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, September 20, 2024

Why No Change In Uttar Pradesh On Bench Since 1948?

Posted in: Civil Laws
Sun, Nov 5, 23, 13:38, 11 Months ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 12293
Even the 230th Report of Law Commission of India more than 14 years back headed by former Supreme Court Judge – Dr AR Lakshmanan

At first blush, one can make out most easily as to which State needs more High Court Benches and which part of the State needs more Benches yet most atrociously Centre despite knowing everything is just not prepared to take any concrete action in Uttar Pradesh due to which the huge pending cases are piling up so rapidly! Centre must definitely spare a food of thought for this also. Even the 230th Report of Law Commission of India more than 14 years back headed by former Supreme Court Judge – Dr AR Lakshmanan had called for setting up of more High Court Benches in States but Centre has maintained a deafening silence on it which cannot be ever justified under any circumstances! I am definitely most anguished beyond words to see that how all PM have acted like copycats of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru in ensuring that not a single High Court Bench is set up at any place other than in Lucknow where Nehruji set up one on July 1, 1948 less than a year after independence and that’s all not a single more even though UP tops the State list in having maximum number of pending cases and here too it is West UP which accounts for more than half of the total pending cases of UP and still has none and the litigants made to travel whole night and half day till not even Lucknow but right uptill Allahabad and which is definitely most condemnable and most shocking making the worst mockery of Article 14 of the Constitution and Supreme Court too has been watching like a helpless, hapless and hopeless spectator!

One really wonders time and again as to why Centre has so fiercely opposed even a single more High Court Bench in last 77 years in any nook and corner of Uttar Pradesh at any city other than Lucknow known famously as Nawab City where it was just not needed at all as it is so close to Allahabad itself where High Court is located and where it was created way back in 1948 itself less than a year after independence in July! That’s all! After that we see no High Court Bench was created in last 77 years despite Justice Jaswant Singh Commission recommending three for undivided UP including one for West UP!

It must be asked: Does Centre want a difference of at least 100 years between the Bench in Lucknow in Eastern UP and a Bench at any place in Western UP whose population is alone more than 10 crore and more than half of the pending cases are from West UP? Is Centre waiting for 2048 to create a Bench in West UP? Can it be justified from any angle that the litigants of 30 districts of West UP have been attached not even till Lucknow which falls more than 230 km earlier but right uptill Allahabad to seek justice? Can on earth there be anything more atrocious than this?

In no way can Centre ever wash away the unpalatable truth which is so demoralizing, disgusting, degrading and disastrous that Uttar Pradesh which has maximum population among all the States more than 25 crores which is more than the population of 16 small States put together and so also maximum pending cases more than 10 lakhs in High Courts and about one crore cases in lower courts and here too more than half of the pending cases are from West UP and still has just one Bench only and both High Court and a single Bench are in Eastern UP alone and that too just at a distance of about 230 km only even though in 1981 it was agreed that the distance between High Court and bench should not be less than 300 km! It is high time and Centre must move beyond the myopic view that only Eastern UP alone is fit for both High Court and Bench and not any other region which according to Centre are legally worthless just not fit to be given a Bench! Why is Centre most disinterested on such a most sensitive issue which directly impacts the population of more than 10 crore people of West UP?

It is high time and Centre must move beyond the myopic view that only Eastern UP alone is fit for both High Court and Bench and not any other region which really baffles me most! Why so much of opacity in creation of High Court Benches? Why no transparency? That is the nub of the problem!

It merits no reiteration that Centre must take a clear stand on it and not indulge in frequent flip-flop over it as we have been seeing since last more than 77 years! Viewed in this light, it can be easily surmised that Centre has been most deadly biased in favouring only one particular region in regard to setting up of a Bench which is most unfortunate and must be strongly and roundly condemned! I have just no inkling as to why Centre has been so deadly biased on this without any logic in this blatant, brazen and blind discrimination against West UP and other regions as compared to Eastern UP and so also other States.



The billion dollar question is: Why we see that a peaceful State like Maharashtra which tops in the State list of Justice Index Ranking has maximum High Court Benches with its Benches at Nagpur, Aurangabad and Panaji functioning since May 1, 1960, June 27, 1984 and October 30, 1982 respectively and Uttar Pradesh just one and West UP which owes for more than half of the total number of pending cases has none? Why even Madhya Pradesh has multiple High Court Benches at Gwalior and Indore functioning since 1956 but in UP with 2024 about to start not a single High Court Bench created in last 75 years? To top it all, the litigants of West UP have to travel whole night and half day all the way not even till Lucknow but right till Allahabad to seek justice! If this is not making an open mockery of the concept of equality as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution then what else is? It is Allahabad High Court which has maximum Judges, maximum pending cases and here too West UP owes for more than half of them and still no Bench!

Why our Judges never hold Centre accountable for it? Why Centre has always given shallow promises only but done nothing concrete to change the ground reality like setting up of more High Court Benches in needy regions? This despite the irrefutable fact that it is West UP which contributes more than 75% of total revenue of UP and so also owes for more than half of the total pending cases of UP!

The setting up of both High Court at Allahabad and a single High Court Bench at Lucknow both in Eastern UP only for such a big State like UP with maximum population among all the States in India with maximum pending cases with Western UP alone accounting for more than half of the total pending cases of UP and contributing for more than 75% of State revenue and still being deprived of even a single High Court Bench just like in other regions like Bundelkhand and Purvanchal is certainly totally antithetical to the modern egalitarian virtues. It must be definitely asked: Why is Centre non-committal towards the annihilation of region based discrimination as we see in case of setting up of more Benches in UP where only one Bench created in 1948! This is akin to the perpetuation of the oppressive caste system which definitely cannot be ever justified under any circumstances! Why the more than 10 crore people of West UP have been left remediless by denying even a single High Court Bench?

What jitters my peace of mind most is: Centre fully aware of the ground reality has done just nothing to address it. The President of Central Action Committee – Mr KP Sharma who represents the lawyers of 22 districts of West UP under one banner was at pains to point out that, “It’s been over 70 years since we have been urging for a Bench of the High Court here in Meerut. Former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi had assured us that our demands would be fulfilled but nothing moved in this direction. Almost 52% of pending cases in Allahabad HC involve West UP residents. We have District and Sessions Courts but can’t file writs as only the High Court or the Supreme Court has the power to accept them. The Allahabad High Court is over 500 km away from most of the districts of West UP. The Central Government has to assure us; otherwise, the entire community in West UP will boycott the 2024 general election.”

What I find most troubling is that how Centre partially implemented Justice Jaswant Singh Commission headed by former Supreme Court Judge in the most discriminatory manner by denying undivided UP even a single High Court Bench more even though it recommended 3 Benches at Nainital, Dehradun and Agra! Most shockingly, States like Maharashtra which already had multiple High Court Benches at Nagpur and Panaji was given one more at Aurangabad and so also for West Bengal at Jalpaiguri which already had a Bench at Port Blair for just 2 lakh people and so also a Bench for Madurai was approved in Tamil Nadu! This is the real rub! When Centre can display so much of magnanimity for so many States like in Assam, West Bengal, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka then why so miserly for Bihar which has no Bench and UP where again West UP has no Bench? How strange that even Lahore in Pakistan is just 458 km from Meerut and Allahabad is 657 km away from Meerut and Saharanpur is more than 750 km away from Allahabad and still no Bench is set up here in any of the districts of West UP! The primary question here is: Whose brainchild is it that no Bench can be created at any place other than at Lucknow?

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) 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
Present space law framework in the country. Space has heightened the curiosity of mankind for centuries. Due to the advancement in technology, there is fierce competition amongst nations for the next space war.
The scope of Section 151 CPC has been explained by the Supreme Court in the case K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy
Co-operative Societies are governed by the Central Co-operative Societies Act 1912, where there is no State Act. In West Bengal they were governed by the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act
Registration enables an NGO to be a transparent in its operations to the Government, Donors, to its members and to its urgent community.
The ingredients of Section 18 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are
Drafting of legal Agreements and Deeds in India
ST Land rules in India,West Bengal
The paper will discuss about the provisions related to liquidated damages. How the law has evolved. Difference between the provisions of England and India.
A privilege may not be a right, but, under the constitution of the country, I do not gather that any broad distinction is drawn between the rights and the privileges that were enjoyed and that were taken away.
It is most hurting to see that in India, the soldiers who hail from Jammu and Kashmir and who join forces either in Army or in CRPF or in BSF or in police or in any other forces against the will of majority
Pukhraj v/s State of Uttarakhand warned high caste priests very strongly against refusing to perform religious ceremonies on behalf of lower caste pilgrims. It took a very stern view of the still existing practice of exclusion of the SC/ST community in Haridwar.
This article aims to define delay in civil suits. It finds the general as well as specific causes leading to pendency of civil suits and over-burdening of courts. This articles suggests some solutions which are pragmatic as well as effective to reduce the burden of the courts and speed up the civil judicial process.
This article deals with importance, needs, highlights and provisions of the Surrogacy Bill 2016, which is passed by the lok sabha on 19th December 2018 .
Cross Examination In Case of Injunction Suits, Injunctions are governed by Sections 37, 38, 39 to Section 42 of Specific Relief Act.
Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah v Gujarat inability of a person to return the loan amount cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction..
Dr.Ashok Khemka V/s Haryana upheld the integrity of eminent IAS officer because of his upright and impeccable credentials has emerged as an eyesore for politicians of all hues but also very rightly expunged Haryana Chief Minister ML Khattar adverse remarks in his Personal Appraisal Report
State of Rajasthan and others v. Mukesh Sharma has upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 8(2)(i) of the Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentences) Rules, 2006.
Gurmit Singh Bhatia Vs Kiran Kant Robinson the Supreme Court reiterated that, in a suit, the plaintiff is the dominus litis and cannot be forced to add parties against whom he does not want to fight unless there is a compulsion of the rule of law.
explicitly in a latest landmark ruling prohibited the use of loudspeakers in the territory without prior permission from the authorities.
The Commissioner of Police v/s Devender Anand held that filing of criminal complaint for settling a dispute of civil nature is abuse of process of law.
Rajasthan Vs Shiv Dayal High Court cannot dismiss a second appeal merely on the ground that there is a concurrent finding of two Courts (whether of dismissal or decreeing of the suit), and thus such finding becomes unassailable.
Complete Guide to Pleadings in India, get your Written statement and Plaint Drafted by highly qualified lawyers at reasonable rate.
Sushil Chandra Srivastava vs UP imposed absolute prohibition on use of DJs in the state and asked the state government to issue a toll-free number, dedicated to registering complaints against illegal use of loudspeakers. It will help control noise pollution to a very large extent if implemented in totality.
Rajasthan v/s Shri Ramesh Chandra Mundra that institutional independence, financial autonomy is integral to independence of judiciary. directing the Rajasthan Government to reconsider the two decade old proposal of the then Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court to upgrade 16 posts of its Private Secretaries as Senior Private Secretaries
The Indian Contract act, 1872 necessities significant consideration in a few of its areas. One such area of the Indian Contract act of 1872 is where if any person finds a lost good belonging to others and takes them into his custody acts as the bailee to the owner of the good.
Government has notified 63 provisions of the Motor Vehicles Amendment Act 2019 including the ones dealing with enhanced penalties
Jose Paulo Coutinho vs. Maria Luiza Valentina Pereira no attempt has been made yet to frame a Uniform Civil Code applicable to all citizens of the country despite exhortations by it. Whether succession to the property of a Goan situated outside Goa in India will be governed by the Portuguese Civil Code, 1867
In a major legal setback to Pakistan, the High Court of England and Wales rejecting rightly Pakistan's frivolous claims and ruling explicitly that the VII Nizam of Hyderabad's descendants and India can collect 35 million pounds from Londons National Westminster Bank.
Power of Attorney and the Specific Relief Act, 1963
air pollution in Delhi and even adjoining regions like several districts of West UP are crossing all limits and this year even in districts adjoining Delhi like Meerut where air pollution was never felt so much as is now being felt.
Dr Syed Afzal (Dead) v/sRubina Syed Faizuddin that the Civil Courts while considering the application seeking interim mandatory injunction in long pending cases, should grant opportunity of hearing to the opposite side, interim mandatory injunctions can be granted after granting opportunity of hearing to the opposite side.
students of Banaras Hindu University's (BHU's) Sanskrit Vedvigyan Sankay (SVDVS) went on strike demanding the cancellation of the appointment of Assistant Professor Feroze Khan and transfer him to another faculty.
Odisha Development Corporation Ltd Vs. M/s Anupam Traders & Anr. the time tested maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit which in simple and straight language means that, No party should suffer due to the act of Court.
M/S Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Ltd v/s. State of U.P that no one can be inflicted with an adverse order, without being afforded a minimum opportunity of hearing. In other words, the Apex Court reiterated the supreme importance of the legal maxim and latin phrase titled Audi alteram partem
Ram Murti Yadav v/s State of Uttar Pradesh the standard or yardstick for judging the conduct of the judicial officer has necessarily to be strict, that the public has a right to demand virtually irreproachable conduct from anyone performing a judicial function.
Judicial Officers Being Made Scapegoats And Penalized By Inconvenient Transfers And Otherwise: SC
Desh Raj v/s Balkishan that the mandatory time-line for filing written statement is not applicable to non-commercial suits. In non-commercial suits, the time-line for written statement is directory and not mandatory, the courts have the discretion to condone delay in filing of written statement in non-commercial suits.
M/S Granules India Ltd. Vs UOI State, as a litigant, cannot behave as a private litigant, and it has solemn and constitutional duty to assist the court in dispensation of justice.
To exercise one's own fundamental right to protest peacefully does not give anyone the unfettered right to block road under any circumstances thereby causing maximum inconvenience to others.
Today, you have numerous traffic laws as well as cases of traffic violations. People know about safe driving yet they end up defying the safety guidelines. It could be anything like driving while talking on the phone, hit and run incidents, or driving under the influence of alcohol.
The legal processes are uncertain. Also, there are times when justice gets denied, and the legal outcomes get delayed. Hence, nobody wants to see themselves or their loved one end up in jail.
Arun Kumar Gupta v/s Jharkhand that judicial officer's integrity must be of a higher order and even a single aberration is not permitted. The law pertaining to the vital subject of compulsory retirement of judicial officers have thus been summed up in this noteworthy judgment.
Online Contracts or Digital Agreements are contracts created and signed over the internet. Also known as e-contracts or electronic contracts, these contracts are a more convenient and faster way of creating and signing contracts for individuals, institutions and corporate.
Re: Problems And Miseries Of Migrant Labourers has asked Maharashtra to be more vigilant and make concerted effort in identifying and sending stranded migrant workers to their native places.
Gerald Lynn Bostock v/s Clayton County, Georgia that employees cannot be fired from the jobs merely because of their transgender and homosexual identity.
This article compares two cases with similar facts, yet different outcomes and examines the reasons for the same. It revolves around consideration and validation of contracts.
Odisha Vikas Parishad vs Union Of India while modifying the absolute stay on conducting the Jagannath Rath Yatra at Puri has allowed it observing the strict restrictions and regulations of the Centre and the State Government.
Soni Beniwal v/s Uttarakhand even if there is a bar on certain matters to be taken as PIL, there is always discretion available with the Court to do so in exercise of its inherent powers.
Indian Contract Act was commenced in the year 1872 and since then, several deductions and additions have happened to the same. The following piece of work discusses about the concept of offer under the Indian Contract Act, 1872
Top