The Chief Justice of a High Court has the independent power under Section 51(3) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 to designate additional places for judicial sittings, enhancing access to justice without infringing constitutional rights.

JUDGMENT :

ARAVIND KUMAR, J.

I. INTRODUCTION

1. The present writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution assails an administrative notification issued by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay appointing Kolhapur as a place at which the Judges and Division Courts of the said High Court may sit. The impugned notification, bearing No. P.0108/2025 dated 01.08.2025, has been issued on the administrative side of the High Court in exercise of the power conferred by Section 51 (3) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, with the approval of the Governor of the State of Maharashtra. It is the case of the respondents, as borne out from the material placed on record, that the said arrangement was made operational with effect from 18.08.2025.

2. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, established in 1862, has historically exercised jurisdiction over an extensive and geographically diverse region. Following the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 and the reorganisation of States in 1960, the statute provided a framework enabling High Courts to hold sittings away from the principal seat where considerations of convenience and effective administration so warranted. In that backdrop, the Bench at Nagpur continued as a permanent Bench upon the formation of the State of Maharashtra. Thereafter, by notification dated 27.08.1981, the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court appointed Aurangabad as an additional place of sitting under Section 51 (3), which arrangement was later converted into a permanent Bench by a Presidential Order under Section 51 (2) with effect from 27.08.1984. A permanent Bench at Panaji was also established in 1981 following the extension of the High Court’s jurisdiction to the State of Goa. These arrangements demonstrate that the statutory scheme has, in the past, been utilised to respond to distance, volume of litigation, and the demands of access to justice.

3. Prior to its merger with the then Province of Bombay in 01.03.1949, Kolhapur is stated to have functioned as the seat of the High Court and the Supreme Court of the former Kolhapur State. After integration, the districts forming the southern and south-western region of the present State of Maharashtra came within the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court. Over the decades, representations were made by the Bar and litigant bodies from Kolhapur, Sangli, Satara, Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg seeking a High Court sitting in this region, pointing to distance from the principal seat and the absence of a proximate forum for adjudication of disputes to be resolved by High Court, despite a steady inflow of cases from these districts.

4. The record placed before this Court indicates that, after administrative consideration on feasibility and availability of infrastructure, a proposal was formulated by the High Court for appointing Kolhapur as an additional place of sitting. The proposal contemplated that cases arising from the districts of Kolhapur, Sangli, Satara, Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg would be assigned to the Kolhapur sitting in accordance with administrative directions of the Chief Justice. It is the case of the respondents that the proposal received the approval of the Governor of Maharashtra on 30.07.2025, following which Notification No. P.0108/2025 dated 01.0