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, April 19, 2025

Biggest Slap On The Face Of Constitution And Its Key Architect Dr BR Ambedkar

Posted in: Constitutional Law
Tue, Apr 15, 25, 16:47, 4 Days ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 15843
Dr BR Ambedkar who was undoubtedly the key architect of our Constitution was born on April 14, 1891

I have completed my work; I wish there should be a sunrise even tomorrow. The new Bharat has got political freedom, but it is yet to raise the sun of social and economic liberty. So long as you do not achieve social liberty, whatever freedom is provided by the law is of no avail to you. - Dr BR Ambedkar

Dr BR Ambedkar who was undoubtedly the key architect of our Constitution was born on April 14, 1891 in the town and military cantonment of Mhow which is now officially known as Dr Ambedkar Nagar in Madhya Pradesh. He was the 14th and last child of Ramji Maloji Sakpal who was an Army Officer in British rule and his mother was Bhimabai Sakpal. His family was of Marathi background from the town of Ambadawe (Mandangad Taluka) in Ratnagiri district of Maharashtra.

He firmly believed in the principle of equality for all, regardless of caste, creed, religion, or gender, as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. In my most humble opinion, the denial of even a single High Court Bench to Western UP, the hilly regions of undivided UP, and lawless Bihar is the biggest slap in the face of the Constitution!

I believe that the Centre, for the last 80 years or so, has strongly felt that Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s recommendation for separate statehood, a separate High Court, and a separate capital for Western UP—and similarly for Central UP and Eastern UP—was one of the most foolish propositions ever made. This alone explains why the idea was nipped in the bud, and why, even in April 2025, we see no change from what was done during the early independence years of 1947–48.

However, we must give due credit to the late former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee for creating the separate state of Uttarakhand, along with its own capital and High Court, for the hilly regions of undivided UP on November 9, 2000—about 25 years ago. This move came after massive public agitation, as people had to travel thousands of kilometers, not just to Lucknow (which already had a High Court Bench since 1948, very close to Allahabad), but all the way to Allahabad itself—over 230 km from Lucknow—to seek justice.

This situation represents the greatest betrayal of the Constitution, the deepest burial of justice, and the worst mockery of the poorest litigants. The Centre failed to implement the landmark recommendations of the Justice Jaswant Singh Commission—appointed by the Centre itself nearly 50 years ago and headed by a former Supreme Court judge—which proposed two High Court Circuit Benches at Dehradun and Nainital.

Ironically, while this proposal was ignored, the Centre wasted no time in creating an additional High Court Bench in Aurangabad, Maharashtra—which already had Benches in Nagpur and Panaji—as well as in Jalpaiguri, West Bengal, for just five districts, even though a Bench already existed at Port Blair!


At first blush, even a layman can point out that which State in India needs multiple High Court Benches and which State needs maximum High Court Benches! Still we see that UP which is most populated State of India with maximum pending cases and Rajasthan which is largest State areawise have only one Bench at Lucknow and Jaipur and lawless Bihar has none! How long will the judicial system in big States still be allowed to be in doldrums for so long?

Is this the way to make India a developed country by 2047 as PM Mr Narendra Modi wants that you deprive most deserving big States like UP, Bihar and Rajasthan from having multiple High Court Benches and confer only few elite States like Maharashtra, Karnataka, MP, Assam and West Bengal with having multiple High Court Benches? Yet why even media which is considered the fourth pillar of democracy very rarely bothers to ever highlight it most forcefully especially in news channels and top newspapers and top magazines? I just can’t second guess!


There can never be a greater tragedy than this: that even after 78 years of independence, West Uttar Pradesh has been denied a single High Court Bench. This is despite the fact that West UP accounts for the majority of the pending cases in the state — the highest not just within UP, but across any region in India. Ironically, West UP contributes more than 80% to the state’s revenue, yet it continues to be mercilessly deprived of a High Court Bench, which is undoubtedly disastrous.

What is even worse is that the litigants from 30 districts of West UP have been shockingly attached not even to Lucknow — where a High Court Bench has existed since July 1948 in Eastern UP — but to Allahabad, which is over 250 kilometers away from even Lucknow. This means that the poorest litigants from these 30 districts must spend heavily and travel overnight and nearly an entire day by train just to attend court hearings. This is plainly unconstitutional, much like the situation in undivided UP where litigants from hilly regions had to travel thousands of kilometers all the way to Allahabad. Such arrangements were nothing short of dictatorial and made a complete mockery of the Constitution and the rights of poor litigants — a scenario that persisted until the formation of Uttarakhand. Ironically, this very issue is one that political parties have consistently avoided acknowledging.

The trials and tribulations that litigants from West UP continue to face due to the absence of a High Court Bench in the region are unending. Despite the fact that the majority of pending cases in UP are from West UP, the Centre has done absolutely nothing to address the issue, and the media has also failed miserably to highlight it effectively.

With a very heavy heart, I want to say that Centre has been most biased in denying West UP even a single Bench! You don’t need a telescope to see that which State should have maximum High Court Benches as it is the most populated State of India with maximum number of pending cases! How long will Supreme Court be in hibernation mode on this count? It has to be acknowledged with grace and humility that denial of even a single High Court Bench to West UP is not only dangerous and deleterious but also most disastrous, most despicable, most dastardly and so also most discriminatory!

It is most shocking that Uttar Pradesh (UP), which is among the largest states in India and has the highest population—more than 26 crore, as Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath and Prime Minister Narendra Modi frequently and proudly assert—also tops in several other areas. UP has the maximum number of districts (75), the maximum number of constituencies (80), the maximum number of Members of Parliament (80), and the maximum number of MLAs (404). It has produced the maximum number of Prime Ministers, including the current PM, Narendra Modi, who represents Varanasi in the Lok Sabha.

The state also has the maximum number of pending cases—over 11 lakh—in the Allahabad High Court, and West UP alone accounts for more than half of these cases, as noted by the Jaswant Singh Commission, which pegged the figure at 57%. After so many decades, this percentage has only increased substantially. The lower courts in UP are about to touch the 1 crore mark in pending cases.

UP has the maximum number of judges both in the High Court (160) and in the subordinate judiciary, but also the maximum number of judicial vacancies in both tiers. It has the largest Bar Council in the world with over 1 lakh members, as claimed on the official website of the UP Bar Council. Yet, the first woman Chairperson of the UP Bar Council, Darvesh Yadav, was shockingly shot dead inside court premises in Agra (West UP) on June 12, 2019—killed in cold blood with bullets pumped into her head and stomach.

The state also ranks highest in poverty, with over 1 lakh villages (exact number being 1,07,040), the most gram panchayats (74,626), and the highest number of fake encounter killings, custodial deaths, dowry cases, bride-burning incidents, human rights violations, robberies, dacoities, and cases of crime, loot, arson, and riots. Once again, West UP leads in these too—with the infamous Saharanpur, Meerut, and Muzaffarnagar riots seriously tarnishing India's international image, to the extent that former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon referred to UP as the "crime and rape capital" of India.

Recently, Bahraich has also come into the spotlight for communal disturbances. UP has the highest number of undertrial prisoners across all age groups. Yet, even today, in April 2025, the Centre remains unwilling to create even a single bench of the High Court—not just for West UP but for the entire state—since a bench was created in Lucknow in July 1948, which is already so close to Allahabad where the High Court is located, and where such a bench was not even needed.

How can the Centre deny, distort, or dispute these irrefutable facts? What makes matters worse is the Centre’s persistent stonewalling of any attempt to establish a High Court bench in West UP—or in any part of the state—other than Eastern UP.

Much water has flown down the bridge since India became independent in 1947 but the most stark truth is that even nearly 80 years later in April 2025, we see that West UP is without a High Court Bench which is definitely most deplorable, most dangerous, most self destructive and most discriminatory that even Supreme Court has dared not to ever intervene even when UP was undivided! Why Supreme Court has tolerated such dastardly discrimination in distribution of High Court Benches in different States and in different regions? If this is not the biggest tight slap on Constitution and Dr BR Ambedkar, then what else is?

Why is Centre so ambivalent and inimical in taking any proactive step that goes a long way in resolving this key issue at the earliest? One can’t fathom that why Centre has behaved so partially, so irrationally and so undemocratically that the most populated State of India with maximum number of pending cases was given only one Bench and that too very close to Allahabad itself and worst of all attached litigants of West UP and hilly areas of undivided UP with not even Lucknow which is more than 230 km earlier but right uptill Allahabad as if India was still being ruled by colonial Britishers with even Lahore in Pakistan closer to West UP as compared to Allahabad High Court? This is exactly that has led to catastrophic results and culminated in partition of UP into UP and Uttarakhand in 2000! Will any democratic country behave in such autocratic manner?

Is this democratic or autocratic style of functioning? Centre’s approach in this regard in last nearly 80 years has been most diabolically outrageous and has to be most strongly condemned! Why these elected representatives are behaving like monarchs depriving the people from having easy and affordable justice at doorsteps is truly incomprehensible?

Why this High Court Bench issue in West UP has most mysteriously remained in limbo for so long? Why can’t Centre bury the hatchet and move forward to balance the regional imbalance of Eastern UP having both High Court at Allahabad and a single Bench at Lucknow so close to each other and West UP inspite of owing for majority of pending cases of UP for whom Justice Jaswant Singh Commission recommended permanent seat of High Court Bench yet even after nearly 50 years not even a Bench created nor even a Circuit Bench created! What I find most deeply unsettling is that even now we see that neither the Supreme Court nor Centre is ready to open its eyes and take most concrete action to dismember the most historical, Himalayan blunder committed about 80 years ago! Denying West UP and Bihar even a single High Court Bench is not just illogical but also deeply insensitive, deeply flawed and most deeply discriminatory also that has gone unnoticed, unchecked and unaddressed for so long!

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
This article critically analyses the concept of Parliamentary privileges enshrined under Article 105 of the Constitution of India along with various judicial pronouncement.
Here we have two legal systems, one tracing its roots to Roman law and another originating in England or we can say one codified and the other not codified or one following adversarial type of system other inquisitorial or one is continental whereas the other one Anglo-American
The principle of gender equality is enshrined in the Indian Constitution in its Preamble, Fundamental Rights, Fundamental Duties and Directive Principles.
The constitutional interpretations metamorphose a non-federal constitution into a federal one which results into a shift from reality to a myth
What justice is? and why one wants access to it? are important question which need to be addressed in introductory part of the literature. Justice is a concept of rightness, fairness based on ethics, moral, religion and rationality.
It is not the whole Act which would be held invalid by being inconsistent with Part III of the Constitution but only such provisions of it which are violative of the fundamental rights
Thomas Mann had in 1924 said; a man’s dying is more the survivor’s affair than his own’. Today his words are considered to be true as there is a wide range of debate on legalizing euthanasia.
India became one of 135 countries to make education a fundamental right of every child, when the Parliament passed the 86th Constitutional amendment in 2002.
Following are the salient features of the amended Lokpal bill passed by Parliament:
Good governance is associated with efficient and effective administration in a democratic framework. It is considered as citizen-friendly, citizen caring and responsive administration. Good governance emerged as a powerful idea when multilateral and bilateral agencies like the World Bank, UNDP, OECD, ADB, etc.
A democratic society survives by accepting new ideas, experimenting with them, and rejecting them if found unimportant. Therefore it is necessary that whatever ideas the government or its other members hold must be freely put before the public.
This article describes relationship between Indian Legislative provisions and freedom of press.
This article gives an overview of the Definition of State as per Article 12 Of the Constitution of India with emphasis on Relevant case law
Coming straight to the nub of the matter, The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Bir Singh v Delhi Jal Board held that Pan India Reservation Rule in force in National Capital Territory of Delhi is in accord with the constitutional scheme relating to services under the Union and the States/Union Territories
Jasvinder Singh Chauhan case that denial of passport or its non-renewal without assigning reasons as listed under the Passports Act, 1967 infringes the fundamental rights. who was praying for the renewal of his passport and issuance of a fresh passport to him.
In Indian Young Lawyers Association v/s Kerala has very laudably permitted entry of women of all age groups to the Sabarimala temple, holding that 'devotion cannot be subjected to gender discrimination'. It is one of the most progressive and path breaking judgment that we have witnessed in last many decades just like in the Shayara Bano case
Sadhna Chaudhary v U.P. has upheld the dismissal of a judicial officer on grounds of misconduct, on the basis of two orders passed by her in land acquisition cases. This has certainly sent shockwaves across Uttar Pradesh especially in judicial circles.
The term judiciary refers to the higher officials of the government i.e Judges of all the hierarchy of the courts. The constitution of India gives greater importance to the independence of the Indian judiciary. Every democratic country set up it’s own independent judiciary for the welfare of it’s citizens.
various allowances, perquisites, salaries granted to mp and mla
This article presents a glimpse of human life through the constitutional approach.
Er. K. Arumugam v. V. Balakrishnan In the contempt jurisdiction, the court has to confine itself to the four corners of the order alleged to have been disobeyed
As Parliamentarians, we remain the guardians and protectors of fundamental rights, and always need to ensure we are fulfilling our many responsibilities, as legislators, representatives and role models. to uphold the rights set out in the Declaration, particularly as regards safeguarding political and civil society space.
Kashmiri Sikh Community and others v. J&K has very rightly upheld PM's Employment Package 2009 for Kashmiri Pandits living in the Valley.
The Supreme Court on 12th September stuck down the penal provision of adultery enshrined under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code.
President A. Akeem Raja case it has been made amply clear that, Freedom of religion can't trump demands of public order. Public order has to be maintained at all cost. There can be no compromise on it.
Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghosh who is a former Supreme Court Judge and former Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh High Court who retired in May 2017 and a current member of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) was appointed as India's first Lokpal
colonial era Official Secrets Act (OSA) as many feel that it has far outlived its utility. Before drawing any definite conclusion on such an important issue, we need to certainly analyse this issue dispassionately from a close angle.
Sri Aniruddha Das Vs The State Of Assam held that bandhs / road/rail blockades are illegal and unconstitutional and organizers must be prosecuted.
ABout changes in Changes in Constitutional (Forty-Second) Amendment Act
Definition of State as per Article 12 f the Constitution of India with emphasis on Relevant case law
Justice KS Puttaswamy (Retd) and Anr vs UOI held that right to privacy is a fundamental right.
You want India to defend Kashmir, feed its people, give Kashmiris equal rights all over India. But you want to deny India and Indians all rights in Kashmir. I am a Law Minister of India, I cannot be a party to such a betrayal of national interests.
Faheema Shirin RK Vs State of Kerala and others that right to access internet is a fundamental right forming part of right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
the Supreme Court of UK has gone all guns blazing by categorically and courageously pronouncing in Gilham v Ministry of Justice the whistle-blowing protection envisaged under Employment
The Constitution directs the government that High Court shall have power, throughout in relation to it jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, directions, orders or writs, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose also.
What is child labour ? Why bonded in india?
Shiv Sena And Ors. Vs UOI whether the newly sworn in Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis enjoys majority in the State Assembly or not! This latest order was necessitated after Shiv Sena knocked the doors of the Apex Court along with Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) and Congress.
Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC), saying they are two different things. We all saw in different news channels that many people who were protesting did not had even the elementary knowledge of CAA but were protesting vehemently just on the provocation of leaders from different political parties
Sanmay Banerjee v/s. West Bengal in exercise of Constitutional writ jurisdiction on the appellate side has that people have every right to criticize dispensation running the country, being legislature, executive or judiciary
On May 16, 1946 Cabinet Mission Plan arbitrarily announced to group British Indian states in A, B & C categories. Assam was kept in Group C with Bengal, creating a predominantly Muslim zone in Eastern India like the one proposed to be setup in western India.
Top political leaders and Members of Parliament from Left Parties have very often raised the questions of atrocities and accommodation of these minorities even in the Parliament. Unfortunately when this dream of opening the doors of India for her cultural children was about to be realized
Why is it that even after more than 81 days the blocking of road at Shaheen Bagh in Delhi is continuing uninterrupted since 15 December 2019? Why is it that Centre allowed this to happen? Why were they not promptly evicted?
The Basic Structure Of Indian Constitution Or Doctrine Applies During The Time Of Amendments In Constitution Of India. These Basic Structure State That The Government Of India Cann’t Touch Or Destroy
Arjun Aggarwal Vs Union Of India And Anr (stay) dismissed a PIL filed by a petitioner who is a law student. The PIL had challenged the June 30 order of the Ministry of Home Affairs wherein considerable relaxations from lockdown were operationalised under Unlock 1.0
This blog deals explains the Right to Access Internet as a Fundamental Right under Constitution of India and the reasonable restrcitions which it is subject to and whether it can be considered to be a fundamental right or not.
This article talks about what exactly is meant by the doctrine of colourable legislation, how various case laws have come up time and again to reiterate its meaning and how the supreme court views this doctrine. To address legislative transparency for some improvements in the legislative system, colorable legislation is necessary to be studied
Shri Naini Gopal Vs The Union of India and Ors. in Case No. – LD-VC-CW-665 of 2020 has minced no words to hold that: We need to remind the Bank that the pension payable to the employees upon superannuation is a property under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India
Article 25 of the Constitution of India, thus ruled that the immediate family members of Covid-19 victims be permitted to perform the funeral rites of the deceased subject to them following certain precautionary guidelines
Top