- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Federation Of Bar Associations In Karnataka v. Union Of India .
Factual and Procedural Background
The Federation of Bar Associations in Karnataka, representing presidents of 18 district bar associations, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking a mandamus directing the Union of India to establish a permanent Bench of the Karnataka High Court “at any suitable place in northern Karnataka” (Hubli/Dharwad area). Their initiative stemmed from dissatisfaction with: (i) the long distance (425–613 km) litigants from northern districts must travel to the principal seat in Bengaluru, (ii) the existence of out-station High Court Benches in several other States, and (iii) a 1979 recommendation by a former Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court favouring such a Bench.
The Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court had constituted a five-judge committee to examine the demand; in June 2000, that committee advised against creating an out-station Bench. Despite this adverse report, the petitioner pursued relief in the Supreme Court. The matter was heard by a Bench presided over by Justice K.T. Thomas.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable under Article 32 when no fundamental right of the petitioner or litigants is directly infringed.
- Whether, on merits, the Court should direct the establishment of a permanent Bench of the Karnataka High Court away from its principal seat at Bengaluru.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Arguments
- Long travel distance to Bengaluru imposes prohibitive cost and delay on litigants from northern Karnataka, infringing their right to speedy and affordable justice.
- Other large States (Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Bihar and shortly Tamil Nadu) have out-station Benches, demonstrating the feasibility of the proposal.
- A 1979 recommendation by then Chief Justice D.M. Chandrashekar supports establishment of such a Bench.
- The Federation, though not itself a litigant, represents the cause of litigants; therefore, the petition raises issues of fundamental rights to access to justice.
- Cited T.N. Cauvery Neerppasana Vilaiporulgal Vivasayigal Nala Urimai Padhugappu Sangam v. Union of India (1990) 3 SCC 440 to contend that representative bodies may maintain writ petitions under Article 32.
Respondent’s Arguments
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the Union of India’s legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| T.N. Cauvery Neerppasana Vilaiporulgal Vivasayigal Nala Urimai Padhugappu Sangam v. Union of India, (1990) 3 SCC 440 | Permissibility of entertaining an Article 32 petition filed by a representative association rather than an individual State party. | Petitioner relied on the case to justify maintainability; the Court found the precedent distinguishable and insufficient to sustain the present petition. |
Court’s Reasoning and Analysis
Maintainability: The Court first examined whether any fundamental right had been infringed. It held that:
- The petitioner Federation is not an accredited representative of Karnataka litigants.
- No litigant possesses a fundamental right to have a High Court located in close physical proximity to his residence.
- The reliance on the Cauvery case was misplaced because that decision turned on unique factual circumstances, including express support by the State of Tamil Nadu and seven years of pending consideration—conditions absent here.
Merits: Even assuming maintainability, the Court found no substantive case for ordering an out-station Bench:
- Article 214 merely mandates “a High Court for each State” without addressing Benches.
- Section 51 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 empowers the President, after consulting the Governor and the Chief Justice, to establish a permanent Bench. Hence, the judiciary recognised that the Chief Justice’s institutional view is pivotal.
- The Chief Justice had already formed his opinion after a five-judge committee disfavoured the proposal. Agitations or sentimental considerations cannot override that institutional judgment.
- Practical drawbacks—financial burden, administrative complications arising from a single Chief Justice and Advocate-General, and potential impairment of the High Court’s efficiency—outweigh the distance inconvenience.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED: The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition.
Implications: The decision leaves the question of creating a High Court Bench to the statutory consultative mechanism involving the President, Governor and, critically, the Chief Justice of the High Court. It underscores that distance alone is insufficient to warrant proliferation of Benches and affirms that representative associations cannot invoke Article 32 to compel such structural changes. No new legal precedent was set beyond reaffirming respect for the consultative framework in Section 51 of the States Reorganisation Act.
K.T Thomas, J.— The demand for establishment of High Court Benches at centres different from the principal seat is a clamour without abatement. It may be an ideal proposition to have justice-dispensing centres 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 centres also. Here is one such case of persisting clamour for a Bench of the 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 centres of the State ranges between 425-613 km, 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 & 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, pose the petitioners.
(3) As early as 29-10-1979, the then Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court, Justice D.M Chandrashekar had recommended for establishment of a 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 the petitioner has admitted that a Committee of five Judges was constituted by the Chief Justice of the 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 T.N Cauvery Neerppasana Vilaiporulgal Vivasayigal Nala Urimai Padhugappu Sangam v. Union of India (1990) 3 SCC 440. 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 Disputes Act, 1957. When objection 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 this stage by accepting the objection raised on behalf of the State of Karnataka that a petition of a society like the petitioner of the relief indicated is not maintainable would be ignoring the actual state of affairs, would be too technical an approach and in our view would be wholly unfair and unjust. Accordingly, we treat this petition as one in which the State of Tamil Nadu is indeed the petitioner though we have not made a formal order of transposition in the absence of a specific request.”
5. The above premise is too fragile a ground for the petitioner in this case to sustain this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. However, learned counsel tried it from another angle by submitting that the Bar represents the cause of the litigants and hence the fundamental right of the litigants to have speedier and less expensive justice dispensation system is being espoused by the petitioner Federation.
6. We are not impressed by the said argument for two reasons. First is that the petitioner Federation is not the accredited representative of the litigants of Karnataka. Second is that no litigant can claim a fundamental right to have the High Court located within proximal distance of his residence.
7. Be that as it may, we are tempted to observe that the petitioner does not have a case even on merits. Under Article 214 of the Constitution “there shall be a High Court for each State”. Nothing is stated therein as to the establishment of Benches of the High Court at different centres. The statutory provision under which a Bench of the High Court of Karnataka can be created is included in Section 51 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. That section reads thus:
“51. Principal seat and other places of sitting of High Courts for new States.—(1) The principal seat of the High Court for a new State shall be at such place as the President may, by notified order, appoint.
(2) The President may, after consultation with the Governor of a new State and the Chief Justice of the High Court for that State, by notified order, provide for the establishment of a permanent Bench or Benches of that High Court at one or more places within the State other than the principal seat of the High Court and for any matters connected therewith.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the Judges and Division Courts of the High Court for a new State may also sit at such other place or places in that State as the Chief Justice may, with the approval of the Governor, appoint.”
8. 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 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 the 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 ascertain the view of his colleagues in the same High Court.
9. When the petitioner admitted that the Committee of five Judges, constituted by the Chief Justice of the 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 the 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 the 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 his colleague Judges.
10. Practical difficulties in having different Benches of the High Court located in 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 Court would be much impaired by keeping High Courts in 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 the 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 a variety of reasons.
11. We find no case for the petitioner even on merits when the Committee of Judges constituted by the Chief Justice of the High Court came to the conclusion that establishment of a Bench of the High Court away from Bangalore is inadvisable. For this reason we dismiss the writ petition.
Alert