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 4, 2025

Creating HC Bench In West UP Will Be Topmost Priority: Hon’ble Mr Narendra Sharma

Posted in: Judiciary
Thu, Dec 26, 24, 19:50, 1 Week ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 16722
Within 15 days of swearing in, we will call meeting of Central High Court Bench Establishment Action Committee and by consensus chalk out strategy

Within 15 days of swearing in, we will call meeting of Central High Court Bench Establishment Action Committee and by consensus chalk out strategy to make this High Court Bench movement more stronger and more effective. Within three months will meet PM to ensure that the High Court Bench is set up in West UP within an year. It is undeniable fact that the creation of High Court Bench in West UP will encourage youth who are lawyers to work more harder and their progress will be much more rapid.

- Hon’ble Mr Narendra Sharma who apart from his many other priorities like ensuring the protection of advocates from harassment by police which he announced while focusing topmost on the long pending Bench issue in West UP while declaring his intention to contest for the prestigious post of President of Meerut Bar Association made sure that the setting up of High Court Bench in West UP would be his topmost priority!

Nothing on earth can give me more happiness than the fact that, in the forthcoming elections scheduled for the Meerut Bar Association to elect new office bearers, the Chairman of the High Court Bench Mission, Hon’ble Mr. Narendra Sharma, has decided to contest for the prestigious post of President of the Meerut Bar Association. Mr. Sharma is not only an eminent, learned, distinguished, and senior lawyer of the Meerut Bar Association with decades of vast experience in diverse fields of law but also the Chairman of the High Court Bench Mission, which has played a pivotal role over many decades in popularizing the need for a High Court Bench among people in rural and other areas.

After being strongly urged by his many supporters, Mr. Sharma has thrown his hat into the ring to be in a better position to effectively advocate for this cause. He represents the 22 districts of West UP, which stand united under the banner of the Central Action Committee (termed in Hindi as Kendriya Sangharsh Samiti), established decades ago to relentlessly pursue the sacred agitation for a High Court Bench in West UP.

This demand has persisted since the Centre failed to create even a single High Court Bench in West UP, despite the recommendation of the Justice Jaswant Singh Commission—headed by a former Supreme Court judge appointed by the Centre itself—nearly 50 years ago. The commission unequivocally proposed a permanent High Court Bench for West UP in undivided UP and two circuit Benches for the hilly areas. However, this recommendation was ignored during the tenure of the late Mrs. Indira Gandhi as Prime Minister.

This neglect stands in stark contrast to states like Maharashtra, which already had multiple High Court Benches at Nagpur and Panaji but was given an additional one at Aurangabad. Such disparity is unjustified, particularly given that Uttar Pradesh leads the nation in the number of pending cases. Within UP, West UP accounts for the majority of these cases, a fact acknowledged by the Justice Jaswant Singh Commission. Despite having a population exceeding 10 crores, West UP still lacks a single High Court Bench.

How can anyone deny that none other than the late Mr. Atal Bihari Vajpayee, whose 100th birth anniversary was celebrated on December 25 across the nation, had, in 1986, most forcefully demanded the establishment of a High Court Bench in West UP while addressing Parliament as the Leader of the Opposition? Even former Prime Minister late Mr. Rajiv Gandhi supported the idea of setting up a High Court Bench in West UP. However, the issue was left unaddressed due to disagreements over whether the Bench should be located in Meerut or Agra.

Even the late former Prime Minister, Mr. Chaudhary Charan Singh, expressed regret during his lifetime that he could not persuade the Central Government to establish even a single High Court Bench in any part of Uttar Pradesh outside Lucknow. This was despite Lucknow's proximity to Allahabad, where a Bench was unnecessary. He also lamented his inability to convince the Centre to attach litigants from the 30 districts of Western UP and the hilly regions of undivided UP to Lucknow, which is more than 230 km closer than Allahabad. Instead, the Centre has consistently ensured their attachment to Allahabad, compelling them to undertake long and arduous journeys to seek justice. This arrangement constitutes one of the greatest injustices, a betrayal of constitutional values, and a mockery of the plight of poor litigants, many of whom come from impoverished farming families in Western UP. The Centre’s apathy in this matter is deeply troubling.

It is worth noting that as early as 1955, the late former Chief Minister of UP, Sampoornanand, recommended the establishment of a High Court Bench in Meerut. However, his proposal was overruled by the then Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. Former Chief Minister Mayawati also supported the idea of partitioning UP and creating Western UP as a separate state, echoing the views of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, who had also advocated for statehood for Western UP. Yet, despite its population surpassing that of many Indian states, Western UP has not been granted even a single High Court Bench.

It is incomprehensible why the Central Government remains so adamant in denying Western UP its rightful demand for a High Court Bench, especially when prominent leaders have championed this cause. For instance, Dr. Satyapal Singh, a former Union Minister in Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s cabinet and a former Mumbai Police Commissioner, demanded two High Court Benches for Western UP at Meerut and Agra in Parliament in September 2016. Similarly, Union Minister Mr. Sanjeev Baliyan has called for separate statehood for Western UP, and Union Defence Minister Mr. Rajnath Singh has supported the demand for a High Court Bench in Western UP on several occasions. The continued denial of even one Bench to Western UP for nearly 80 years is a profound injustice for which the Centre bears full responsibility.

The Centre cannot abdicate its duty to address this issue. It is not some powerless entity incapable of taking necessary steps to facilitate the creation of a High Court Bench in Western UP. Such a move would alleviate the burden on litigants who currently endure the grueling task of traveling overnight and for half a day—not just to Lucknow, which has had a Bench since July 1948 and is 230 km closer, but all the way to Allahabad, which is 700 to 750 km away from most districts. This relentless travel to seek justice undermines the very principles of justice and the Constitution.

Why has the Centre ignored the issue of establishing a Bench in Western UP for over 78 years, while creating a Bench in Lucknow in 1948, despite Allahabad’s proximity? This glaring discrepancy demands an explanation from the Centre.

Which individual in their right mind or any political party that truly believes in the principles of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution would ever justify the denial of even a single High Court Bench to Western Uttar Pradesh (West UP)? This is especially egregious given that West UP accounts for more than half of the total pending cases in Uttar Pradesh—a fact acknowledged by the Justice Jaswant Singh Commission, appointed by the Central Government itself. Uttar Pradesh, the most populous state in India, also has the highest number of pending cases among all states, yet West UP remains mercilessly deprived of a single High Court Bench.

Why is it that only Eastern Uttar Pradesh has been equipped with both the High Court in Allahabad and a Bench in Lucknow, located so close to Allahabad? Meanwhile, litigants from West UP are not even assigned to Lucknow but have to travel all the way to Allahabad to seek justice—a situation that constitutes a grave injustice in itself. This denial of a High Court Bench in West UP not only undermines the constitutional principle of equality but also shatters any semblance of fairness in Indian politics.

Despite the fact that West UP accounts for the majority of cases in Uttar Pradesh, and despite the Justice Jaswant Singh Commission's recommendation for a permanent High Court Bench in the region, no action has been taken. In contrast, Maharashtra, which already has multiple High Court Benches in Nagpur and Panaji, saw the establishment of yet another Bench in Aurangabad. This is despite Maharashtra ranking at the top of the State Justice Index, while Uttar Pradesh and Bihar consistently rank much lower. Yet, the Central Government has not favored additional High Court Benches in Uttar Pradesh or even a single Bench in West UP or Bihar.

How long will affordable justice at the doorstep remain a pipe dream for the more than 10 crore people of West UP?

Former Union Law Minister Kapil Sibal commendably recommended the creation of a High Court Bench in West UP, yet his proposal was not implemented because then-Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav did not endorse it. It is abundantly clear which state needs more High Court Benches and which does not. However, the most unpalatable truth remains that neither any Chief Justice of India nor any Prime Minister of India has taken substantial initiative in the last 80 years of independence to correct the colossal blunder committed in 1948.

By establishing only one High Court Bench for Uttar Pradesh—in Lucknow, a location already close to Allahabad—the system has perpetuated a grave injustice. Litigants from 30 districts in West UP are forced to travel, not just to Lucknow (230 kilometers closer), but all the way to Allahabad, covering an average of 700–800 kilometers, often through the night and half the following day. This situation represents a blatant betrayal of the Constitution and the principles of justice.

How long will this most unfortunate reality persist?

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 under 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 has not created even a single 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 biggest murder of Constitution and justice 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!

In conclusion, the only solace is that in the elections in different Bars of West UP, we see that High Court Bench issue carries primary weightage and Hon’ble Mr Narendra Sharma who is contesting for the prestigious post of President of Meerut Bar Association this time which has always led from the front in most vocally raising this compelling issue has been most firm in declaring clearly that his High Court Bench Mission will not stop unless and until a High Court Bench is created in West UP! His winning elections is imperative! Voters must certainly elect him!

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