The senior lawyers of West UP, comprising of present and former President and General Secretary of 22 districts of West UP, again assembled on October 28, 2023, under the banner of the Central Action Committee (CAC) at Ghaziabad to press for the unmet demand of the High Court bench in Western UP. The demand for a high court bench in western UP was first raised in 1955 by former UP CM Sampoornanand.
Concerns of the activists so far
Justice Jaswant Singh’s Commission, headed by a former Supreme Court Judge, had recommended three High Court Benches for creating a High Court Bench in Aurangabad in Maharashtra in 1985, which already had multiple High Court Benches at Nagpur and Panaji and at Jalpaiguri in West Bengal, which already had a Bench at Port Blair in Andaman and Nicobar Islands for just 3 lakh people. Former PM Manmohan Singh approved creation of two more High Court Benches for Karnataka, which already had a Bench at Hubli for just 4 and 8 districts at Dharwad and Gulbarga, respectively. In 2008, it first became a circuit bench and then later, in 2013, was converted to a full bench.
UP, among the largest States, has a maximum population of over 25 crores, districts, and constituencies, yet there is one Bench for the entire State. UP Bar Council has more than 3 lakh members and is also the largest Bar Council in the world. As claimed on the website, the Area of West UP is 98,933 square km and accounts for 33.61 per cent of the total area of UP and 30 districts, yet there is no bench, but Lucknow, comparatively has 62,363 square km and 12 districts, has a Bench!
Former CJI Ranjan Gogoi, while in office as CJI, had categorically appreciated the urgent need for a High Court Bench in West UP while hearing a woman lawyer named KL Chitra raised this burning issue in her PIL. However, Justice Gogoi clarified that the Centre should take the final call on this! The Supreme Court had dismissed a plea that sought the establishment of a high court bench in western UP. “It cannot be the subject matter of judicial determination and directions,” the SC had said. The lawyers have long argued that they have to travel up to 800 kilometres to Allahabad for their cases in the High Court.
The Supreme Court, in its hearing on Writ Petition (Civil) No.379 of 2000, examined the issue related to the demand for the establishment of High Court Benches at centres different from the principal seat when a petition was filed by the Federation of Bar Association in Karnataka. The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated July 24 2000, stated that “…The question of a bench of the High Court away from the principal seat of the High Court is not to be decided on emotional, sentimental or parochial considerations. The High Court is the best-suited machinery to decide whether it is necessary and feasible to have a bench outside the principal seat of that High Court. If the High Court does not favour such an establishment, it is pernicious to dissect a High Court into different regions based on political or other considerations. So, it is out of the question to decide on the establishment of a bench outside the principal seat of a High Court contrary to the opinion of the Chief Justice of that High Court, which has been formed after considering the views of the colleague Judges” The Supreme Court also held “….As the Chief Justice of the High Court is the important consultee in establishing a bench of the High Court, he, being the head of that High Court, has to form an opinion when it is required during such consultation process. Normally, the Chief Justice will not be guided by political or parochial considerations. When he gives the opinion, it is the opinion of the High Court and not merely his personal opinion….”
The Law Around Formation of the High Court Bench
A permanent bench comprises one or more High Court judges who sit year-long at a location different from the High Court’s permanent seat. A Circuit Bench is for far-flung territories but has few matters to justify a full-fledged permanent bench. As a result, once or twice a year, some judges travel to these areas and dispose of all the High Court appeals that have accumulated here. Only the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta has a Circuit Bench. This is at Port Blair. The Karnataka HC had started a couple of these at Gulbarga and Dharwad in 2008, but both are permanent benches now.
Article 214 of the Constitution of India states that each State shall have a High Court. Section 51 of the States’ Reorganization Act, 1956 provides for the setting up of Principal seats and other places of sitting of High Courts for new States and states that:
(1) The principal seat of the High Court for a new State shall be at such place as the President may, by notified order, appoint and
(2) The President may, after consultation with the Governor of a new State and the Chief Justice of the High Court for that State, by notified order, provide for the establishment of a permanent bench or benches of that High Court at one or more places within the State other than the principal seat of the High Court and any matters connected in addition to that.
Justice Jaswant Singh Commission
Former late PM Mrs Indira Gandhi appointed Justice Jaswant Singh Commission headed by former Supreme Court Judge – Justice Jaswant Singh, who was also the former Chief Justice of Jammu and Kashmir High Court, to look into where all High Court Benches should be created, and it recommended 3 High Court Benches for undivided UP – one at Agra and 2 circuit benches at Nainital and Dehradun. The Commission was to consider all aspects arising from the demand for the constitution of the Bench for the Western districts of Uttar Pradesh. The Commission’s terms of reference were enlarged in 1983, requiring the Government to examine and report on all aspects of the general question of having Benches of High Courts at places other than their principal seats and on the broad principles and criteria to be followed in this regard.
Justice Jaswant Singh’s Commission had recommended some broad principles and criteria to be followed while deciding the expediency and desirability of establishing a Bench of a High Court away from the principal seat and factors to be borne in mind while selecting the site of a Bench. Some of the critical requirements which must be satisfied before such a request is considered, interalia include the following-
- The area demanding a Bench must possess characteristics of a region and, thus, must have a sizeable population and area to justify such a requirement.
- The other factors which must also be considered are means of travel and communication, distance litigant public has to travel for filing cases in the High Courts,
- pendency at the principal seat of the High Court,
- availability of infrastructure,
- Availability of members of the Bar, legal talent, etc.
The proposal of setting up Benches of a High Court is considered by the Government of India only after the receipt of a complete proposal from the State Government, which must have the consent of the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court and the Governor of the State. The State Government has to provide the necessary infrastructural facilities for establishing a Bench of the High Court away from its principal seat and the entire expenditure of the High Court and its Bench. The Chief Justice of the High Court is required to look after the day-to-day administration of the High Court and its Bench and depute Judges from the Principal Seat to Bench from time to time.
There have been constant demands from several quarters for establishing permanent Benches of High Courts at State Capitals where the principal seat of the High Court of a State is situated at a place other than the State Capital. The principal seat of the Kerala High Court is at Ernakulam, which is 200 km from the state capital, Thiruvananthapuram. Ever since the formation of the State of Kerala in 1956, there has been a demand for the establishment of a permanent Bench at the State Capital.
It has been observed that the State is a principal litigant in most cases pending before various High Courts. This led to the state governments incurring considerable expenditure on travel allowances and leave allowances given to government employees for travelling from state capitals to the places of principal seats of the high courts concerned for depositions. Moreover, it has been the policy of the Governments that justice should be taken to the doors of the litigants; therefore, the litigants should be allowed to travel only a short distance to reach the Court. In the interest of the administration of justice, the Court must be easily accessible to the litigants and witnesses.
There is no provision for establishing a permanent Bench of High Court in the State Capital in respect of existing States where the principal seat of that High Court exists at a place other than the State Capital. Therefore, enacting legislation providing for establishing a permanent Bench of a High Court of the State in the State Capital on the recommendation of the State Government concerned, where such seat does not exist, or the principal seat of that High Court exists at a place other than the State Capital.
Supreme Court has parked the ball in the Centre’s Court to create a new seat for the Bench of the High Court. The cost of litigation and pendency at the Court in Allahabad has long been discussed. It is also true that Western UP is more developed than Eastern UP, and the proper, easy, and cost-effective dispute resolution mechanisms, inclusive of the concerns of the ordinary person, support the economic boom. There is growing pressure for the need for bench in Western UP. Whether this will succeed or not is to be seen in time to come.
About the author
