It is definitely clear as broad daylight which State in India needs more High Court Benches. But the unpalatable truth is that no one has bothered to take any initiative in this regard in last nearly 80 years of independence to correct the Himalayan blunder committed in 1948 of creating only one High Court Bench for the most populated state of India with the maximum number of pending cases, Uttar Pradesh.

The bench was set up at Lucknow, so close to Allahabad, but attached litigants of 30 districts of west UP to Allahabad, which is further away. Thus, litigants of west UP have to travel up to 700-800 km to get to Allahabad. Thus, an anomaly has created whereby west UP where a majority of the cases in the state have their origins has not even a single Bench, while east UP has both a High Court and a single Bench close to each other.

Because of its size, UP must be treated as “primus inter pares”. But UP, Bihar and Rajasthan are placed in the last row by depriving them of having multiple High Court Benches.

The Justice Jaswant Singh Commission appointed nearly 50 years ago by the Centre and headed by a former Supreme Court Judge had recommended a permanent main Bench for West UP.

Coincidentally, PM Narendra Modi represents Varanasi in UP and incumbent CJI Dr Dhananjaya Yashwant Chandrachud, whose home State is Maharashtra which has maximum number of High Court Benches, was Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court for nearly three years. It was during his tenure that lawyers of 22 districts of West UP under one banner went on strike for six months demanding a High Court Bench. But the demand has not been conceded.

In 2014, the Centre approved both a capital and a High Court for Telangana which has a population of a little more than three crore. But west UP, with a population of 10 crore still lacks a High Court bench.

Former Mumbai Police Commissioner, Dr Satyapal Singh, who was a member of the earlier Modi cabinet, had in Parliament, in 2016, strongly pitched the case for two High Court benches in west UP – one at Meerut and another at Agra. He had also raised the need for High Court benches at Varanasi, Gorakhpur and Jhansi.

As early as 1986, former PM late Atal Bihari Vajpayee had demanded a High Court Bench for West UP at Meerut. The Centre’s determination to help the “poorest of the poor” litigants can come to fruition only by the creation of more benches in regions like West UP, Purvanchal and Bundelkhand.

The creation of High Court benches in different states shows an unequal approach. A few states such as Maharashtra, Assam, Karnataka, West Bengal and Madhya Pradesh have High Court Benches, but large states such as UP, Rajasthan and Bihar make do with no or a single bench.

Legal giants such as Ram Jethmalani, Soli J Sorabjee, Kapil Sibal etc. have time and again reiterated the dire need for setting up a high court bench in West UP. As Attorney-General Sorabjee had said in 2001, “Centre can create a High Court Bench in West UP without any recommendation from the State Government or the Chief Justice.” Others who have supported the demand for additional benches at various times include former UP Chief Minister Sampoornanand and the current CM, Yogi Adityanath.

The situation demands immediate resolution, and the Centre must take immediate steps to mitigate the agony of West UP’s litigants. Surely, if crores of rupees can be spent on reducing the travel time between Delhi and Meerut, it is not unreasonable to expect the installation of a High Court bench in one of West UP’s 30 districts.

The discrimination against West UP is highlighted by the fact that the Centre approved two High Court benches for Karnataka at Dharwar and Gulbarga, to cater to four and eight districts respectively, while West UP with 30 districts and a population significantly higher than that of the entire southern state is denied.

If the Centre does not see fit to act, the apex court must take suo motu cognizance of this deprivation which strikes at the very root of the concept of “justice at doorsteps” and “equality” as envisaged in Article 14 of the Constitution!

(The writer is an advocate.)