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.
Legal Services India

» Home
Wednesday, June 4, 2025

A Judge Should Not Hesitate To Offend Anyone: Justice AS Oka

Posted in: Judiciary
Sun, May 25, 25, 12:42, 1 Week ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 16612
Justice A.S. Oka retires, urges judicial firmness as call grows to end 75 years of bench bias against West UP and other neglected states.

It must be said without giving any second thought that the Supreme Court Judge Hon’ble Mr Justice AS Oka who is retiring on May 24, 2025 very rightly said that Judges should be firm and not hesitate to offend someone. While sharing the ceremonial Bench with Hon’ble Mr Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Hon’ble Mr Justice AG Masih which is a customary practice that is organized whenever a Judge retires and reflecting on his journey as Judge Hon’ble Mr Justice AS Oka candidly said that he was harsh at times and added stating that:
I always believe that a Judge has to be very strict. And a Judge should not hesitate to offend anyone. He added a caveat further and said most unequivocally that:
But I was harsh only for one reason. I wanted to uphold the principles laid down by our Constitution. Very rightly so!

It is certainly high time now and the worst discrimination that has been perpetrated in judiciary itself since last 75 years of completion of Constitution must be addressed at the earliest now! If we jog our memory a little back, we can recall how even the then former UN Secretary General Ban ki Moon while he was UN Secretary General had slammed UP as rape and crime capital of India! At first blush, even a layman can point out effortlessly that which State in India needs multiple High Court Benches and which State needs maximum High Court Benches! Still we see that UP which is most populated State of India with maximum pending cases and Rajasthan which is largest State areawise have only one Bench at Lucknow and Jaipur respectively and lawless Bihar has none!

This in my view is definitely the biggest and so also the most tightest slap on the face of Constitution and what befuddles me most is that Uttarakhand as long as it formed part of UP was denied even a single Bench even though Justice Jaswant Singh Commission headed by former Supreme Court Judge appointed by Centre itself in mid 1970s most strongly recommended maximum High Court Benches for undivided UP with two Circuit Benches in hilly areas in Nainital and Dehradun yet not created and when people agitated hugely as they had to travel thousands of kilometers all the way till Allahabad to seek justice which in itself was the biggest betrayal of Constitution, deepest burial of justice and so also worst mockery of poorest litigants then after 54 years of independence, separate High Court was given suddenly about 25 years ago on November 9, 2000 at Nainital! By the way, Punjab and Haryana still have a common High Court! We also saw how a main permanent High Court Bench was recommended by Justice Jaswant Singh Commission for West UP about 50 years ago yet not created most distressingly till date even in May 2025!

One is totally clueless as to why Centre and concerned States are not taking any meaningful and decisive steps to create more High Court Benches not even in big States even though the 230th Report of Law Commission of India in 2009 headed by former Supreme Court Judge and an eminent jurist – Late Hon’ble Dr AR Lakshmanan most strongly advocated for creation of more High Court Benches in States and yet even after 16 years only few elite States like Karnataka, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal and Assam have multiple High Court Benches? No wonder, in the India Justice Report 2025 that was released on April 14, 2025, we see that States like Karnataka with population of just 6 crore having multiple High Court Benches with Dharwad and Gulbarga for just 4 and 8 districts only created in 2008 rank among the best States right on top and West UP with 30 districts and more than 10 crore people not even a single Bench and UP with more than 25 crore population which is more than Pakistan has just one Bench and it is a no-brainer that it has been listed in worst category just like lawless Bihar and Rajasthan among others also figuring in the worst category of States! Five south states rank among top performers as for just 3.5 crore people of Telangana, separate High Court created on June 2, 2014 and so also for Andhra Pradesh with just 4 crore population and we know that Andhra Pradesh Assembly just recently approved a High Court Bench in Kurnool but for Punjab and Haryana there is no separate High Court for both the States and so no wonder it figures in middle performer category states!

Still why Parliament never ensures that big States like UP, lawless Bihar and Rajasthan have multiple High Court Benches even after more than 78 years of independence? Parliament cannot be absolved ever from its most exceptional stupidity in doing nothing to set the record straight on this count and bringing them at least on parity with few elite States who have multiple High Court Benches like Karnataka even though its population at 6 crores is more than 4 crores less than West UP alone at 10 crores and more than 20 crores less than UP at 26 crores! No wonder, it is right at the top in the India Justice Report 2025! But it really speaks volumes of how much discrimination our Centre and so also our Parliament that is both legislature and executive has ensured is perpetrated on big North Indian States like UP, Rajasthan and Bihar in judiciary itself in High Court Benches distribution which makes me hang my head in shame!

By any reckoning, there cannot be ever a bigger tragedy than this that for 78 years of independence we see that West UP has been denied even a single High Court Bench even though it is West UP which owes for majority of the pending cases of UP which is highest not just in UP but is also highest in any other region of India yet mercilessly deprived from having even a single High Court Bench which is undoubtedly most disastrous! What is even most worst is that the litigants of 30 districts of West UP have been most atrociously attached with not even Lucknow where a High Court Bench exists since July 1948 in Eastern UP but attached most stupidly with Allahabad which is more than 250 km away from even Lucknow which means the poorest litigants of 30 districts of West UP have to spend more and travel whole night and nearly a day about 700 to 800 km in average by train to attend court hearings which is plainly unconstitutional just like litigants of hilly areas of undivided UP had to travel thousands of kilometers all the way again till Allahabad in true dictatorial style making the worst mockery of our Constitution and so also of poorest litigants till Uttar Pradesh was partitioned and this was the major reason which political parties never like to concede and judiciary also has been reticent in taking any action in this regard even though it took suo motu cognizance recently in cheating in Mayor elections! The trials and tribulations that litigants of West UP have to face due to no Bench in this region even though majority of pending cases are from West UP are simply unending yet most atrociously we see that Centre has done absolutely just nothing to resolve it and media too has utterly failed to highlight it effectively!

The bogey that West UP needs no Bench needs to be debunked! Rather I will ask: What was the dire need for a High Court Bench in Lucknow so near to Allahabad where High Court itself is located yet it has High Court since July 1, 1948? The point to reflect on is: How long will West UP be deprived from having even a single Bench?

With a very heavy heart, I want to say that Centre has been most biased in denying West UP even a single Bench! You don’t need a telescope to see that which State should have maximum High Court Benches as it is the most populated State of India with maximum number of pending cases! How long will Supreme Court be in hibernation mode on this count? It has to be acknowledged with grace that denial of even a single High Court Bench to West UP which owes for majority of pending cases of UP which is also highest for any region in India is not only dangerous and deleterious but also most disastrous, most despicable and most discriminatory!

Hon’ble Mr Justice Oka recalled that a great Judge had once advised him saying that:
Please remember one thing. You are not becoming a Judge to become popular. I have followed that advice to the hilt. And that is why so indirectly today it was said that sometimes I was very harsh. He further hastened to add noting that:
I believe that this is one court which can uphold the Constitutional liberties. And that has been my humble endeavour. And I am sure that with the collective efforts of so many giants who are sitting here, this Court will continue to uphold liberty because that was the dream of the framers of the Constitution. Let us still fervently hope that some Judge in Supreme Court will definitely one day take suo motu cognizance of this worst discrimination of distribution of High Court and High Court Benches in different States and different regions right under the nose of Supreme Court most shamelessly, most senselessly, most surreptitiously and most sinisterly by not allowing even a single Bench in UP in last 77 years even though UP has maximum pending cases among all the States and majority of pending cases from West UP yet not even a single Bench even though Justice Jaswant Singh Commission appointed by Centre itself recommended permanent seat of High Court Bench in West UP about 50 years ago and address it in the best possible convincing manner! It brooks no more delay any longer now!

My point is very clear:
This definitely cannot under any circumstances continue endlessly! What I find really most troubling and so also most demoralizing is that this key issue directly pertains to judiciary and it is a grave violation of what is envisaged in Article 14 about equality in Constitution yet Apex Court also has most astoundingly and inexplicably desisted in last nearly 80 years of independence in taking a proactive stand on it and in ensuring that West UP has a High Court Bench so that the litigants don’t keep on suffering endlessly! But I still nurture a glimmer of hope that someday sooner or later it will definitely muster courage and conviction to honestly speak up most candidly on this also just like it spoke recently on more than half of Judges seat in Allahabad High Court lying vacant and ensure that a High Court Bench is created in West UP at the earliest as was directed also so very commendably by Justice Jaswant Singh Commission appointed by Centre itself about 50 years ago and yet not created till date! This is what I find exactly most bewildering!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh

Legal Services India

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.
At the crucial meeting of the Central Action Committee. of more than 20 districts of Bar Association of West UP held at Aligarh
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