+91 964 334 1948
19 Aug 2025, 04:52 AM
Yesterday, on the 18th of August 2025, a new chapter in the history of the Bombay High Court unfolded as a Bench at Kolhapur started functioning. The opening ceremony, held on Sunday in the esteemed presence of the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India, is a historical event. I congratulate all members of the Bar who have consistently advocated for establishing a Bench in Kolhapur.
While I wish the newly established Bench great success and would like to offer my services to train young Advocates in six districts to prepare for High Court practice, I would be failing in my duty if I did not express my humble views on the decision-making process adopted for setting up a Bench at Kolhapur. I am expressing my views not with the object of setting the clock back, but to ensure that a better decision- making process is followed in future.
On 1st August 2025, the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, with the approval of the Hon'ble Governor of Maharashtra, passed an order appointing Kolhapur as a place at which Judges and Division Courts of the High Court may sit. The order has been passed in exercise of the powers under Section 51 (3) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956.
No other High Court in our country has more than two Benches apart from the Principal seat. Only the Bombay High Court has three Benches at Nagpur, Aurangabad and Panaji. Therefore, the issue that arises is about the necessity, feasibility, and expediency of establishing a fourth Bench of the Bombay High Court.
Before addressing the issue, it is necessary to understand how the existing Benches were created. The factual position in this regard was set out in the Supreme Court's decision in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Narayan Shamrao Puranik, reported in (1982) 3 SCC 519. By virtue of Section 49(1) of the 1956 Act, the High Court of Bombay, exercising jurisdiction in relation to the existing State of Bombay, was deemed to be the High Court for the new State of Bombay constituted with effect from 1st November 1956. The then Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court issued an order under sub-Section 51(3) of the Act, with the prior approval of the Hon'ble Governor, by which he appointed Nagpur and Rajkot to be places at which the Judges and Division Courts of the Bombay High Court would also sit with effect from 1st November, 1956. Till that date, Nagpur was the seat of the High Court of the state of Madhya Pradesh, and Rajkot was the seat of the High Court of the erstwhile state of Saurashtra. This is how Nagpur became a Bench of the Bombay High Court.
Before that, on 23rd September, 1953, an important historic event occurred. The leaders of political parties from the Marathi-speaking areas in the Vidarbha and Marathwada regions, as well as those of the then State of Bombay, signed the Nagpur Pact, which stipulated that there should be a permanent Bench of the High Court at Nagpur and a permanent Bench for the Marathwada region. The Marathwada region was inhabited by Marathi-speaking people, which earlier formed a part of the old state of Hyderabad.
The Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, on 27th August 1981, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 51 of the 1956 Act, with the approval of the Governor of Maharashtra, directed that Aurangabad shall be a place at which the Hon'ble Judges and Division Courts of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay may also sit. The Supreme Court upheld this order in the decision in the case of Narayan Shamrao Puranik.
Under Section 9 of the High Court of Bombay (Extension of Jurisdiction to Goa, Daman and Diu) Act, 1981, a provision was made to establish a Permanent Bench at Panaji in Goa. Accordingly, a permanent Bench was established on 30th October 1982. By virtue of Section 20 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Reorganisation Act, 1987, the Bombay High Court became a common High Court for the states of Maharashtra and Goa, as well as the Union Territories of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, and Daman and Diu. Thus, the status of the Permanent Bench at Panaji became different from that of the Benches at Nagpur and Aurangabad. As stated earlier, the Nagpur High Court already existed, and the Bench at Aurangabad was established primarily to cater to the needs of the area that formed part of the Hyderabad state, which became part of the state of Maharashtra as a result of the reorganisation of states. The Nagpur Pact also served as the basis for establishing the Bench at Aurangabad. In contrast, most of the areas over which the Kolhapur Bench will have jurisdiction were already a part of the erstwhile state of Bombay.
The formation of Benches of the High Courts has always been a vexed issue. Therefore, in 1985, the Government of India appointed a Commission headed by Justice Jaswant Singh, a former Judge of the Supreme Court of India, to make recommendations on the issue. The Government of India published the Report of a Commission.
In Chapter 5 of the said Report, the Commission, headed by Justice Jaswant Singh, has laid down broad principles and criteria to be followed in assessing the expediency and desirability of setting up a Bench of the High Court away from the Principal seat and the factors to be kept in mind in selecting the venue of the said Bench. Recently, on 10th August 2023, while answering a question in the Rajya Sabha, the Hon'ble Law Minister relied upon this report. He quoted the observations of the Supreme Court stating that the question of establishing a Bench of the High Court should not be considered on emotional, sentimental or parochial considerations.
In the context of the Bombay High Court, before a decision was taken to establish a fourth Bench, the High Court needed to make a detailed study of the feasibility, desirability, and expediency of setting up the fourth Bench. While considering feasibility, the High Court should have taken into account the financial implications, administrative exigencies, and the fact that facilities for video conference hearings and e-filing of cases are available in the Bombay High Court. After a detailed, systematic study and detailed deliberations in the Full Court, if the Bombay High Court was of the view that the fourth Bench is viable, then a rational criterion should have been fixed for deciding the location of the fourth Bench. The report of the Commission, headed by Justice Jaswant Singh, which the Central Government accepted, could have served as a guiding factor. After considering the rational criterion, the High Court could have decided whether an additional Bench could be established in Kolhapur, Pune, Solapur, or any other location.
The demands of the members of the Bar, the demands of politicians, popular support and regional sentiments cannot be the sole basis for establishing a Bench in a particular place. Such demands came not only for establishing a Bench at Kolhapur, but there were demands to establish Benches at Pune and Solapur. Once a rational criterion was fixed, a decision could have been taken to establish the additional Bench in a place that satisfied the criterion. It could also have been at a place for which there were no such vociferous demands. There is no clarity on whether the Bombay High Court undertook the exercise as stated above before the Chief Justice exercised power under Section 51(3) of the 1954 Act on 1st August 2025. There is no indication whether the Chief Justice considered the demand for establishing a Bench at Pune, Solapur or other places before passing the order dated 1st August 2025.
In the past, this detailed exercise had been undertaken by the Bombay High Court in 1996. A committee of High Court Judges was appointed to look into the following two issues: (a)Expediency and desirability of having an additional Bench, and (b) The demands for the establishment of a Bench at Kolhapur, Sangli, Pune, Nasik, Amravati and Akola. The committee, in a detailed report, opined that it would not be in the interest of the administration of justice to establish any additional Benches in any part of the State of Maharashtra. The Committee addressed the issues after considering the criteria laid down by the Justice Jaswant Singh Commission. We must note that in 1996, the facilities of VC hearing and e-filing were not available. In 2025, transportation facilities are significantly better and faster than those available in 1996.
At the Full House meeting (also known as the Chamber meeting in those days) of all the judges of the Bombay High Court, held on 19th April 1997, the report of the committee was accepted. One Judge desired that the Report should be rejected. 12 Judges desired that the subject should be deferred. 31 Judges were in favour of accepting the Report.
The issue of establishing a Bench at Kolhapur was again considered by the administrative committee of Hon'ble three Judges of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court on 27th March, 2006. The administrative committee consisted of the Chief Justice and two seniormost judges. The administrative committee concluded that no deviation from the earlier decision of the Full House was required.
In the year 2013, a committee of three Hon'ble Judges was appointed by the Chief Justice to give its views on the establishment of Benches at Kolhapur, Solapur or Pune. After holding several meetings, the committee was unable to reach a conclusion.
A Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court circulated a Note dated 8th September 2015 to his sister and brother Judges, recommending that a Bench be established at Kolhapur. Before the note was circulated, some judges had objected to the proposed decision of the then Chief Justice on the ground that, in view of the decision of 19th April 1996, the issue ought to be placed before the Full House. The Judges expressed that a proper decision-making process must be followed before overturning the earlier decision of the Full House. The Chief Justice was fair enough not to take a final decision without going before the Full House.
Another committee of three Hon'ble Judges was constituted by the Chief Justice to deal with the same issue. A meeting of the Committee was held on 13th July, 2017. No decision could be taken in the said meeting. It appears that the Committee made no recommendation.
In 2018, the then Chief Justice convened a meeting with the members of the Action Committee to discuss the establishment of a Bench in Kolhapur. At that time, I, along with the next most senior judge, were present. However, the Chief Justice did not deviate from the earlier view.
I understand that in March 2022, the then Chief Justice convened a meeting with members of the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa, as well as advocates representing the Action Committee to discuss the issue. To my knowledge, no decision was taken thereafter based on the meeting's proceedings.
The set-up of the Kolhapur Bench will require the construction of a modern Court Complex, Bungalows for the Judges, staff quarters, etc. The complex will need to be equipped with a modern IT setup, furniture, and necessary amenities for the members of the Bar and litigants. Therefore, the decision has huge financial implications. Justice at the doorsteps is an ideal concept. But we do not live in an ideal situation. The State Government has not created an adequate number of posts for Trial Court Judges to meet the target of a judge-to- population ratio of 50 per million, as directed by the Supreme Court in 2002. Today, the ratio may not even be 25. A large number of court complexes in the state still lack basic infrastructure. The existing infrastructure of some of our trial and district courts, to put it mildly, is pathetic. These Courts need infrastructure on par with the recently constructed District Court buildings at Sangli, Kolhapur, Ahmednagar, etc. The issue is whether priority should be given to providing better facilities to the Courts of the common man at the grassroot level or to establishing an additional Bench of the High Court, which will involve huge financial applications.
Sub-section (3) of Section 51 of the 1956 Act indeed confers power on the Chief Justice of the High Court to decide that the judges of the High Court can hold a sitting at a particular place. However, there is a decision of the Full House dated 19th April 1997 holding that an additional Bench should not be established. Additionally, there is a decision of the administrative committee dated 27th March 2006, rejecting the suggestion to establish an additional Bench. The Chief Justice was bound by the decision of the Full House dated 19th April 1997. In any case, before passing the order of 1st August, 2025, the propriety required the Chief Justice to convene a meeting of the Full House for reconsideration of the earlier decision dated 19th April 1997. There is no clarity whether this exercise was undertaken before 1st August 2025, as the order dated 1st August 2025, published in the Gazette, does not refer to any decision of the Full House. In yesterday's function, Hon'ble Chief Justice of India referred to a recommendation of a committee of two senior Judges. For reconsideration of the Full House decision of 19th April 1996, the report could have been placed before the Full House before 1st August 2025. It will be interesting to see whether the Chief Justice has provided any reasons for overruling the earlier decisions of the Full House.
One does not know whether the Bombay Bar Association, the Advocates Association of Western India and the Bombay Incorporated Law Society, who are the major stakeholders, were consulted by the present Chief Justice before taking the decision on 1st August 2025.
The Bombay High Court must make the entire decision-making process transparent by putting it in the public domain. This action will tell us whether a lawful decision-making process was followed. A prestigious institution like the Bombay High Court should adhere to a fair and transparent decision-making process. If the decisions of the Full House are ignored, it will set a bad precedent.
I have always held the present Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court in very high esteem and will continue to do so. I am worried about the decision-making process adopted and its implications.
Now that a Bench at Kolhapur has been established, all stakeholders must ensure that the Bench renders quality and expeditious justice at Kolhapur. There should be immediate provision made for the construction of a modern and ideal High Court complex at Kolhapur. I hope that the Government follows the model of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court. The present infrastructure in the old District Court complex is wholly inadequate. The sanctioned strength of the Bombay High Court should be immediately increased, as 7 to 8 Judges from Bombay will have to be posted at Kolhapur. The High Court, in collaboration with the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, should conduct training sessions for members of the Bar practising in six Districts, so that they can effectively assist the High Court Judges sitting at Kolhapur.
I want to add a postscript. The establishment of the Kolhapur Bench should not be used as an excuse by the State Government for avoiding the establishment of a new Court Complex for the Bombay High Court at Bandra. Even after the transfer of six Districts, the filing of cases in the Principal Seat is expected to continue increasing, as the
Districts of Mumbai, Pune, Nasik and Thane make a major contribution to the filing and pendency. I do not think that more than 20% of the total pending cases have been transferred to the Kolhapur Bench. The Principal Seat requires a modern Court Complex in Bandra. This need is not affected in any manner by the establishment of an additional Bench.
Views Are Personal.
Justice AS Oka was a former Judge of the Supreme Court and the Bombay High Court.