Need for a new High Court

Single (Joint) High Court at a joint capital for a considerable period of time (ten or five years) will not provide equal justice to Seemandhra people. Clause (1) of Article 231of the Constitution enables parliament to establish by law a common high court for two or more States and a union territory.

Imparting social, economic and political justice is the basic feature of the Constitution. Recently the Supreme Court Judge, Justice Aswini Kumar expressed concern over the non-availability of justice at the doorsteps of the common man and the poor. Good administration of justice is the bedrock of a democratic State.

The high court is the apex court in the State. Independent and autonomous as it is, it is yet subjected to the control and direction of the State Government. Union Minister for Law Kapil Sibal also insisted on the appointment of chief justice and judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts with prior intimation and consensus of the Government. He said that the old practice of appointment of judges solely by the approval of the chief justice without consensus of the government would be done away with shortly by amending the law.

Single high court for two States at a joint capital will create a number of complications and problems apart from causing infringement of human rights. Geographically observing, the Seemandhra people have to travel 200- 300 km to reach the high court at Hyderabad. The location of the high court in A.P is not like Chandigarh High Court which is geographically situated just between the two states - Chandigarh and Punjab.

While Telangana people have a good facility and availability of the apex court within their state boundary, Seemandhra people face discomfort and risk in approaching the apex court located in another State altogether. It means that right to equal treatment in similar circumstances both in the privileges conferred and in the liabilities imposed by the laws is infringed.

Single (Joint) High Court at a joint capital for a considerable period of time (ten or five years) will not provide equal justice to Seemandhra people. Clause (1) of Article 231of the Constitution enables parliament to establish by law a common high court for two or more States and a union territory. Geographical and political situations have facilitated for a common High Court in respect of Punjab and Haryana, but the case is entirely different in respect of Telengana and Seemandhra.

The inconsistent political situations have emerged as separate individual entities in these two States with separate new legislatures and new governments which are impending. In view of the hike in crime rate and legal complications and litigations in the statistical data, speedy disposal of cases is an immediate imperative on the part of judiciary in the interest of natural justice. The administration of justice amidst hustle and bustle of variety of litigations demands transparency, just and fair deal with conspicuous absence of arbitrariness. This is possible only when there is a separate High Court for a separate state.

Especially in issuing/granting writs, the High Court is to play a vital role and strategic role in administration of justice because the writs are extraordinary legal remedies intended to be invoked in exceptional cases and in wide scope of its Avenues under Article 226 when compared with limited scope of writs under Article 32 in the Supreme Court. A separate High Court under the jurisdiction of each legislature will prevent the perpetration of legal fraud. Because the limitation Act applies to the petitions under Article 226, a separate High Court within the state alone can facilitate and confer equitable jurisdiction within the reach of all sections of people, and this in turn paves the way of natural justice, the basic feature of the constitution.

Till a separate high court is established in Seemandhra, the GoM can recommend the establishment of a High Court bench or a special court as per the provisions under the Special Courts Bill 1978. The special court constituted by a statute is not subordinate to the High Court. If Seemandhra has a separate special court within the state boundary, the High Court which may work under the impact of Telangana State government will have no control or interference over the special court of Seemandhra. Justice Chandrachud said: "Special courts created by the Bill will not have the Constitutional status... and they are not District Courts within the meaning of Article 235, with the result that the control over them will not be vested in any High Court".

Providing natural justice in tune with Rule of Law being the fundamental base of constitutional law, the GOM is to give top priority to launching a separate High Court or special court exclusively for Seemandhra within the state boundary. When the apex court administers justice in consonance with local conventions and local environment, the justice can be best possible as aspired in the preamble of the Constitution.

Final B.A., L.L.B.,(Hons)

Damodaram Sanjivaiah

National Law University

Visakhapatnam