http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Writ Petition (civil) 379  of  2000

PETITIONER: FEDERATION OF BAR ASSOCIATIONS IN KARNATAKA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       24/07/2000

BENCH: K.T. THOMAS & M.B. SHAH

JUDGMENT:

THOMAS, J. L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

   The  demand  for establishment of High Court benches  at centers  different  from  the principal seat  is  a  clamour without  abatement.  It may be an ideal proposition to  have justice dispensing centers located at close proximity to all seekers  of  justice  but  as a  proposition  for  practical implementation  proliferation  of  High   Court  benches  is fraught with many irredeemable infirmities.  Taking cue from those  few  States where benches have been established  away from the principal seat of the High Court, pressure is being mounted  up, mostly by members of mofussil Bar  Associations to  have  branches  of High Courts located at  such  centers also.   Here  is one such case of persisting clamour  for  a bench of Karnataka High Court at Hubli or Dharwad.

   The  petitioner  is  described  as  "Federation  of  Bar Associations in Karnataka" comprising of District Presidents of various Bar Associations in Karnataka State numbering 18. They  filed  this  writ  petition under Article  32  of  the Constitution of India, for issuance of a writ of mandamus to the Union of India for establishing a permanent bench of the High  Court  "at any suitable place in northern  Karnataka". The  case  sought to be made out by the petitioner  is  that such  a bench is imperatively necessary for, inter alia, the following reasons:

   (1)  The distance from Bangalore (which is the principal seat  of  the High Court of Karnataka) to  various  district centers  of the State ranges between 425-613 Kms., and hence litigants  from  all these districts have to travel  a  long distance  to  reach the High Court.  It is highly  expensive besides being time consuming for such seekers of justice.

   (2)  In  six other States the High Courts  have  benches situated   away   from  the   principal  seat.   They   are: Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Jammu &  Kashmir  and  Bihar.  (Tamil Nadu also will soon  have  a different  bench  of  the High Court at Madurai).   If  such States  can  have benches outside the principal seat of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

High  Court  why  not Karnataka also get the  same  benefit, poses the petitioner.

        (3) As early as 29.10.1979, the then Chief  Justice Karnataka  High  Court - Justice D.M.  Chandrashekar of  had recommended  for establishment of a bench of the High  Court at Dharwad-Hubli.

   The  other  reasons projected by the petitioner  in  the writ  petition  are  merely repetitions of the  above  three reasons  by using different words.  It is pertinent to point out  that  petitioner has admitted that a Committee of  five Judges  was  constituted by the Chief Justice  of  Karnataka High  Court to study the proposition and to submit a  report and  that  Committee,  after   hearing  the  respective  Bar Associations,  submitted a report in June 2000  disfavouring the proposal for establishment of a separate bench away from the principal seat of the High Court.

   When  we asked the learned counsel for the petitioner as to  how the petitioner can maintain this writ petition as no fundamental right has been presumably infringed or as to how there is any scope for enforcement of any fundamental right. Learned  counsel in that context cited the decision of  this Court  in  Tamil  Nadu   Cauvery  Neerppasana   Vilaiprulgal Vivasayigal  Nala  Urimai  Padhugappu Sangam vs.   Union  of India  and  ors.  {1990(3) SCC 440}.  It was rendered  on  a writ  petition filed by a Society registered under the Tamil Nadu  Societies  Registration Act.  That writ  petition  was filed  in this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India  for  a direction to the Union of India to  refer  the dispute  relating to the water utilization of Cauvery  River as  per the terms of the Inter-State Water Dispute Act 1957. When  objections  regarding  maintainability   of  the  writ petition  under Article 32 was raised a three Judge Bench of this Court observed thus:

   "In  view  of the fact that the State of Tamil Nadu  has now  supported  the  petitioner  entirely  and  without  any reservation  and the court has kept the matter before it for about  7 years, now to throw out the petition at this  stage by  accepting the objection raised on behalf of the State of Karnataka  that a petition of a society like the  petitioner of  the  relief  indicated  is  not  maintainable  would  be ignoring the actual state of affairs, would be too technical an  approach  and  in our view would be  wholly  unfair  and unjust.  Accordingly, we treat this petition as one in which the  State of Tamil Nadu is indeed the petitioner though  we have not made a formal order of transposition in the absence of a specific request."

   The  above  premise  is  too fragile a  ground  for  the petitioner  in  this  case to sustain  this  petition  under Article  32  of the Constitution.  However, learned  counsel tried  it  from  another angle by submitting  that  the  Bar represents  the  causes  of  the  litigants  and  hence  the fundamental right of the litigants to have speedier and less expensive  justice dispensation system is being espoused  by the petitioner Federation.

   We  are  not  impressed  by the said  argument  for  two reasons.   First  is that petitioner Federation is  not  the accredited  representative  of the litigants  of  Karnataka. Second  is that no litigant can claim a fundamental right to have  the High Court located within proximal distance of his

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

residence.

   Be  that  as  it  may, we are tempted  to  observe  that petitioner  does  not  have a case even  on  merits.   Under Article 214 of the Constitution "there shall be a High Court for  each  State".   Nothing  is stated therein  as  to  the establishment  of  benches  of the High Court  at  different centers.  The statutory provision under which a bench of the High  Court  of  Karnataka  can be created  is  included  in Section  51  of the States Reorganisation Act,  1956.   That section reads thus:

   "51.  Principal seat and other places of sitting of High Courts for new States.-

   (1) The principal seat of the High Court for a new State shall  be  at such place as the President may,  by  notified order, appoint.

   (2)  The  President  may, after  consultation  with  the Governor  of  a new State and the Chief Justice of the  High Court  for  that State, by notified order, provide  for  the establishment  of a permanent Bench or Benches of that  High Court  at one or more places within the State other than the principal  seat  of  the  High Court  and  for  any  matters connected therewith.

   (3)  Notwithstanding  anything contained in  sub-section (1)  or  sub-section (2), the Judges and Division Courts  of the  High  Court for a new State may also sit at such  other place or places in that State as the Chief Justice may, with the approval of the Governor, appoint."

   As  the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned is the important  consultee  in  the matter of establishment  of  a bench  of  the  High Court, he being the head of  that  High Court  he has to form an opinion when it is required  during such  consultation process.  Normally the Chief Justice will not  be guided by any political or parochial considerations. When  he  gives  the opinion it is the opinion of  the  High Court  and not merely his personal opinion.  So naturally he will  ascertain the views of his colleague judges before  he conveys  his opinion.  In the present case the Chief Justice of  Karnataka  High Court had done the right thing  when  he constituted a Committee of judges of the High Court to study all  the  pros and cons of the demand for a bench away  from the  principal seat of the High Court.  Such a course became a  practical  necessity as the Chief Justice himself  was  a person  transferred  to  that High Court  from  outside  the State.   Normally  he could not take a decision on  his  own without  such  consultation  with his  colleagues  regarding matters  of such great importance for the High Court and for the future of that institution.  Any opinion which he gives, when  acted  upon, would have far reaching implications  for that  High Court, even after his term of office is over  and hence  it is imperatively needed that he ascertains the view of his colleagues in the same High Court.

   When  the petitioner admitted that the Committee of five Judges,  constituted by the Chief Justice of Karnataka  High Court,  has disfavoured the establishment of a bench outside the  principal  seat  of the High Court  the  Chief  Justice cannot  be  pressurised  to take a  different  view  through agitations and other tactics.  The question of establishment of a bench of High Court away from the principal seat of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

High  Court is not to be decided on emotional or sentimental or  parochial  considerations.  The High Court is  the  best suited  machinery  to  decide whether it i s  necessary  and feasible  to have a bench outside the principal seat of that High  Court.   If  the  High  Court  does  not  favour  such establishment  it is pernicious to dissect a High Court into different  regions  on  the  ground of  political  or  other considerations.   So  it  is out of question to  decide  for establishment  of  a bench outside the principal seat  of  a High  Court contrary to the opinion of the Chief Justice  of that  High Court which has been formed after considering the views of the colleague Judges.

   Practical  difficulties  in having different benches  of the  High  Court  located at different regions are  far  too many.   Apart  from  the  heavy burden such  a  bench  would inflict  on the State exchequer the functional efficiency of the High Court would be much impaired by keeping High Courts in  different  regions.  When the Chief Justice of the  High Court is a singular office, and when the Advocate General is also  a singular office, vivisection of the High Court  into different  benches  at different regions  would  undoubtedly affect  the  efficacy of the functioning of the High  Court. Distance  factor  (to the seat of the High Court) may  be  a relevant  consideration  but not the sole consideration  nor even  the decisive consideration in determining the question of  establishing  other benches of the High Court away  from the  principal seat.  Distance factor is a problem as far as many  governmental  and public institutions  are  concerned. The  distance  from  Kanyakumari  to New Delhi  is  not  the decisive consideration for establishment of National Capital nor the venue of the apex Court.  There is no use in harping on  the situations in certain other larger States where High Courts have benches established away from the principal seat due to variety of reasons.

   We  find no case for the petitioner even on merits, when the  Committee of Judges constituted by the Chief Justice of the  High Court came to the conclusion that establishment of a   bench  of  the  High   Court  away  from  Bangalore   is inadvisable.  For this reason we dismiss the writ petition.