At the very outset, it must be stated before stating anything else that it is not a male Chief Justice but a female Chief Justice named Hon’ble Ms. Ritu Bahri who led from the front the Uttarakhand High Court Division Bench also comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kumar Thapliyal who both have dared to venture into what was earlier considered as “uncharted territory” virtually next to impossible and have demonstrated the guts, gall and gumption coupled with a pragmatic approach to approving straightaway a High Court Bench for Uttarakhand at Indian Drugs and Pharmaceutical Limited (IDPL), Rishikesh on May 8, 2024! Uttarakhand Bar Association President Mr Dinesh Chandra Singh Rawat called it “Unprecedented in the High Court’s history”! It cannot be just glossed over that this landmark oral directive came amidst the hearing of a petition submitted by IDPL residents in Rishikesh, who likewise expressed their delight at the prospect.
It is worth noting that the case pertains to the Uttarakhand State Government’s efforts to vacate the IDPL premises in Rishikesh. In response, it must be noted that a petition was filed, as mentioned above, on behalf of the residents who were living on the IDPL premises after its expiration. The Uttarakhand High Court had granted a stay in this matter.
It is worth noting that the Chief Justice, Hon’ble Ms. Ritu Bahri, acknowledged that the proposal to relocate the Uttarakhand High Court had been suggested by lawyers years ago. However, a suitable location had not been identified. The Chief Justice strongly opposed the idea of trees falling in the forest department-owned land in Gaulapar in Haldwani, proposing instead IDPL, Rishikesh as a very viable alternative with ample space for future expansion if needed. The Chief Justice-led Division Bench affirmed that the ‘850-acre IDPL Rishikesh land with 130 acres occupied by former employees is the suitable location for the High Court, dismissing the Gaulapar option’. It is also important to note that the IDPL, which had been closed for years, has a sprawling campus in the town of Rishikesh spread over 850 acres, which also includes the residence of its former employees.
It is important to acknowledge that the Uttarakhand High Court’s oral order was met with strong opposition from the Uttarakhand High Court Bar Association, which immediately held a meeting to voice their dissent. The Bar Association argued that relocating a Bench of the Uttarakhand High Court to Rishikesh would not serve any purpose and would not be in the interests of the litigants or the lawyers. However, the Uttarakhand High Court deliberated extensively before making its ruling, a fact that should not be overlooked.
While writing the order after the hearing, the Chief Justice Hon’ble Ms Ritu Bahri termed the proposal regarding the shifting of the High Court to Gaulapar in Haldwani approved by Centre in written as a wrong step and said that 850 acres of IDPL land in Rishikesh is suitable for this. It must be certainly noted here that the Chief Justice remarked clearly that shifting the Uttarakhand High Court to Gaulapar was a misstep, advocating instead for a High Court Bench in Rishikesh, which would cater to approximately 70% of the litigants from the Garhwal region, while also at the same time also maintaining the Uttarakhand High Court in Nainital for the remaining 30% from the Kumaon region. We need to keep in mind that the Uttarakhand High Court Division Bench did not sign its order given the protest by the lawyers and sought a written proposal from the Uttarakhand High Court Bar Association within a week giving its views on the shifting of the High Court Bench elsewhere. But a historic beginning has been made, which needs to be welcomed with both hands as it is the litigants who will stand to gain the most in the whole process, which alone explains why the 230th Report of the Law Commission of India submitted in 2009 nearly 15 years ago most strongly advocated for the setting up of High Court Benches in States that was prepared under the Chairmanship of eminent former Supreme Court Judge and legal luminary and jurist late Dr AR Lakshmanan but most unfortunately has not yet been implemented which cannot be justified under any circumstances.
This was the real reason why the people of the hilly regions of undivided UP agitated for separate Statehood. Ultimately, Uttarakhand was created in 2000, for which not one Bench was conceded. Then, for the same Nainital, we saw the Centre conceding a separate High Court, and now even a High Court Bench has been approved at Rishikesh!
About the author
