Andhra Pradesh delays land allotment for new High Court
DC | S.A. ISHAQUI
Published Nov 17, 2014, 12:23 pm IST
Only after new capital comes up will a new High Court be constructed for AP
Hyderabad: The
long pending dream of Telanganites to have a separate High Court for
their state will likely be delayed as the Andhra Pradesh government is
yet to provide suitable accommodation to set up the court.
The
Telangana state government, which has been pressurising the Centre for
immediate bifurcation of the common High Court, has offered for
re-location of the Hyderabad High Court to a place outside the existing
building and facilitate function of the AP High Court from the existing
building.
The High Court judiciary has already asked the AP government to provide accommodation to set up the court. However,
the AP Cabinet, has categorically indicated that the new High Court
would be constructed in the new capital city once it came up.
Legal
luminaries are of the opinion that as per the Act, Hyderabad can
continue as a common capital for a period of 10 years, till the
construction of the new capital for the AP.
Mr
Sarsani Satyam Reddy, senior counsel of the High Court and leader of
the Telangana Advocates Joint Action Committee said that Article 214 of
the Constitution mandates that there should be a separate High Court for
each state.
He
said, “In support of the argument of division it is also stated that
hypothetically there can never be a separate High Court for the State of
AP if it is not constituted and that would defeat the very object of
division of the state.”
Citing
the other reasons for establishment of two separate High Courts, Mr
Reddy said, “If two courts are established, each will cater to nearly
five crore of people, which is higher than at least 14 states where
there are separate High Courts.”
Referring
to the pendency of cases at these two High Courts, he said both courts
would be in the 13th and 14th position approximately in pendency of
cases. As of now, the Hyderabad High Court has 2,32,459 pending cases.
Claiming
that Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Gujarat, Kar-nataka,
Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Odisha, Bihar and Rajasthan had more
pending cases than AP, he pointed out that continuation of a common
High Court was without justification and its further continuation would
send wrong signals.
He added that for more than five months’ recruitment, transfers, postings and promotions of judicial
officers and staff had been kept on hold and benefit of 60 years age
for superannuation for AP employees was denied to judicial employees
while others were getting the benefit.
He
maintained that if two courts were constituted, one of the senior
judges from both the High Courts would have the opportunity of being
elevated as Chief Justice and further elevation to Supreme Court.
He
said the magnanimity with which the chief minister had offered to shift
the High Court of Telangana should be accepted immediately and the
division of High Court should be done at the earliest.
Several
judicial officers, however, differ with the argument of Mr Satyam Reddy
for relocation of the Telangana High Court and allowing functioning of
the Andhra Pradesh High Court from the existing building.
Telangana Bill for common HC till AP gets its own HC:
Section
30 of AP Reorganisation Act stipulated that on and from the Appointed
Day, June 2, the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad would be the
common High Court for Telangana and Andhra Pradesh till a separate High
Court for AP was constituted under Article 214 of the Constitution read
with Section 31 of the Act 2014.
As
per Section 31 of the Act, there would be a separate High Court for AP
and once it was constituted, the High Court of judicature at Hyderabad
would become the High Court for Telangana and would be known as High
Court at Hyderabad.
The relevant Section
further states that the principal seat of the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh would be at such place as the President may notify. Several
judicial officers said that the Constitution did not allow the
principal seat of the High Court of a respective state to be outside the
state.