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
Friday, May 3, 2024

Centre Must Address High Court Bench Issue In West UP

Posted in: Judiciary
Thu, Jul 15, 21, 17:00, 3 Years ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 5265
At the crucial meeting of the Central Action Committee. of more than 20 districts of Bar Association of West UP held at Aligarh

At the crucial meeting of the Central Action Committee. of more than 20 districts of Bar Association of West UP held at Aligarh on February 14, 2015 it was decided unanimously to go on strike from now onwards for 2 days in a week – Wednesday and Saturday! It was also decided that lawyers would personally meet PM Narendra Modi and apprise him of the dire need of the same!

It was also decided that keeping in mind the assurances given by late Arun Jaitley about setting up a bench once Delhi elections are over, they would wait for some more time but agitation would continue uninterrupted even though the continuous strike of 80 days since November was ended after Jaitley had a word with senior lawyers of West UP! But even after 6 years we still see just no action on the ground!

For the uninitiated, the Central Action Committee was constituted by the lawyers of West UP way back in 1981 when Centre in a most despicable act of double standards decided to partially implement the Justice Jaswant Singh Commission report which it had itself constituted to look into where all benches are needed! It clearly recommended 3 high court benches for West UP but Centre ignored it and not a single High Court Bench was approved for UP! However it approved the recommendation to set up a high court bench at Aurangabad in Maharashtra. Benches were also approved at Japlaiguri in West Bengal and Madurai in Tamil Nadu!

As a protest against this worst form of discrimination when inspite of recommendations for 3 benches not a single bench was created, the lawyers of West UP started going on strike every Saturday! 40 years have lapsed but Centre is yet to take any action! Lawyers of West UP have even gone on strike for 6 months at a row as they did in 2001 but Centre did just nothing! Then lawyers also went on strike for 3 to 4 months in 2014-15 yet we saw nothing happening!

It was 60 years ago in 1955 that the then UP CM Dr Sampoornanand had recommended the creation of a high court bench at Meerut but Centre refused! Many other CM like Banarsi Das, ND Tiwari, Rajnath Singh who is now home minister also recommended creation of a bench but Centre refused! Azam Khan and Rajinder Chaudhary who are senior Cabinet ministers in UP are on record saying that they are ready to give land for bench, money etc if Centre approves the same but Centre is not prepared till now!

Why is it that Patna high court has not a single bench? Don't we know that how crime and mafia raj prevails in Bihar? Yet we see how peaceful states have three or more benches but Bihar has none! Why this step-motherly treatment? Under no circumstances can this gross injustice be ever justified!

Why Western UP has no bench of high court? Why can't Modi create a bench here? When maximum cases of rape, loot, arson, murder, riots etc are all from Western UP then why can't a single bench be created for 26 districts with a population of more than 9 crore? Our learned President Pranab Mukherjee very rightly points out that:
Justice must be accessible, affordable and quick for people. Justice meted out with delay is injustice. Though the Indian judiciary has many strengths, it is yet to fully meet the aspirations of our people for speedy and affordable justice which shows in the pendency of the cases in the country. By the same token, I would like to point out here that why is it that the people of West UP compelled to travel so far to Allahabad which is more than 750 km from most of the districts and spend so much of time, money etc just to attend a single hearing again and again?

We all know it very well that UP holds the dubious distinction of topping the states list of pending cases and in fact the pending cases of more than 10 states put together is less than that of UP. Still why is it that UP has least benches in India and states with much lesser pending cases like Karnataka have 3 benches? Our learned former President late Pranab Mukherjee also rightly pointed out that:
Our courts are today overburdened on account of number of cases pending before them. There are over three crore cases pending in various courts throughout the country. Out of these, about 38.5 lakh cases are pending in 24 High Courts.

The pendency of cases in the High Courts has slightly declined from 41.5 lakh in 2014 to 38.5 lakh in 2015, but still have a long way to go. Who will benefit if more benches are created in big states like UP which has only one bench and Bihar which has none? The palpable answer is undertrials who keep languishing in jail for many years and the backlog of pending cases will come down significantly! It is most hurting to see that many Judges seats always keep lying vacant in Allahabad High Court and no serious step is being taken to create more High Court Benches here!

Dr Satyapal Singh who is the former Mumbai Police Commissioner and presently represents Baghpat constituency raised most forcefully the pressing issue of setting up of a high court bench issue in Lok Sabha on March 9, 2016. He pointed out how despite UP having more than 22 crore population and 75 districts has least benches and West UP has none! Should we proud of this? He rightly said that:
I had raised the issue of the HC bench in the Lok Sabha on Wednesday. This is not only a need for lawyers but also the need of the common people as well. There should be a bench in Meerut, Agra, Gorakhpur, Varanasi and Jhansi.

If the Lucknow bench of HC can be created for 12 districts, why can't we have 4-5 separate benches for all the 75 districts in the state? The first war of independence began from Meerut and the movement to provide affordable justice to people should also start from Meerut. I have already written a letter to PM Modi and I will write to him again. We don't need the consent of either the state government or the CJ of the Allahabad HC.

But Centre is following what the previous governments in Centre have followed – No bench not just in West UP but in any hook and corner of UP except at Lucknow which is so near to Allahabad! Centre wastes no time to set up 2 more benches for Karnataka at Dharwad and Gulbarga for just 4 and 8 districts in 2012 but refuses to set up even a single bench for 26 districts in West UP! Dr Satyapal pointed out how despite West UP having a population of more than 9 crore has not even a single bench and the people are compelled to travel so far away to Allahabad to get justice. Why people of West UP have been treated like third rated citizens?

Why when UP has maximum pending cases about 15 lakh pending cases and here too West UP accounts for more than half of the pending cases, why can't a high court bench be set up in West UP? Why when two more high court benches can be created at Gulbarga and Dharwad for just 4 and 8 districts then why can't a single bench be created for 26 districts of West UP? When Karnataka with just over 1 lakh pending cases can have three high court benches, why can't UP with over 15 lakh pending cases not have 3 or more benches? Also, Karnataka has just 50 high court Judges but Allahabad has 200! Centre forgets that the 230th report of Law Commission which recommends creation of more benches was for all states and not just for Karnataka alone!

Why Centre feels there is nothing wrong in having a single bench of such a big state like UP which is among the largest states with maximum population, maximum Judges now 200 and earlier was 160, maximum pending cases, maximum undertrials, maximum districts, maximum MPs and MLAs, maximum PM including Narendra Modi, maximum poverty, maximum villages, maximum vacancy in Judges, maximum crime rate and here too West UP tops the list and still a single bench has been created just 250 km away from Allahabad at Lucknow? Why when for 12 districts of Lucknow a high court bench can be created then for 26 districts of West UP a single bench cannot be created? Also when a bench can exist just 200 km away from Allahabad then why can't a bench exist 700-750 km away in West UP?

Why Centre does not realize that it is poorest of poor residing in remote areas who suffer the most and who have to mortgage their land, sell women's jewellery and ornaments etc to sustain the huge expenses incurred in hiring lawyers, travelling expenses, staying expenses etc? Why Centre overlooks that more than 9 crore people of West UP are made to travel 700 km on an average which is more than the distance of even Lahore high court in Pakistan which is just 450 km away from West UP all the way to Allahabad to get justice which normally does not come in a lifetime?

Why Centre fails to appreciate that inspite of Meerut riots, Saharanpur riots, Moradabad riots, etc all in West UP both high court and a single bench being in Eastern UP and nowhere else makes no sense except to deprive the people of West UP and of other regions of the fundamental right to get speedy justice? Why Centre fails to see that dacoity, murders, rape, riots, arson and violence has become order of the day in West UP due to which a bench is urgently needed here?

Local Hindi newspapers are full of news of how dacoits loot, criminals commit cri with impunity and we saw recently on Block Pramukh election also how violence breaks out at the drop of a hat! If bench is created here, justice will be delivered on time and victims will not have to rush so far as Allahabad which is approximately 750 km and this will instill the much needed confidence among people and fear among criminals of the long arms of law catching up with them! Even court premises are not safe here. We saw few years back how a young man dressed as a lawyer entered court premises and even as hearing was going on in a case, he fired 12 bullets at Vicky Tyagi who was in court to attend a case and who died instantly.

The Additional Sessions Judge – Mayank Chauhan who was hearing the case too scrambled for his own personal safety! In the past also time and again, criminals come, open fire with full boldness and kill whomever they want to! Still, Centre feels bench is not needed here and it is needed only at Lucknow which is so near to Allahabad! This is just not done! Most disgusting! Centre is justifying the monumental blunders done by Jawaharlal Nehru who was our first PM and is still sticking and clinging to it just like a drunkard clings himself to a lamppost not to light himself on the way but to hide his own darkness from the rest of the world!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut-250001, UP.

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.
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