IMPORTANT POINTS
1. No litigant can claim a fundamental right to have the High Court located within proximal distance of his residence.
2. Federation of Bar Associations cannot maintain writ petition for establishment of bench of High Court outside its principal seat.
3. Union Government cannot be directed to establish a bench away from Bangalore.

Headnote:(i) Constitution of India-Fundamental right-No litigant can claim a fundamental right to have High Court located within proximal distance of his residence. (Para 6)
       (ii) Constitution of India-Article 32-Writ petition-Maintainability of-Federation of Bar Association-Writ petition to establish Bench of High Court away from principal seat of Karnataka High Court-Federation is not accredited representative of litigants of Karnataka-No litigant can claim a fundamental right to have High Court located within proximal distance of his residence-Writ petition not maintainable. (Para 6)
       (iii) Constitution of India-Article 214-High Court-Demand for establishment of Bench away from principal seat-Karnataka State-Federation of Bar Associations demand for establishing permanent Bench in northern Karnataka-Committee of Judges constituted by Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court disfavouring establishment of Bench away from Bangalore-Contrary to opinion of Chief Justice of High Court Bench cannot be established outside principal seat-Chief Justice cannot be pressurised to take different view through agitations and other tacticer.
       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. (Para 8)
       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 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 is 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 colleagues Judges. (Para 9)
       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 Courts would be much impaired by keeping High Court 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. (Para 10)

JUDGEMENT

Thomas, 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.

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

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

3. 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.

4. 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 v. Union of India and Ors.1. 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 t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2000 Supreme(SC) 1150

Cases Referred (1)