The question of why political parties, particularly the Congress, have not consistently pressed the central government for the establishment of new High Court benches across various states, such as Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and Odisha, remains a significant point of contention. This oversight highlights potential regional judicial disparities and the slow pace of addressing long-standing recommendations for increased judicial accessibility.
Judicial Accessibility and Regional Disparities
Citizens in many parts of India face considerable challenges in accessing justice due to the vast distances to existing High Court facilities. The establishment of circuit or permanent benches closer to their regions is a recurring demand aimed at reducing travel time, costs, and improving overall judicial efficiency.
States like Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and Odisha have, for years, seen persistent calls for additional High Court benches. These demands are often rooted in the sheer volume of pending cases and the large geographical areas that the existing High Courts are expected to serve.
A History of Recommendations and Delays
The need for new benches is not a recent phenomenon. Various committees and commissions, including the Jaswant Singh Commission in 1980, have made recommendations for expanding the High Court infrastructure. However, the implementation of these recommendations has been notably slow and inconsistent.
The process typically involves recommendations from the state government, followed by a proposal to the Chief Justice of the High Court, and then a nod from the central government, which holds the ultimate authority for creation of new benches under Article 214 of the Constitution.
The Political Calculus
Critics argue that the establishment of High Court benches often becomes a political tool, with promises made during election campaigns but rarely fulfilled. The lack of sustained pressure from major political parties, including the Congress, on this issue raises questions about their commitment to judicial reform and equitable access to justice.
When in power at the center, different parties have had the opportunity to address these long-pending demands. However, the issue seems to fall by the wayside once political expediency or other priorities take precedence.
Expert Perspectives and Data
Legal experts and judicial watchdogs have frequently pointed out the adverse impact of judicial infrastructure deficits on the common citizen. Data from the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts consistently show a high number of pending cases, a situation exacerbated by limited access points for legal recourse.
Advocates in states like Odisha have often lamented the financial and logistical burdens placed on litigants from remote areas who must travel to the Cuttack bench of the Orissa High Court. Similar grievances are echoed in regions of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar far from their respective High Court seats.
Implications for Justice Delivery
The failure to establish adequate High Court benches has direct implications for the timely delivery of justice. It contributes to case backlogs, increases the cost of litigation for citizens, and disproportionately affects the poor and marginalized who may lack the resources to pursue legal remedies effectively.
This lack of accountability from the central government, and the apparent lack of consistent demand from opposition parties, suggests a systemic issue in prioritizing judicial infrastructure development. It underscores the gap between the constitutional ideal of accessible justice and the ground reality for millions of Indians.
What to Watch Next
Moving forward, it will be crucial to observe whether political discourse shifts to place greater emphasis on judicial accessibility. The potential for regional parties or civil society organizations to take up this cause more forcefully could also shape future developments. Increased public awareness and sustained advocacy might compel both state and central governments to address the long-standing need for more High Court benches, thereby improving the delivery of justice across the nation.
