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

Permanent Sangharsh Samiti To Be Constituted In Every District Of West UP

Posted in: Civil Laws
Wed, Nov 22, 23, 20:48, 6 Months ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 8041
It is a matter of deepest regret that lawyers of West UP have been agitating since last so many decades when I nearing 50

It is a matter of deepest regret that lawyers of West UP have been agitating since last so many decades when I nearing 50 was not even born not for their own benefit but for the benefit of the litigants who have to travel so far about 650 to 750 km on an average all the way to not even Lucknow which falls more than 230 km earlier and where the single High Court Bench of Uttar Pradesh is located but right uptill Allahabad with whom the 22 districts of West UP are attached to seek justice but to no avail! The senior lawyers of West UP even formed a “Kendriya Sangharsh Samiti” termed in English as “Central Action Committee” many decades ago in which lawyers of 22 districts came together under one banner under the leadership of lawyers of Meerut to fight unitedly against the worst discrimination perpetrated upon West UP by denying it even a single High Court Bench even though Justice Jaswant Singh Commission headed by former Supreme Court Judge and not by some politician had very strongly recommended for a Bench in West UP and so also two Benches for hilly areas of undivided UP at Dehradun and Nainital yet not one created most disgracefully by Centre!

In the most blatant act of discrimination, partiality and cheating perpetrated openly upon by Centre most chillingly by approving one more High Court Bench for a peaceful State like Maharashtra at Aurangabad as recommended even though Maharashtra with much less pending cases already had multiple High Court Benches at Nagpur and Panaji and so also for West Bengal at Jalpaiguri for just 6 districts as recommended even though it had a Bench at Port Blair for just 3 lakh people and so also for Madurai at Tamil Nadu as recommended. Since May 1981 till November 2023, the lawyers of West UP have been going on strike every Saturday apart from six months strike in 2001 and 2014 and one month hunger strike in 1978 and many more such similar strikes in protest against this worst discrimination that was perpetrated upon by Centre and repeatedly made pleas for creating a Bench in any of the districts of West UP but all pleas fell on deaf ears!

On November 8, the lawyers of West UP again boycotted work, protested peacefully demanding High Court Bench in different places as has been happening since last so many decades and reaffirmed its full solidarity to continue till the demand is finally met! On November 18, 2023, the lawyers of West UP again boycotted work and senior lawyers comprising of President and General Secretary of 22 districts of West UP and so also former President and General Secretary among others met in Moradabad to draw fresh strategy to renew the agitation for a High Court Bench in West UP and it was decided to constitute “Permanent Sangharsh Samiti” in every district of West UP which will work relentlessly only for furthering the cause of High Court Bench in West UP and next meet will be held in Bijnore on December 16 to prepare the blue print to carry out Padyatra to Delhi!

What sense does it make that West UP has been denied a Bench since last 77 years due to which litigants have to travel whole night and half day till Allahabad to seek justice which in itself is the biggest injustice and equipping only Eastern UP which already had High Court with Bench also created 75 years ago at Lucknow so near to Allahabad and then attached West UP not even with Lucknow which falls 230 km earlier but right uptill Allahabad most despotically? Why more than half of the pending cases are from West UP and still no Bench here? What rubbish!

As if this was not enough, Centre most disgracefully yet again approved two High Court Benches for Karnataka with a population of just 6 crores at Dharwad and Gulbarga respectively but for West UP with a population of more than 10 crores and 30 districts with 22 districts coming under one banner yet we see Centre not approving even a single High Court Bench and keeps dishing out one lame excuse or the other to justify denial of even a single High Court Bench to West UP which cannot be ever justified! To top it all, we find that even the Apex Court has failed to take suo motu cognizance of this open blatant fraud striking at the very root of the concept of “justice at doorsteps” and “equality” as envisaged in Article 14 of the Constitution! More than anything else, what pinches the people of West UP most is that Lucknow which is so close to Allahabad can have High Court Bench since 1948 for just 12 districts but West UP with 22 districts even as 2024 is about to start is still not deemed fit by Centre for a Bench!

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 - late 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 definitely 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 States 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 are made to travel horrendously all the way whole night and half day till not even Lucknow but right uptill Allahabad and which is definitely just not done as it makes the worst mockery of Article 14 of the Constitution and Supreme Court too has been watching like a helpless, hapless and hopeless spectator!

What I really detest the most is Centre’s blind opposition to a High Court Bench in any nook and corner of Uttar Pradesh and as public posturing always lay the blame on the doors of either Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court or Chief Minister or Governor which is nothing but “white lie” as it is Centre and Centre alone which has got the mandate to govern India and not some Chief Justice or Chief Minister or Governor as wrongly projected which is a valiant diversionary tactic adopted by Centre for which it cannot be ever exonerated under any circumstances! All the arguments that are forwarded opposing a High Court Bench in West UP are entirely untenable and just not fit to be entertained! It is definitely most outrageous to see how Centre has repeatedly poured cold water on the most legitimate and compelling demand for a High Court Bench which is the crying need of the hour also! What disenchants and demoralizes me most to note is the cold shouldered raw treatment meted out by Centre to the most legitimate and compelling need for a Bench in West UP which has to be strongly and roundly condemned.

What really perplexes me most to see is: Inspite of so many agitations by lawyers, Centre has not deemed it appropriate to consider it seriously and pursue it to its logical conclusion! What has left me completely stung is that not one Prime Minister in last 77 years could ever summon the courage and conviction to catch the bull by the horns and order a High Court Bench to be created in West UP and so also in other needy regions of UP! How can it be ever lightly dismissed by anyone that West UP alone owes for nearly half of the total population of UP and so also contributes more than 75% of the State revenue and to top it all what cannot be glossed over is that it is West UP which owes for more than half of the total pending cases of UP as conceded even by Justice Jaswant Singh Commission and still no Bench created here and as 2024 General Elections are hardly about 6 months away we hear BJP eminent and senior leader and Union Minister Sanjeev Baliyan while speaking in Jat Summit in Meerut in West UP recently advocated separate Statehood for West UP with High Court seat being at Meerut but this is just lip service which we have been hearing since last so many decades with even former Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh and now Union Defence Minister Rajnath Singh openly batting for a High Court Bench in West UP and so also many other senior leaders and former PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee had the guts to demand a High Court Bench for Meerut right inside Parliament in 1986 and in 1955, the then Congress Chief Minister Dr Sampoorananand also recommended a High Court Bench in Meerut and so also many others but still nothing materialized on ground!

It must be asked: Why can’t Centre give a mouth-shutting reply and so also action-shutting reply of how much it cares for the person standing on the last line of a row by most promptly approving more High Court Benches in most needy regions of UP like in West UP, Bundelkhand and Purvanchal? To top it all, we see that Centre is even allowing the judiciary i.e. Allahabad High Court to deny even e-filing facility which Centre had itself approved and which was to start from November 1, 2023 even though in many States like Orissa, Telangana and others it has been in operation since a pretty long time! It was by the notification issued on 18 October, 2023 that had permitted e-filing of cases from any district of UP from November 1, 2023! Plainly speaking, this is what pinches the lawyers of West UP most and Centre’s nonchalance in addressing it is quite ostensible!

How long would the interminable wait for a High Court Bench in West UP continue inordinately? The lawyers of West UP went for months on hunger strike in 1978 and so also on padyatras many times most famously in 1986 and so also for 6 months strike as in 2001 and so also in 2014-15 and many times even on Wednesday which was discontinued so that litigants don’t suffer endlessly! The short key point that I want to humbly make here on this issue is: For how long will Centre pretend to be totally blind to the ground reality?

When Centre can spend billions of rupees to reduce the time limit in travelling from Meerut to Delhi then why can’t it simply create a High Court Bench in any of the 22 districts of West UP so that the litigants who suffer the most endlessly by being made to travel whole night and half day all the way not even till Lucknow but right uptill Allahabad and after most tiring journey then rush to High Court to submit important details including photograph and then start searching for hotel which many times are not available or are available at exorbitant rates but Centre most shockingly has done just nothing to address it as Allahabad High Court has red-flagged the e-filing also which I find most incomprehensible! Centre must act now and provide most durable solution by approving High Court Bench not just in West UP but also in other needy regions of UP like Bundelkhand and Purvanchal! It brooks no more delay anymore!

All told, Centre must realize that lawyers of West UP are fighting the battle of litigants single-handedly since a very long time when I about to complete 50 years in two years was not even born so that litigants are able to get justice at a much lesser rate and don’t have to suffer endlessly by going through the process of travelling so far which in itself is the biggest punishment to travel again and again so far which cannot be ever justified! When States like Maharashtra, Assam, Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka can have multiple High Court Benches then why Uttar Pradesh which has maximum pending cases among all the States in India has just one Bench and that too so close to Allahabad and litigants of West UP attached with not even Lucknow but right uptill Allahabad to seek justice. If High Court Bench had been created in the mid 1980s for West UP also just like it was done in Maharashtra and other States, the lawyers of West UP would definitely not have been compelled to go on strike? No one cares for West UP even though 75% of revenue is contributed by West UP which is just mind blowing and most discriminatory!

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