News Updates

No Change In Sight For Allahabad High Court’s Name After Prayagraj: Govt In RTI Response

Apoorva Mandhani
29 Dec 2018 9:45 AM GMT
No Change In Sight For Allahabad High Court’s Name After Prayagraj: Govt In RTI Response
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

There is no proposal to change Allahabad High Court’s name in view of the decision to rename Allahabad to Prayagraj, the government has said in response to a Right To Information (RTI) application filed by The Indian Express.

The response by the Department of Justice (DoJ) said that there was “no proposal under consideration at present for changing the name of Allahabad High Court”.

The application had also sought details on the High Court (Alteration of Names) Bill, which sought to rename the High Courts of Madras, Calcutta and Bombay. The DoJ said that it has marked this query to the concerned official.

The proposal to change Allahabad’s name to Prayagraj was approved by the Uttar Pradesh Government last month. A PIL in this regard was then dismissed by the Allahabad High Court soon after, directing the petitioner to approach the government first.

The petitioner, Sunita Sharma had contended that the notification issued by the government renaming the city is “against the provisions and spirit of the Constitution of India, since this notification is against the interest of public at large of nation”.

Dismissing the PIL, the bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Govind Mathur and Justice Chandra Dhari Singh had observed, “The petitioner is seeking writ in the nature of mandamus. It is well settled that any person, who applies for a writ or order in the nature of mandamus should in compliance with the well known rule of practice, ordinarily, first call upon the authority concerned to discharge his legal obligations and show that it has refused or neglected to carry it out within a reasonable time before applying to a Court for such an order, even where the alleged obligation is established. 

“In the case in hand, the well settled condition precedent, as recorded above, has not been adhered. The petitioner has not made any demand to the Government for redressal of her grievance before asking a writ in the nature of mandamus.”

You may read: Government And Its Naamkaran Ceremonies: Understanding The Procedure Of Renaming Of States And Cities In India by Swapnil Tripathi 

Next Story
Share it