As per case facts, the Federation of Bar Associations in Karnataka filed a Writ Petition seeking a permanent High Court bench in northern Karnataka, arguing about the long distances and ... high costs for litigants from various districts. They highlighted that other states have multiple benches and a past Chief Justice had recommended a bench. However, a committee of five judges later disfavored this proposal. The question arose whether the petitioner could maintain this writ petition under Article 32 and if litigants possess a fundamental right to a High Court bench in their proximity, or if a bench could be established contrary to the High Court's opinion. Finally, the Supreme Court deemed the petitioner's grounds fragile, affirming that no litigant has a fundamental right to a proximal High Court. The Court emphasized that establishing a bench is a decision for the High Court, not based on emotional or political factors. Dismissing the petition, the Court upheld the committee's conclusion that a bench away from Bangalore was inadvisable.