speed up the civil judicial process.
This article deals with importance, needs, highlights and provisions of the Surrogacy Bill 2016, which is passed by the lok sabha on 19th December 2018 .
Cross Examination In Case of Injunction Suits, Injunctions are governed by Sections 37, 38, 39 to Section 42 of Specific Relief Act.
Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah v Gujarat inability of a person to return the loan amount cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction..
Dr.Ashok Khemka V/s Haryana upheld the integrity of eminent IAS officer because of his upright and impeccable credentials has emerged as an eyesore for politicians of all hues but also very rightly expunged Haryana Chief Minister ML Khattar adverse remarks in his Personal Appraisal Report
State of Rajasthan and others v. Mukesh Sharma has upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 8(2)(i) of the Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentences) Rules, 2006.
Gurmit Singh Bhatia Vs Kiran Kant Robinson the Supreme Court reiterated that, in a suit, the plaintiff is the dominus litis and cannot be forced to add parties against whom he does not want to fight unless there is a compulsion of the rule of law.
explicitly in a latest landmark ruling prohibited the use of loudspeakers in the territory without prior permission from the authorities.
The Commissioner of Police v/s Devender Anand held that filing of criminal complaint for settling a dispute of civil nature is abuse of process of law.
Rajasthan Vs Shiv Dayal High Court cannot dismiss a second appeal merely on the ground that there is a concurrent finding of two Courts (whether of dismissal or decreeing of the suit), and thus such finding becomes unassailable.
Complete Guide to Pleadings in India, get your Written statement and Plaint Drafted by highly qualified lawyers at reasonable rate.
Sushil Chandra Srivastava vs UP imposed absolute prohibition on use of DJs in the state and asked the state government to issue a toll-free number, dedicated to registering complaints against illegal use of loudspeakers. It will help control noise pollution to a very large extent if implemented in totality.
Rajasthan v/s Shri Ramesh Chandra Mundra that institutional independence, financial autonomy is integral to independence of judiciary. directing the Rajasthan Government to reconsider the two decade old proposal of the then Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court to upgrade 16 posts of its Private Secretaries as Senior Private Secretaries
The Indian Contract act, 1872 necessities significant consideration in a few of its areas. One such area of the Indian Contract act of 1872 is where if any person finds a lost good belonging to others and takes them into his custody acts as the bailee to the owner of the good.
Government has notified 63 provisions of the Motor Vehicles Amendment Act 2019 including the ones dealing with enhanced penalties
Jose Paulo Coutinho vs. Maria Luiza Valentina Pereira no attempt has been made yet to frame a Uniform Civil Code applicable to all citizens of the country despite exhortations by it. Whether succession to the property of a Goan situated outside Goa in India will be governed by the Portuguese Civil Code, 1867
In a major legal setback to Pakistan, the High Court of England and Wales rejecting rightly Pakistan's frivolous claims and ruling explicitly that the VII Nizam of Hyderabad's descendants and India can collect 35 million pounds from Londons National Westminster Bank.
Power of Attorney and the Specific Relief Act, 1963
air pollution in Delhi and even adjoining regions like several districts of West UP are crossing all limits and this year even in districts adjoining Delhi like Meerut where air pollution was never felt so much as is now being felt.
Dr Syed Afzal (Dead) v/sRubina Syed Faizuddin that the Civil Courts while considering the application seeking interim mandatory injunction in long pending cases, should grant opportunity of hearing to the opposite side, interim mandatory injunctions can be granted after granting opportunity of hearing to the opposite side.
students of Banaras Hindu University's (BHU's) Sanskrit Vedvigyan Sankay (SVDVS) went on strike demanding the cancellation of the appointment of Assistant Professor Feroze Khan and transfer him to another faculty.
Odisha Development Corporation Ltd Vs. M/s Anupam Traders & Anr. the time tested maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit which in simple and straight language means that, No party should suffer due to the act of Court.
M/S Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Ltd v/s. State of U.P that no one can be inflicted with an adverse order, without being afforded a minimum opportunity of hearing. In other words, the Apex Court reiterated the supreme importance of the legal maxim and latin phrase titled Audi alteram partem
Ram Murti Yadav v/s State of Uttar Pradesh the standard or yardstick for judging the conduct of the judicial officer has necessarily to be strict, that the public has a right to demand virtually irreproachable conduct from anyone performing a judicial function.
Judicial Officers Being Made Scapegoats And Penalized By Inconvenient Transfers And Otherwise: SC
Desh Raj v/s Balkishan that the mandatory time-line for filing written statement is not applicable to non-commercial suits. In non-commercial suits, the time-line for written statement is directory and not mandatory, the courts have the discretion to condone delay in filing of written statement in non-commercial suits.
M/S Granules India Ltd. Vs UOI State, as a litigant, cannot behave as a private litigant, and it has solemn and constitutional duty to assist the court in dispensation of justice.
To exercise one's own fundamental right to protest peacefully does not give anyone the unfettered right to block road under any circumstances thereby causing maximum inconvenience to others.
Today, you have numerous traffic laws as well as cases of traffic violations. People know about safe driving yet they end up defying the safety guidelines. It could be anything like driving while talking on the phone, hit and run incidents, or driving under the influence of alcohol.
The legal processes are uncertain. Also, there are times when justice gets denied, and the legal outcomes get delayed. Hence, nobody wants to see themselves or their loved one end up in jail.
Arun Kumar Gupta v/s Jharkhand that judicial officer's integrity must be of a higher order and even a single aberration is not permitted. The law pertaining to the vital subject of compulsory retirement of judicial officers have thus been summed up in this noteworthy judgment.
Online Contracts or Digital Agreements are contracts created and signed over the internet. Also known as e-contracts or electronic contracts, these contracts are a more convenient and faster way of creating and signing contracts for individuals, institutions and corporate.
Re: Problems And Miseries Of Migrant Labourers has asked Maharashtra to be more vigilant and make concerted effort in identifying and sending stranded migrant workers to their native places.
Gerald Lynn Bostock v/s Clayton County, Georgia that employees cannot be fired from the jobs merely because of their transgender and homosexual identity.
This article compares two cases with similar facts, yet different outcomes and examines the reasons for the same. It revolves around consideration and validation of contracts.
Odisha Vikas Parishad vs Union Of India while modifying the absolute stay on conducting the Jagannath Rath Yatra at Puri has allowed it observing the strict restrictions and regulations of the Centre and the State Government.
Soni Beniwal v/s Uttarakhand even if there is a bar on certain matters to be taken as PIL, there is always discretion available with the Court to do so in exercise of its inherent powers.
Indian Contract Act was commenced in the year 1872 and since then, several deductions and additions have happened to the same. The following piece of work discusses about the concept of offer under the Indian Contract Act, 1872
Top