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.