Above: Allahabad High Court lawyers protesting against the demand of their counterparts from western UP for a separate bench/Photo: dnaindia.com
Despite promises by the political establishment, the demand for a separate bench in western UP has been hanging fire for many years
~By Atul Chandra in Lucknow
Each time there is a demand or a promise to set up a separate bench of Allahabad High Court in western Uttar Pradesh, lawyers of Allahabad rise in opposition. The issue has been hanging fire for more than 60 years, making the creation of a bench for the region as difficult as the carving out of a separate state.
A familiar scenario unfolded recently with western UP lawyers reviving the demand and their counterparts in Allahabad opposing it. In February, approximately one laky lawyers of 22 western UP districts struck work for a week in support of their demand. When Allahabad lawyers responded with a strike to oppose the demand in April, the western UP lawyers again launched a protest.
FALSE PROMISES
Time and again, politicians have fuelled the hopes of western UP lawyers but failed to deliver. During a visit to Meerut last year, UP law minister Brijesh Pathak reportedly said: “We know that lawyers from western UP have been suffering for many years and have been agitating for long… We assure you that we will resolve this issue very soon… and I assure you that we will set up the High Court bench soon.”
Setting up a permanent bench in the region was recommended to the centre by UP’s chief minister, Sampurnanand, in 1955. The Justice Jaswant Singh Commission too endorsed this proposal in 1985. Various governments in the state and centre backed the suggestion but did not walk the talk.
In the run-up to the 2017 assembly election, BJP president Amit Shah had assured a delegation of law-yers from Agra that if his party came to power in UP, it would work towards creation of the new bench.
In 2014, the JD(U) MP and spokesperson KC Tyagi appealed to Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad to take measures for setting up an HC bench in western UP in the interest of “10 crore people”. “One has to travel at least 600 km from any western UP district to reach Allahabad” and the cost incurred made litigation prohibitive for the poor, he said. Tyagi reminded Prasad of the support the BJP extended to the demand when he raised the issue in the Rajya Sabha.
UP REGIONS
The three-member Justice Jaswant Singh panel was appointed by the Union government in 1981 and it recommended the setting up of a High Court bench at Agra. If created, the bench would have catered to the five divisions of western UP comprising the districts of Meerut, Bulandshahr, Saharanpur, Gautam Budh Nagar, Ghaziabad, Hapur, Shamli, Muzaffarnagar, Moradabad, Rampur, Agra, Firozabad, Mainpuri, Rampur, Mathura, Aligarh, Etah, Hathras, and so on.
Western UP lawyers argue that there are other high courts, including the Lahore High Court, which are closer for litigants than the one in Allahabad and the cost of travelling, besides boarding and lodging, make litigation exorbitant for the poor. More than 54 percent of cases in UP are said to be from the western part of the state.
The Central Action Committee, a body of western UP lawyers, also argues that the creation of a separate bench would reduce the pendency of cases in Allahabad, where, according to the National Judicial Data Grid, pendency is highest in the country. According to data re-leased in February 2018, pendency in Allahabad High Court stood at nine lakh cases in 2016-17.
Countering the allegations, the Allahabad lawyers argue that distance is no criterion to decide the setting up of a High Court bench. “You can’t have another Supreme Court in the south. Distance is only an excuse,” said IK Chaturvedi, president of the Allahabad Bar Association, stressing that his fraternity in Allahabad strongly believes in one state, one bench. The Constitution, they argue, allows one Supreme Court in the country and one high court in every state.
IMPRACTICAL SUGGESTION?
Calling the demand “politically motivated”, as it is always raised before elections, Chaturvedi said that managing one bench at Lucknow itself is difficult for the chief justice of the high court and adding another bench will not only make the running of the court more difficult but also compromise the sanctity of the institution. He said the idea of a separate bench was impractical as “it won’t help clear backlog”.
Western UP lawyers say that Allahabad lawyers are against the idea of another bench as they fear losing out on their clients and, therefore, their income. “A bench in western UP will mainly serve the interests of Delhi lawyers,” Chaturvedi countered.
No bench can be created without the concurrence of the chief justice of the High Court concerned and in the case of Allahabad High Court, a full court headed by the then chief justice, DY Chandrachud, had shot down the idea in 2012, Chaturvedi said.
Oudh Bar Association President LP Mishra described the opposition to the bench as unfortunate and against the interest of litigants. “Litigants’ interest should be given primacy because there is no logic in forcing them to travel to Allahabad via Lucknow,” Mishra said. He suggested that till the formation of a western UP bench, the revenue divisions of Meerut, Moradabad, Agra, Saharanpur, Bareilly and Kanpur should be allocated to the Lucknow bench. Incidentally, MP has circuit benches at Indore and Gwalior.
Mishra criticised the central and state governments for not implementing the Justice Jaswant Singh Commission report which “categorically favoured extension of jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench”.