FEDERATION OF BAR ASSOCIATIONS IN KARNATAKA versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 655 · Decided: 24-07-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

FEDERATION OF BAR ASSOCIATIONS IN KARNATAKA 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA 
JULY 24, 2000 
[K.T. THOMAS AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.] 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Article 32-Writ Petition-Maintainability of-Infringement of 
fundamental right-Petition filed for establishing separate bench of High C 
Court-Based on ground of long distance from Bangalore to various district 
centres which becomes expensive and time consuming for litigants to seek 
justice-Held, ground too fragile to maintain writ petition in absence of 
infringement of fundamental right. 
Article 2 I 4-Establishing High Court for each State-Establishment of D 
Benches of High Court at different centres not stated in the Article-Chief 
Justice of Karnataka High Court constitutes a committee of jive Judges to 
study the demand for a Bench away from the principal seat of High Court-
Held, committee was rightly constituted-Further, opinion of Chief Justice 
disfavouring establishment of separate Bench must be treated as opinion of E 
High Court and not his personal opinion-States Reorganisation Act, 1956-
Section 51. 
The Petitioner filed a writ petition for establishing a separate Bench of 
High Court at a suitable place in northern Karnataka apart from its principal 
seat at Bangalore. The reason submitted by the Petitioner was long distance F 
from Bangalore to various district centres of the State. The committee of five 
Judges was constituted by the Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court to study 
the proposition and submit the report on establishment of a Bench outside 
the principal seat of the High Court. The committee disfavoured· the 
establishment. Hence this petition. 
G 
Dismissing the petition, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. The petitioner Federation is not the accredited representative 
of the litigants of Karnataka and no litigant can claim a fundamental right to 
have the High Court located within proximal distance of his residence; as H 
655 
656 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A such there is no infringement of fundamental right of the Petitioner. Thus, 
the Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950 for issuance 
of writ of mandamus to the Union oflndia for establishing a permanent bench 
of the High Court "at any suitable place in northern Karnataka" is not 
maintainable. [659-A; 657-C-D] 
B 
Tamil Nadu Cauvery Neerppasana Vilaiporulgal Vivasayigal Na/a 
Urimai Padhugappu Sangam v. Union of India and Ors., [1990] 3 SCC 440, 
distinguished. 
2.1. The High Court is the best suited machinery to decide whether it 
is necessary and feasible to have a Bench outside the principle seat of that 
C High Court.. The Chief justice of the High Court is the important consultee 
in the matter of establishment of a Bench of the High Court. He being the 
head of that High Court has to form an opinion when it is required during 
such consultation process. The Chief justice will not be guided by any political 
or parochial considerations. When he gives the opinion it is the opinion of 
D the High Court and not merely his personal opinion. [659-F-H] 
2.2. The Committee of five Judges, constituted by the Chief Justice of 
Karnataka High Court, has disfavoured the establishments of a Bench outside 
the principal seat of the High Court. So it is pernicious to dissect a High 
Court into different regions on the ground of political or other considerations. 
E 
[660-C-E] 
2.3. Having different Benches of the High Court located at different 
regions would inflict heavy burden on the State exchequer and the functional 
efficiency of the High Court would be much impaired by keeping High Courts 
in different regions. When the Chief Justice of the High Court is a singular 
F office, as also the Advocate general, 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. [660-F-G] 
G 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (C) No. 379 of2000. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) 
N.D.B. Raju, Bharathi Raju and Indeevar Goodwill for the Petitioner. 
H 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
'-. 
FEDERATION OF BAR ASSOCIATIONS IN KARNATAKA v. U.0.1. [THOMAS, J.] 657 
THOMAS, J. The demand for estab
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.