1. Challenge to administrative notification appointing an additional place of sitting for a High Court under Section 51(3) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 2076
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARAVIND KUMAR, N.V. ANJARIA, JJ.
Ranjeet Baburao Nimbalkar – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Another – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 914 of 2025
Decided On : 18-12-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Balbir Singh, Sr. Adv. Ms. Ankita Gupta, AOR Mr. Karan Sachdev, Adv. Ms. Charu Trivedi, Adv. Mr. Kushagra Pandey, Adv. Mr. Ved P. Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Tushar Mehta Solicitor General,, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, AOR Mr. Nishant Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ankur Savadikar, Adv. Mr. Mayur Saavarkar, Adv. Mr. Aman Mehta, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Balbir Singh, Sr. Adv. Ms. Ankita Gupta, AOR Mr. Karan Sachdev, Adv. Ms. Charu Trivedi, Adv. Mr. Kushagra Pandey, Adv. Mr. Ved P. Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Tushar Mehta Solicitor General,, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, AOR Mr. Nishant Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ankur Savadikar, Adv. Mr. Mayur Saavarkar, Adv. Mr. Aman Mehta, Adv.
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.
Headnote:(A) States Reorganisation Act, 1956 - Section 51(3) - Writ petition challenging the notification issued by the High Court appointing Kolhapur as a place for judicial sittings - Power conferred on the Chief Justice for appointing additional places of sitting is independent and ongoing - The decision is valid if made with the Governor's approval. (Paras 1, 4, 54)
(B) Judicial Administration - Chief Justice's authority and administrative flexibility - Court must defer to the Chief Justice's decisions regarding court sittings unless shown to be arbitrary or irrational. (Paras 42, 53)
(C) Articles 14 and 21 - No violation established - Decision to establish a sitting at Kolhapur was rational and aimed at improving access to justice for litigants in geographically distant areas. (Paras 46, 50)
Facts of the case:
The writ petition challenges the administrative notification issued on 01.08.2025 enabling the High Court to sit at Kolhapur, arguing it contravenes the States Reorganisation Act, with claims of insufficient consultation and violation of articles guaranteeing equality and access.
Findings of Court:
The Chief Justice acted within statutory powers, with the decision to establish Kolhapur supported by factors of accessibility, reflecting a rational administrative decision.
Issues: The main issues centered around statutory interpretation of Section 51(3), the authority of judicial administration by the Chief Justice, the legitimacy of the established sitting, and compliance with constitutional norms.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found no legal infirmities, emphasizing that the venues chosen for sittings are within the Chief Justice's authority, encouraging decentralized access to justice without infringing established rights.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- administrative law
- statutory law
Table of Contents
2. Dispute over whether Section 51(3) allows permanent sittings, the necessity of Full Court consultation, and alleged violations of Articles 14 and 21 regarding regional discrimination. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
3. Section 51(3) provides administrative flexibility for judicial convenience without territorial bifurcation, and the Chief Justice's administrative primacy precludes mandatory Full Court consultation. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 )
4. Section 51(3) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, is a continuing power allowing the Chief Justice, with Governor's approval, to appoint sittings without territorial bifurcation. (Para 23 , 55 )
5. Writ petition dismissed and the impugned notification upheld. (Para 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 )
6. What is the distinction between the powers under Section 51(2) and Section 51(3) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956?
Section 51(2) allows the President to establish permanent Benches involving territorial bifurcation. Section 51(3) empowers the Chief Justice, with the Governor's approval, to appoint additional sittings for judicial convenience without altering the High Court's territorial structure or jurisdictional identity. (Para 21 , 24 , 25 , 29 , 30 )
7. Is consultation with the Full Court mandatory for appointing an additional place of sitting under Section 51(3)?
No. Section 51(3) only mandates the approval of the Governor. While internal consultation is a sound institutional practice, it is not a statutory requirement, and the Chief Justice's administrative primacy governs such decisions. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 )
8. Does the failure to address all regional demands for High Court sittings simultaneously violate Article 14?
No. Article 14 does not require absolute uniformity. A decision is valid if there is a rational basis, such as distance and litigation volume, connecting the location to the objective of improving access to justice. (Para 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 )
9. Does establishing additional sittings divert resources and violate the right to access to justice under Article 21?
No. Access to justice includes physical accessibility. Decentralizing sittings brings the court closer to litigants, furthering the constitutional guarantee. Resource allocation is a policy matter beyond the scope of judicial review. (Para 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 )
10. Do previous administrative rejections of a Bench proposal create an estoppel against future appointments?
No. Administrative decisions are contextual and based on prevailing circumstances. They can be revisited as litigation patterns, infrastructure, and demands evolve; past views do not bar the exercise of statutory power by successors. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 )
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 01.08.2025 was issued. The present writ petition questions the legality and constitutional validity of this administrative decision and prays for quashing of the notification and for a restraint on the High Court from holding sittings at Kolhapur.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
5. Learned Senior counsel, Shri Balbir Singh, appearing for the petitioner has assailed the impugned notification and has sought to demonstrate that the decision to designate Kolhapur as an additional place of sitting of the Bombay High Court suffers from fundamental legal infirmities. The principal submission advanced is that Section 51 (3) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 was never intended to be utilised as a vehicle f
![Tari Hai VS Gauhati High Court [Principal Seat], represented by the Registrar General - 2023 Supreme(Gau) 1213](https://supremetoday-s3.b-cdn.net/Gauhati_3.png)
