Introduction:
For over seven long decades, the demand for an additional High Court Bench in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh, specifically in the Western region voiced most vocally by lawyers of West UP has faced unyielding resistance from the central government. Very few know that as far back as 1955, it was Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Shri Sampoornanand who first and foremost recommended a High Court Bench for West UP at Meerut but Centre did not accept it. In Uttar Pradesh, the existing High Court, headquartered in Allahabad, primarily serves the eastern part of the state. Not just this, even a single High Court Bench for the whole of Uttar Pradesh is in Eastern UP only at Lucknow at a distance of just about 230 km from Allahabad! What is worst is that the 30 districts of West UP have not been attached even with Lucknow where a single High Court Bench located and which is 230 km before Allahabad rather have been attached with Allahabad itself which means the litigants of West UP have to travel most foolishly at least 700 upto 800 km to seek justice! It is not just the more than 10 crores people of West UP who have to suffer inconvenience but also the people of Bundelkhand and Purvanchal among other regions as both High Court at Allahabad and High Court Bench at Lucknow are very close to each other! This geographical concentration of High Court Benches has given rise to a palpable and unsettling imbalance within the state’s judicial landscape. In the following pages, we delve into the compelling necessity for the establishment of a dedicated High Court Bench in Western Uttar Pradesh, along with an exploration of the extended period of indifference exhibited by the central government in addressing this critical issue.
The Imbalanced High Court Bench Distribution:
Uttar Pradesh, renowned as India’s most populous state with an astounding population of over 25 crores, also holds the unenviable distinction of having the highest number of pending cases in the nation. The backlog of cases in Uttar Pradesh’s judicial system is staggering, exceeding 10 lakhs in the High Courts and nearly one crore in the lower courts. What is particularly noteworthy is that over half of these pending cases are concentrated in Western Uttar Pradesh. One might naturally anticipate that such a significant caseload would warrant the creation of additional High Court Benches to expedite the justice delivery process. Yet, for an astounding 77 years, the central government has remained resolute in its refusal to entertain the prospect of establishing supplementary Benches. This despite the irrefutable fact that Justice Jaswant Singh Commission headed by former Supreme Court Judge – Mr Jaswant Singh appointed in Mrs Indira Gandhi’s term as PM in 1970s most strongly recommended 3 High Court Benches for undivided UP at Dehradun, Nainital and Agra yet not one created. Nothing on earth can be more perverse than this bone chilling truth that on the landmark recommendations of this very Justice Jaswant Singh Commission, Centre approved High Court Bench at Aurangabad in Maharashtra which already had multiple High Court Benches at Nagpur and Panaji and so also at Jalpaiguri in West Bengal for just 6 districts which already had a Bench at Port Blair for just few lakhs people but for more than 10 crore people of West UP again a “BIG ZERO”! This entrenched discriminatory, derisive and double standards stance has given rise to an incredulous situation in which the residents of Western Uttar Pradesh, totalling more than 10 crores, must embark on arduous journeys to Allahabad, located over 700 to 800 kilometers away from most of the districts of West UP, in their quest for justice which means whole night and half day is wasted on just travelling alone. Such geographical inconvenience stands not only as an affront to justice but also as a stark reflection of the glaring insensitivity towards the welfare of the citizens.
The imbalance in the distribution of High Court Benches within Uttar Pradesh raises serious questions about the accessibility of justice. To begin with, the distance that the litigants from Western Uttar Pradesh must travel to reach the High Court in Allahabad is quite staggering. In the age of rapid digital transformation and technological advancements, the physical distance one must traverse for the sake of justice seems utterly incongruous. This travel-related inconvenience is compounded by the overcrowding and overburdening of the existing High Court in Allahabad. As the sheer volume of cases grows, the justice delivery system becomes increasingly strained, leading to prolonged delays and exacerbating the suffering of litigants.
The Unanswered Questions:
The central government’s unyielding stance in resisting the creation of more High Court Benches in Uttar Pradesh, especially in Western Uttar Pradesh, presents a host of perplexing questions. Why does the central government so vehemently oppose addressing the critical imbalance between Eastern and Western Uttar Pradesh concerning access to justice? What prompts the central government to categorically deny additional Benches to a state grappling with the highest caseload of pending cases? Why Centre can approve two High Court Benches for Karnataka at Dharwad and Gulbarga for just 4 and 8 districts only but for 30 districts of West UP is not prepared to approve even a single High Court Bench? These are questions that demand immediate attention and resolution. To put this issue into perspective, one must consider the stark disparities between Uttar Pradesh and other Indian states in terms of the number of High Court Benches. For example, the southern state of Karnataka, with a substantially smaller population and fewer pending cases, boasts having multiple High Court Benches that have been established relatively quickly. Conversely, Uttar Pradesh, with a population of over 25 crores and a caseload that dwarfs most other states, has only one High Court Bench located in Lucknow. The glaring disparities in the distribution of High Court Benches highlight an underlying issue of unequal access to justice.
The Need for Transparency:
At the heart of the issue concerning High Court Benches lies the vexing lack of transparency within the decision-making process. The central government’s inability to provide cogent justifications for refusing to create supplementary Benches perpetuates the perception of inherent bias and discrimination. The juxtaposition of other states, with significantly smaller populations and fewer pending cases, boasting multiple Benches, further accentuates the glaring disparities within Uttar Pradesh. A lack of transparency within the decision-making process fuels the belief that political considerations and regional biases may play a significant role in determining the allocation of High Court Benches. To address these concerns, it is imperative for the central government to provide clear and justifiable criteria for the establishment of High Court Benches. This transparency would help alleviate doubts regarding the fairness of the decision-making process. The Long-standing Struggle: The legal community of Western Uttar Pradesh has not stood idly by in their pursuit of justice. Over the years, legal professionals have launched numerous strikes, protests, and demonstrations to champion the cause of establishing a High Court Bench in the region. Their unwavering commitment to the issue, spanning decades, has drawn significant attention; however, the central government’s responses have been dishearteningly tepid. The legal community’s protests reflect their deep commitment to justice and their dedication to serving the citizens of Western Uttar Pradesh. These demonstrations are not mere acts of inconvenience; they symbolize the collective voice of a community seeking a fair and accessible justice system. The fact that these protests have recurred over several decades highlights the persistence of the issue and the failure of the central government to address it effectively.
To put this issue into perspective, one must consider the stark disparities between Uttar Pradesh and other Indian states in terms of the number of High Court Benches. For example, the southern state of Karnataka, with a substantially smaller population and fewer pending cases, boasts multiple High Court Benches that have been established relatively quickly. Conversely, Uttar Pradesh, with a population of over 25 crores and a caseload that dwarfs most other states, has only one High Court Bench, located in Lucknow. The glaring disparities in the distribution of High Court Benches highlight an underlying issue of unequal access to justice. The Need for Transparency:
At the heart of the issue concerning High Court Benches lies the vexing lack of transparency within the decision-making process. The central government’s inability to provide cogent justifications for refusing to create supplementary Benches perpetuates the perception of inherent bias and discrimination. The juxtaposition of other states, with significantly smaller populations and fewer pending cases, boasting multiple Benches, further accentuates the glaring disparities within Uttar Pradesh. A lack of transparency within the decision-making process fuels the belief that political considerations and regional biases may play a significant role in determining the allocation of High Court Benches. To address these concerns, it is imperative for the central government to provide clear and justifiable criteria for the establishment of High Court Benches. This transparency would help alleviate doubts regarding the fairness of the decision-making process.
The Long-standing Struggle:
The legal community of Western Uttar Pradesh has not stood idly by in their pursuit of justice. Over the years, legal professionals have launched numerous strikes for 6 months as in 2001 and 2014-15, protests, padyatras as in 1989 from Mussorrie to Rishikesh to Delhi and demonstrations to champion the cause of establishing a High Court Bench in the region. Their unwavering commitment to the issue, spanning decades, has drawn significant attention; however, the central government’s responses have been dishearteningly tepid. The legal community’s protests reflect their deep commitment to justice and their dedication to serving the citizens of Western Uttar Pradesh. These demonstrations are not mere acts of inconvenience; they symbolize the collective voice of a community seeking a fair and accessible justice system. The fact that these protests have recurred over several decades highlights the persistence of the issue and the failure of the central government to address it effectively.
Prominent Advocates and Legal Bodies’ Stance: Prominent lawyers, legal associations, and bar councils have consistently advocated for the establishment of a High Court Bench in Western Uttar Pradesh. Their endorsement of this cause is grounded in the recognition of the acute need for equitable access to justice in the region. Bar associations in Western Uttar Pradesh, particularly in cities like Meerut and Ghaziabad have been at the forefront of these efforts, underscoring the importance of a Bench that can alleviate the burden on litigants and ensure speedy justice delivery. Notably, the legal fraternity’s demands are not based on whims or regional bias but stem from the desire to ensure that justice is accessible to all, regardless of their geographical location within the state. The support from legal bodies adds weight to the argument for a High Court Bench and places additional pressure on the central government to respond appropriately.
The Role of Advocates in Fostering Change:
Advocates, who play a pivotal role in the Indian judicial system, have had to confront significant challenges due to the absence of a High Court Bench in Western Uttar Pradesh. The need to travel long distances, often at considerable personal expense, imposes a heavy burden on these legal professionals. The geographical constraints can lead to delays in case proceedings, affecting their livelihoods and causing additional stress. The experience of advocates serves as a microcosm of the broader issues at hand. When legal professionals face difficulties in accessing justice or encounter impediments in their work, it is indicative of systemic problems that affect a broader segment of society. Establishing a High Court Bench would not only benefit litigants but also contribute to a more efficient legal system that supports the legal fraternity in its pursuit of justice.
Economic Implications:
The absence of a High Court Bench in Western Uttar Pradesh is not merely a legal issue; it also carries economic implications. Litigants and legal professionals alike bear significant financial burdens due to the necessity of traveling to Lucknow or Allahabad. These financial costs include transportation, accommodation, and the opportunity cost of time spent on travel. Moreover, the economic implications extend to the broader development of Western Uttar Pradesh and this despite the irrefutable fact that it is West UP which contributes maximum to the revenue of the State of UP. The presence of a High Court Bench can stimulate economic growth in the region. It would lead to the establishment of legal chambers, law firms, and other legal infrastructure, creating jobs and opportunities for legal professionals and support staff. Additionally, the legal community’s work can have a positive ripple effect, promoting the rule of law and contributing to a more just society.
The Impact on Litigants:
At the core of the demand for a High Court Bench in Western Uttar Pradesh lies the profound impact on litigants. The citizens of the region, numbering more than 10 crores, face a cumbersome and often costly journey when they need to access justice. For many, this journey involves traveling from remote and rural areas to the High Court, creating significant logistical and financial challenges. When Centre can be so extravagant in creating airports in UP in which the “richest of the rich” will travel then why can’t Centre create more High Court Benches also as recommended more than 14 years ago by the 230th Report of the Law Commission of India itself headed by former Supreme Court Judge – Dr AR Lakshmanan? The journey to access affordable justice can be especially burdensome for vulnerable and marginalized populations. It further exacerbates the disparities in access to justice, disproportionately affecting those who are already disadvantaged. The central government’s inaction in addressing this issue is an affront to the principles of justice and equality enshrined in the Indian Constitution.
Historical Struggles and Unanswered Demands:
A striking element of the issue at hand is the historical struggle and the repeated, yet unanswered, demands for a High Court Bench in Western Uttar Pradesh. The legal community has not hesitated to employ various forms of protest, from strikes to boycotts, to bring attention to this matter. Their commitment to the cause, spanning decades, should underscore the urgency of the situation. The struggle has taken different forms over the years. In 1978, lawyers from Western Uttar Pradesh embarked on a hunger strike, seeking to highlight the raw deal that the residents of the region were receiving. In the mid-’80s, the legal community organized padyatras to demand a Bench. In 2001, the lawyers went on a six-month strike from July to December, illustrating their unwavering resolve. Similar strikes and demonstrations have recurred in subsequent years, including those in 2014-15, 2009, 2010, and beyond. The fact that such actions continue to be necessary is a testament to the central government’s continued indifference.
A Lopsided Comparison:
The disparity in the distribution of High Court Benches becomes even more pronounced when compared to other states in India. For instance, Maharashtra, with a population much smaller than that of Uttar Pradesh and fewer pending cases, hosts multiple High Court Benches. Similarly, the southern state of Karnataka, with a notably smaller caseload and population of just 6 crores which means more than 4 crores less than the population of West UP has swiftly established Benches, serving just a handful of districts. Telangana with just 3.5 crore population has High Court when it was created as a separate State on June 2, 2014! Yet, in Uttar Pradesh, where the need is overwhelmingly greater, the resistance to creating even more Benches remains unrelenting which is most baffling! The central government’s utter reluctance to address this issue raises valid concerns about the criteria and considerations that influence such decisions. Advocates for a High Court Bench in Western Uttar Pradesh are not merely advocating for regional bias; they are advocating for equitable access to justice. This glaring contrast underscores the urgency of the situation.
The Need for Immediate Action:
The establishment of High Court Benches is not merely a matter of administrative convenience; it is a crucial necessity for ensuring the expeditious delivery of justice. The central government’s unyielding opposition to the creation of a Bench in Western Uttar Pradesh, despite overwhelming need, is a source of profound disappointment. It is high time for the central government to acknowledge the glaring disparities and address the legitimate demands of the people in Western Uttar Pradesh. The adage “justice delayed is justice denied” resonates profoundly, and the citizens of Western Uttar Pradesh deserve the swift, unhindered justice they have been long denied. The central government must act decisively in the pursuit of justice and resolve this longstanding issue without further delay.
The Legal Community’s Resilience:
Despite the prolonged battle for a High Court Bench in Western Uttar Pradesh, the region’s legal community has demonstrated unwavering resilience. Their continuous advocacy efforts and unwavering determination serve as a testament to their commitment to ensuring justice for the region’s residents. They have emerged as the vanguards of justice, fighting not only for their own rights but for the rights of millions of citizens who have been denied prompt access to justice.
The Economic and Societal Benefits:
The establishment of a High Court Bench in Western Uttar Pradesh carries significant economic and societal benefits. The reduction in travel expenses for litigants and legal professionals would not only alleviate financial burdens but also contribute to the local economy. The presence of legal infrastructure would create employment opportunities, furthering economic growth in the region.
Moreover, the establishment of a Bench would lead to the decentralization of legal services. Local legal professionals and law firms would emerge to support the High Court Bench, providing more accessible legal assistance to the region’s residents. The decentralization of legal services can promote the rule of law and ensure that justice is within reach for all.
The Ongoing Struggle and Advocacy:
The legal community and their ongoing struggle for a High Court Bench in Western Uttar Pradesh have garnered support and recognition from not only within the region but also from legal professionals and advocates across India. Their commitment to justice and equality is reflected in the many strikes, protests, and representations they have organized over the years. The steadfast nature of this advocacy effort emphasizes the urgency of the issue and underscores the continued neglect by the central government. Prominent legal associations, bar councils, and individual lawyers have also added their voices to this cause. Their endorsement further solidifies the demand for a High Court Bench as not merely a regional aspiration but a nationwide concern. The legal fraternity’s unity in this advocacy is a testament to the importance of this issue and its far-reaching implications.
A Prominent Call for Justice:
The need for a High Court Bench in Western Uttar Pradesh is not merely a regional issue; it is a call for justice and equity. The glaring disparities in the distribution of High Court Benches within the state must be addressed urgently. The citizens of Western Uttar Pradesh, burdened by the inconvenience of travel and the accompanying financial costs, deserve a more equitable and accessible justice system. The resistance of the central government to creating supplementary Benches in Uttar Pradesh, despite the overwhelming need, raises questions about the principles of justice and equality that underpin India’s democratic framework. It is incumbent upon the central government to acknowledge the pressing demand for a High Court Bench in Western Uttar Pradesh and take prompt, decisive action.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the absence of a High Court Bench in Western Uttar Pradesh is a longstanding issue that requires immediate redressal. The central government’s unwillingness to respond to the pressing demand for a Bench has created a palpable imbalance within the state’s judicial system. Litigants, legal professionals, and the broader population of Western Uttar Pradesh have borne the brunt of this neglect, enduring hardships and financial burdens in their pursuit of justice. The call for a High Court Bench in Western Uttar Pradesh is not driven by regional bias but by the fundamental principles of justice, fair play and equality. It is incumbent upon the central government to address this issue transparently and promptly. The establishment of a Bench in Western Uttar Pradesh is not only a matter of administrative convenience but a critical necessity for ensuring the swift delivery of justice. As the legal community, advocates, and concerned citizens continue to raise their voices in advocacy for a Bench, it is imperative that the central government heeds their call and takes decisive action. The people of Western Uttar Pradesh, who have endured decades of injustice, deserve an equitable, egalitarian and accessible justice system that can only be realized through the establishment of a High Court Bench in the region. To say the very least, it is high time for the central government to act most decisively now demonstrating its paramount commitment to justice and equal access for all citizens, regardless of their geographical location within the state of Uttar Pradesh which since last more than 77 years is totally subverted in favour of only one particular Eastern region only which cannot be justified under any circumstances!
Author Bio
