'Facilitates Access To Justice' : Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Formation Of Bombay High Court's Kolhapur Bench

The Supreme Court today(December 18) dismissed 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. A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria observed that the "establishment of the Kolhapur bench was in consonance with the Constitutional vision of bringing justice to all."The bench observed that Section 51(3) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 preserves the power of the Chief Justice of India to take a decision. "There is no material to suggest that the Chief Justice acted unilaterally in disregard of the institutional inputs and relevant considerations. Even assuming that the consultative process would not conform to the petitioner's expectations, this circumstance by itself would not vitiate the exercise of power under Section 51(3)," the bench observed.The judgment pronounced by Justice Kumar held that the mere fact that a different view was taken in the past regarding the constitution of the Kolhapur bench will not invalidate the present decision to form the bench, in the absence of any mala fides or manifest illegality shown, the bench observed.Since the decision is taken "bona fide within the scope of authority conferred by the statute for legitimate institutional reasons" there is no reason for judicial interference. The view that resources should have been channelled in a different manner is an alternative policy approach, which will not invalidate the decision which has been taken within the confines of statutory authority."The establishment of the Kolhapur bench is in consonance with the constitutional vision of briging justice closer to the people and it does not infrine Article 21 in any manner. The decision facilitates access to justice for litigants from a region which is geographically distant from the principal seat of the High Court. The Constitution does not envisage a single model for judicial administration. It permits institutional discretion to be exercised within the framework of law to be meet practical and geographical needs," the bench observed.Former Chief Justice of India BR Gavai had inaugurated the Kolhapur Bench in August.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 the 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.The petition was heard on November 26, wherein Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta had challenged the locus of the petitioner. He also justified the decision, reading out the factors which weighed with the State Government and the Bombay High Court for the establishment of the Kolhapur Circuit Bench. He had 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.Case Details: RANJEET BABURAO NIMBALKAR Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA|W.P.(C) No. 914/2025Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1222Click here to read the judgmentAppearances: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Advocate on Record Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh for the Bombay High Court; Shrirang Varma AOR for the State of Maharashtra

'Facilitates Access To Justice' : Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Formation Of Bombay High Court's Kolhapur Bench

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

Tags