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.

» Home
Monday, April 29, 2024

SC Must Now Order Creation Of More HC Benches In UP

Posted in: Supreme Court
Tue, Nov 24, 20, 20:38, 4 Years ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 4651
It is most shocking, most disgusting and most disheartening to read that criminals are ruling the roost and making the headlines in UP time and again

It is most shocking, most disgusting and most disheartening to read that criminals are ruling the roost and making the headlines in UP time and again. Women are not just raped but gangraped and then burnt alive as we saw recently in Bulandshahr which is in West UP! Earlier we saw how the Hathras gang rape attracted so much limelight which again is in West UP but Centre is just not prepared to set up a bench anywhere in UP! How many more examples should I give on this? There is no fear of law in West UP among criminals still there is not a single high court bench here!

Just appointing panel or committee to probe into the crime as we saw in case of dreaded gangster Vikas Dubey headed by a former Supreme Court who along with his men killed 8 policemen and wounded several others and who was roaming free inspite of being a history sheeter with more than 60 criminal cases pending against him is a mere superficial exercise which won't address the root of the problem! Why panel or probe only when criminals are killed? Why not when a journalist or sadhu as we saw in Palghar where two sadhus were mercilessly tortured and beaten to death or when a common man is killed or when a woman is raped, gang raped and then burnt alive as we keep hearing repeatedly especially in West UP?

It is not for nothing that the former UN Secretary General Ban ki moon had termed UP as the rape and crime capital of India! It is not for nothing or not for fun that the incumbent UP CM Yogi Adityanath had himself demanded High Court Bench at Gorakhpur way back in 1999 while he was MP from there and that too most forcefully! It is not for nothing that many UP CMs like Sampoornanand, ND Tiwari, Rajnath Singh and others have earlier recommended the creation of a high court bench in West UP! It is not for nothing that former UP CM Mayawati had recommended UP to be partitioned and also not just recommended a high court bench for West UP but proposed that it be created as a separate state! For just 3 lakh people of Andaman and Nicobar islands, there is a bench in Port Blair but for more than 9 crore population of West UP not a single bench!

It is not OK that when Sampoornanand who was UP CM recommended creation of a high court bench in West UP at Meerut, the then PM Jawaharlal Nehru overruled him as he felt only Lucknow was ideal place where bench was created on July 1, 1948 by him even though it was so close to Allahabad where high court is located! It is not OK that when Justice Jaswant Singh Commission headed by former Supreme Court Judge Jaswant Singh was appointed by former PM late Mrs Indira Gandhi to look into where all high court benches are needed in late 1970s and when he recommended 3 benches for UP at Agra, Nainital and Dehradun, not a single bench was created even though benches were created at Aurangabad in Maharashtra which already had two benches at Nagpur and Panaji, at Madurai in Tamil Nadu and also at Jalpaiguri in West Bengal! It is not OK that once again in 2018 Centre decided to create one more high court bench in Maharashtra for just 6 districts at Kolhapur but not a single for West UP or even the whole of UP! Why is UP repeatedly slapped on its face and not a single more bench approved especially when lawyers of West UP have been repeatedly agitating for the same since last more than 6 decades?

It is not OK that when lawyers of West UP went on strike for 6 months from July to December in 2001, Centre did not take any step to address their demand for a high court bench in West UP inspite of assuring them! It is not OK that when lawyers of West UP again went on strike later, Centre assured them that their grievances would be looked into but suddenly came forward with ridiculous decision to create 2 more high court benches for Karnataka at Gulbarga and Dharwad for just 4 and 8 districts and which already had a bench at Hubli but not a single for the 26 districts of West UP! It is not OK that when lawyers of West UP went on strike for 3 to 4 months in 2014-15, the Centre assures them that their demand would be looked into but yet again nothing is done! It is not OK that the lawyers of West UP have boycotted work many times in last 50 years sometimes for 2 days in a week – Wednesday and Saturday yet not a single bench set up here!

It is no ordinary matter that the lawyers of West UP have been on strike uninterruptedly every Saturday since May 1981 till now which means for more than 39 years against denying West UP even a single bench of high court! It is no ordinary matter that Justice Jaswant Singh Commission had disclosed that 57% of pending cases are from West UP and still it has not even a single bench of high court! It is no ordinary matter that the more than 9 crore people of West UP have to perforce travel more than 700 km on an average all the way to Allahabad to get justice as the elected representatives have only made tall promises but never cared to implement it!

It is a national disgrace that UP which has maximum pending cases in India among all the states which is more than 10 states put together has just one high court bench and that too just 200 km away from Allahabad where high court itself is located at Lucknow and nowhere else! It is a national disgrace that UP which is among the largest States, has maximum population – more than 23 crore, maximum districts - 75, maximum constituencies - 80, maximum MPs – 80, maximum MLAs - 404, maximum PM including Narendra Modi who represents Varanasi as an MP, maximum pending cases – more than 10 lakh and here too West UP accounts for more than half of pending cases as noted by Justice Jaswant Commission about 57%, maximum Judges both in High Court – 160 and also in lower courts, maximum vacancies of Judges, maximum members in UP Bar Council and which is the largest Bar Council in the world yet the former Chairman of UP Bar Council – Darvesh Yadav who was first woman to get appointed to this post was murdered right in court premises in Agra which is again in West UP, maximum poverty, maximum villages more than one lakh, maximum fake encounters killings, maximum custody killings, maximum dowry cases, maximum bride burning cases, maximum cases of human rights violations, maximum robberies, maximum dacoities, maximum undertrials, maximum cases of crime, loot, arson and riots and here too West UP tops with Saharanpur riots, Meerut riots, Muzaffarnagar riots tarnishing our international reputation to the extent that former UN Secretary General Ban ki Moon termed UP as crime and rape capital of India and what not yet Centre till now from 1948 when a bench was created in Lucknow which is so close to Allahabad is not prepared to create even a single bench for not just West UP but for entire UP? It is a national disgrace that UP sends maximum MPs to Lok Sabha – 80, maximum MPs to Rajya Sabha – 30, maximum MLAs to State Assembly – 404 MLAs and maximum members to State Legislative Council – 100 MLAs and what not yet has least benches just one? It is a national disgrace that inspite of former PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee having vociferously raised the demand for a high court bench in West UP in 1986 right inside Parliament still 34 years later not a single bench created not just in West UP but in any hook and corner of UP except Lucknow created by Nehru in 1948!

How long will Centre ignore that only Karnataka and Maharashtra have gained from the recommendations of 230th Law Commission recommendations when 2 more benches were created at Dharwad and Gulbarga for just 4 and 8 districts even though the pending cases of Karnataka are just less than 2 lakh and that of UP are more than 10 lakhs and that of West UP alone are more than 5 lakhs still West UP has no bench and UP has just one bench? How long will Centre ignore that Karnataka has just 6 crore population and still it has high court at Bangalore and 3 high court benches at Hubli, Dharwad and Gulbarga but West UP has population of more than 9 crores still it has not even a single bench leave alone having high court? How long will Centre ignore that the High Courts and Benches of 8 states are nearer to West UP as compared to Allahabad High Court and even Lahore High Court in Pakistan is nearer to West UP than Allahabad? How long will Centre ignore that Allahabad High Court is the biggest court in whole of Asia with maximum Judges at 160 and also among the oldest courts which completed its 150 years on March 17, 2016 yet has just one bench only?

It is most shameful and most disgraceful that Allahabad High Court has the dubious distinction of accounting for 14,207, or 98% of a total of 14,484 appeals that are pending adjudication for more than 30 years as was noted by a Bench of Apex Court comprising of Justices LN Rao and S Ravindra Bhat and yet no Prime Minister starting from Jawaharlal Nehru to present Narendra Modi has ever dared to create one more Bench apart from the one at Lucknow created in 1948 which is so close to Allahabad! What a pity that an anguished Supreme Court said that, These facts pose a challenge to the judicial system, inasmuch as the right to speedy trial would also include the right to speedy disposal of appeals of those convicted. If such appeals are not taken up for hearing within a reasonable time, the right of appeal itself would be illusory, inasmuch as incarcerated convicts (who are denied bail) would have undergone a major part, if not whole of the period, of their sentences!

To be sure, Justices Rao and Bhat also noted that over 33,000 appeals were pending in these 10 High Courts for a period between 20 to 30 years, and again Allahabad High Court had the lion's share accounting for nearly 20,000 of them. The appeals waiting their turn to be heard for the last 10 to 20 years numbered at 2,35,914 of which 88,732 were in Allahabad High Court! Why should all such steps not be taken to put our judicial system back on rails and not allow it to be in ventilator as most unfortunately we have allowed in last 74 years! Why can't more high court benches be created in UP so that cases are expedited in different benches as was recommended by the 230th report of Law Commission of India as UP has maximum pending cases in India but which till now has been implemented only in Karnataka and Maharashtra which is most shocking?

Why when former CJI Ranjan Gogoi while deciding on a PIL brought by a woman lawyer KL Chitra for a high court bench in West UP fully appreciated the reasons for setting up a high court bench in West UP but added that it is for Centre to take a decision and yet even after 74 years of independence if Centre fails to act not just for West UP but for whole of UP should Supreme Court not take suo motu action and order for more benches not just in West UP but also in other different parts like Jhansi in Bundelkhand, Gorakhpur in Purvanchal and other needy places? Why Supreme Court never acts on this? It must act now most decisively as this serious issue directly concerns the judiciary! No more dilly-dallying now!

Above all, Centre is certainly fully empowered to create a high court bench in West UP but it lacks the political will to do so as it fears that its vote bank in Eastern UP will slash significantly if it acts in this direction! It keeps forwarding lame excuses even though senior lawyers of West UP repeatedly point out that Centre is fully empowered to create high court bench in UP! It is high time and Centre must muster the political will to listen to its own MPs from West UP who repeatedly keep demanding high court bench and its former PM late Atal Bihari Vajpayee who had himself demanded right inside Parliament in 1986 in his right senses! No denying it!

Needless to say, a High Court Bench in West UP, in Gorakhpur in Purvanchal which incumbent CM Yogi Adityanath himself demanded in 1999 in his capacity as MP from there and also in Bundelkhand is a dire necessity and this holds true most for West UP as they have to travel maximum distance of more than 700 to 800 km! This is certainly most disgraceful! Supreme Court which is the last ray of hope must at least now speak up for more than 9 crore people of West UP as also for those of Purvanchal, Bundelkhand and other needy regions! This cannot keep lying unattended, unaddressed and untreated!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

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
In the light of the latest judgment provided by the SC for commuting the death penalty of former pm Rajiv Gandhi’s assassins to life imprisonment on the ground of excessive wait on govt and President’s part to decide their whim pleas
Shanti Bhushan v Supreme Court of India through its Registrar and another in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 789 of 2018 (Arising out of Diary No. 12405 of 2018) refused pointblank to declare that the function of allocating cases and assigning benches should be exercised by the collegium of five senior Judges instead of the Chief Justice of India.
Coming straight to the nub of the matter, let me begin at the very beginning by first and foremost expressing my full and firm support to the growing perfectly justified demand that seeks chemical castration for child rapists
Justice KS Puttaswamy (Retd) and another v Union of India has upheld the validity of Aadhaar for availing government subsidies and benefits and for filing income tax returns! The lone dissenting Judge in this landmark case is Justice Dr DY Chandrachud. He differed entirely from the majority and struck down Section 139AA.
It is most reassuring, refreshing and re consoling to note that for the first time in at least my memory have I ever noticed a Chief Justice of India who even before assuming office outlined his priorities very clearly and courageously
Manohar Lal Sharma vs Narendra Damodardas Modi dismissed a string of petitions seeking an independent probe into the 2015 Rafale deal, for registration of FIR and Court-monitored investigation by CBI into corruption allegations in Rafale deal.
Judgement by the Supreme Court about energy conservation and infrastructure laws in the state of Himachal Pradesh.
In a major and significant development, the Supreme Court which is the highest court in India has for the second time designated 37 lawyers as Senior Advocates.
On 17th October 2018, the Cannabis Act came into force and Canada became the largest country in the world with a legal marijuana marketplace.
Why Only Lawyers Are Held Liable For Accepting Foreign Funding And Not Politicians? Why is it that under our Indian law only lawyers are held liable for accepting foreign funding and not politicians? Why politicians are mostly never held accountable for accepting foreign funding?
Finally Hindus Get The Right To Worship At Entire Disputed Land And Muslims Get 5 Acre In Ayodhya
I am a student at New Law College, Bharati Vidyapeeth University studying LLB. I am currently majoring in 3 yrs LLB Course from New Law College, and have started with my last year from July 2019.
230th report of Law Commission of India, it will certainly produce more diamonds like the Chief Justice of India designate Sharad Arvind Bobde who is most invaluable and even Kohinoor diamond stands just nowhere near him
Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court Of India vs Subhash Chandra Aggarwal the office of Chief Justice of India is a public authority under the Right to Information Act
Sections 126 to l29 deal with the privilege that is attached to Professional Communications between the legal advisors and their clients. Section 126 and 128 mention the circumstances under which the legal advisor can give evidence of such professional communication.
National Federation Of Societies For Fast Justice & Anr. Vs. UOI Notifications for establishing the Gram Nyayalayas to issue the same within four weeks.. It was considering a PIL filed by National Federation Of Societies For Fast Justice.
Madhuri Jajoo vs. Manoj Jajoo has allowed the first petition for divorce by mutual consent, through the virtual hearing system.
Reepak Kansal vs. Secretary-General, Supreme Court Of India has taken a stern view of the increasing tendency to blame the Registry for listing some cases more swiftly as compared to others.
upheld the Shebait rights of the erstwhile royals of Travancore in the administration, maintenance and management of Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple in Thiruvananthapuram.
Justice R Banumathi had assumed the role of a Supreme Court Judge on 13 August 2014. She is the sixth women to be a Judge of the Supreme Court of India
Judges cannot speak out even if they are humiliated. How long can the Supreme Court and the Judges suffer the humiliation heaped regularly?
Neelam Manmohan Attavar vs Manmohan Attavar that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would not be maintainable in order to challenge an order which has been passed by the High Court in the exercise of its judicial powers.
Jugut Ram vs. Chhattisgarh the fact that a lathi is also capable of being used as a weapon of assault, does not make it a weapon of assault simpliciter.
Sagufa Ahmed vs. Upper Assam Plywood Products Pvt. Ltd the said order extended only the period of limitation and not the period upto which delay can be condoned in exercise of discretion conferred by the statute
the legendary Kesavananda Bharati whose plea to the Apex Court is considered the real reason behind the much acclaimed Basic Structure doctrine propounded in 1973
Amar Singh vs NCT Of Delhi conviction can be based on the testimony of a single eye witness so long he is found to be wholly reliable.
Madhya Pradesh vs. Bherulalthe governments taking for granted the period of limitation prescribed. In other words, it is high time and all the governments in our country both in the Centre and the States must now
Madhya Pradesh vs. Bherulal the governments taking for granted the period of limitation prescribed.
the manner in which Bombay High Court handled the Arnab Goswami case. A vacation Bench comprising of Justices Dr DY Chandrachud and Indira Banerjee of the Supreme Court is currently hearing the petition filed by Republic TV anchor Arnab Goswami
Indian Olympics Association vs. Kerala Olympic Association civil original jurisdiction dismissed Indian Olympics Association's (IOA) plea seeking transfer of a writ petition before Kerala High Court to Delhi High Court.
In Arnab's case, Justice Dr DY Chandrachud had minced no words to say that: There has to be a message to High Courts – Please exercise your jurisdiction to uphold personal liberty
Parveen vs. State of Haryana while setting aside an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the plea of a man in view of absence of his counsel has observed in clear, categorical
Madras Bar Association vs Union of India that exclusion of advocates in 10 out of 19 tribunals, for consideration as judicial members is contrary to the Supreme Court judgments in Union of India v. Madras Bar Association
Inderjeet Singh Sodhi vs Chairman, Punjab State Electricity Board the dismissal of special leave petition is of no consequence on the question of law. We all must bear it in mind from now on
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Zaixhu Xie the practice of pronouncing the final orders without reasoned judgments.
It cannot be denied by anyone that government is the biggest litigator in courts and is responsible to a large extent for the huge pending cases in different states all across the country. The top court is definitely not happy with the state of affairs and the lethargic and complacent motto of Sab Chalta Hain attitude of the governments in India.
Centre has finally decided to get its act together and constitute the All India Judicial Service (AIJS) about which we have been hearing since age
Prashant Dagajirao Patil vs. Vaibhav@Sonu Arun Pawar a High Court, while exercising bail jurisdiction cannot issue directions which will have a direct bearing upon the trial.
Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle-B, Bharatpur vs M/s Bhagat Singh in exercise of itsextraordinary appellate jurisdiction that a statute must be interpreted in a just, reasonable and sensible manner
Pravat Chandra Mohanty vs Odisha refused the plea seeking compounding of offences of two police officers accused in a custodial violence case.
Sessions Judge, Bhadrak in S.T. Case No.182/392 of 2014, acquitting the Respondents from charges under Sections 302/201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code IPC
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. vs. M/S Navigant Technologies Pvt. Ltd. the period of limitation for filing the Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act would commence from the date on which the signed copy of the award was made available to the parties.
Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal and another v. Maharashtra in page 386 of the citation that: The quantum of bribe is immaterial for judging gravity of the offence under PC Act. Proceedings under PC Act cannot be quashed on the ground of delay in conclusion particularly where the accused adopted dilatory tactics.
The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has proposed to introduce the Cinematograph (Amendment) Bill, 2021.The new proposal would amend the Cinematograph Act of 1952 to grant the Centre "revisionary powers" and allow it to "re-examine" films that have already been certified by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).
I have not come across a single person in my life who has not complained of milk being not up to the mark and even in my own life I don't remember how many times my mother
Akhila Bharata Kshatriya Mahasabha v/s Karnataka barring installation of statues or construction of any structure in public roads, pavements, sideways and other public utility places.
Manohar Lal Sharma vs Union of India has made it clear that State won't get a free pass by mere mention of national security.
State of MP vs Ghisilal the civil courts has no jurisdiction to try suit relating to land which is subject-matter of ceiling proceedings, Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.
Deserving cases in Supreme Court also don't get listed in time and keep pending for a long time and not so deserving cases get listed most promptly when backed by eminent law firms and senior lawyers
Top