Supreme Court Hears Plea Challenging Formation Of Bombay High Court's Kolhapur Bench

The Supreme Court today(November 26) heard a writ petition filed by advocate Ranjeet Baburao Nimbalkar, challenging the August 1 notification of the Bombay High Court issued under Section 51(3) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, for the creation of the recent Kolhapur Circuit Bench, which became effective from August 18. Former Chief Justice of India BR Gavai inaugurated the Kolhapur Bench.

As per the petition, he has challenged the notification for not fully appreciating the Jaswant Singh Commission's report on the 'General Question of having Benches of the High Courts at places away from their Principal Seats and Board Principles and Criteria to be followed in regard thereto'. 

As per the 1985 Report, the establishment of such benches away from the Principal Seat was to be an exception rather than a norm. Apart from the distance consideration, these criteria included whether the litigation in the principal seat from the said area was at least 1/3rd of the total number of cases, the disposal rate at the High Court itself, and whether an increase in the strength of Judges would be an effective remedy.

Further, the petitioner claimed that the Federation of Bar Associations. v. Union of India (2000) judgment highlighted the importance of the Chief Justice of the said High Court ascertaining the opinion of other judges of the High Court while undertaking a decision under Section 51(3). But in the present case, there is no information regarding the consultative process undertaken. 

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria heard the matter. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the Bombay High Court.

At the outset, the SG challenged the locus of the petitioner. He said: "Petitioner is a lawyer and he has no fundamental right either to have seat or circuit bench at a particular place or not to have a seat or circuit bench at a particular place. The petitioner has no locus since none of his fundamental rights have been violated. Access to justice is a part of Article 21 and therefore, fundamental rights of litigants, resultantly the entire process under Section 51 [of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956] would be litigant-centric."

He submitted that there were factors which weighed with the State Government and the Bombay High Court for the establishment of the Kolhapur Circuit Bench. SG Mehta read the averments made in the affidavit filed by the Maharashtra Government to show that there were "concrete reasons" to establish the Kolhapur bench.

"Justice delivery at the doorstep is Article 21, and inconvenience, at all, to a lawyer would not be a breach of fundamental rights," SG Mehta submitted.

He also referred to the affidavit filed by the Bombay High Court, in which it is stated that several representations have been made for the establishment of the Kolhapur Bench.

SG Mehta read: "I say that, there has been continuous representation and agitation from various parts of the society for the establishment of a separate bench at Kolhapur. The representation dated 18 February 2025 was received from the President of the Bombay High Court, Kolhapur Action Committee, for the establishment of a Circuit Bench at the Bombay High Court in Kolhapur. The representation was placed before the Committee comprising of then Administrative Judge and Junior Administrator Judge of the Bombay High Court. It was ordered to be placed before the Administrative Judges Committee comprising the Chief Justice and four senior-most judges of the Bombay High Court.

The Administrative Committee felt that the members of the Action Committee and the members of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa would accompany the members of the Action Committee. The then Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court requested a Committee comprising of then Administrative Judge and Junior Administrator Judge to consider the representation of the Actor Committee and submit its report. The Committee on considering the material aspects, submitted its report on 20 May 2025, opining the need to establish the Kolhapur bench. The then Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court solicited the views of the other members of the Administrative Committee..."

Reading the affidavit, SG Mehta averred: "The purpose of showing all this is, whatever the necessary factors were considered for the purpose of taking a decision under Section 51(3) by the authorities...Merely because a full Court reference is not made would not be a ground to set aside something at the behest of an individual lawyer."

Justice Kumar had asked: "In the instant case, is there any demand or proposal pending for the establishment of a permanent bench?"

Arguments will continue.

Case Details: RANJEET BABURAO NIMBALKAR Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA|W.P.(C) No. 914/2025

Appearances: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Advocate on Record Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh