HIGH COURT BENCH AT RAIPUR What a pity that a very powerful lobby of certain lawyers and others have been strenuously opposing a high court bench which cannot be justified under any circumstances. I would also like to bring out the plain truth that the demand and struggle for a bench here is not that of lawyers only. Common man is the worst sufferer in the whole story. It is in the interest of speedy justice that creation of bench is imperative for benefit of litigants which must be supreme. a. Geographically: Raipur is the central place and heart of the Chhattisgarh. Its villages are most conveniently connected to all the neighbouring Districts, Sub Divisions, Tehsils. b. Demographics: As of 2011 India Census Raipur had a population of 4,062,160 largest district by population in Chhattisgarh. Durg stands second in the list with the population of 3,343,079. Thus, the district of Raipur, Durg, Rajnandgaon, Dhamtari, Kanker, Dantewada, Bastar and Mahasamund alone represents 60 % (approx) of the population in Chhattisgarh. c. Transport: Raipur is well connected to the major cities in India through land, rail and air. d. Distance: Taking this excuse that the distance between Raipur and Bilaspur is short does not hold good. In the State of Uttar Pradesh the seat of the court is at Allahabad and a permanent bench at Lucknow. The distance between Allahabad and Lucknow is 200 km (approx). Further, in my opinion the distance should not be just in numbers but the time and the amount of hardship should also be taken into account while calculating the same. Has anyone noticed the overcrowded train compartments, the absence of ladies compartment in these trains, the lack of safety, the desolate building of High Court at Bilaspur, the conditions of the roads between Raipur and Bilaspur? e. Government Expenditure: In the year 1980, the Law commissions of India in its report have specifically laid down the need for establishment of High Court or its bench in the capital of the state. This will reduce the financial burden of the state as in ninety percent of the matters in High Court the state is the necessary party. LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA in its 14th and 79th report has repeatedly shown its concern about the increasing no. of cases in High court and its slow disposal. The Chief Justice of India has recently in his interview given to a private news channel has again highlighted the need of the formation of new institutions in this field. LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA, REPORT NO. 230, 2009 “It is also necessary that the work of the High Court’s is decentralized, that is, more Benches are established in all States. If there is manifold increase in the strength of the judges and the staff, all cannot be housed in one campus. Therefore, the establishment of new Benches is necessary. It is also in the interest of the litigants. The Benches should be so established that a litigant is not required to travel long...It is true that the new establishments will require money, but it is necessary as a development measure, particularly, when efforts are being made for all-round development of the country. Therefore, the money should not be a problem. We have to watch and protect the interest of the litigants. We must always keep in mind that the existence of judges and advocates is because of the litigants and they are there to serve their cause only...Sometimes, some advocates object to creation of new Benches and selection of new sites for construction of new buildings. But they raise objections in their personal, limited interest. Creation of new Benches is certainly beneficial for the litigants and the lawyers and a beginning has to be made somewhere...The government cannot be a silent spectator on such a serious issue.”
Posted on: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 12:05:58 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015