Courts do not have the right to change the name of their respective court – Allahabad High Court

Court No. 1 Case : P.I.L. CIVIL No. 141720 Petitioner : Asok PandeTehsildar 2) Assistant or Extra Assistant Commissioner Deputy Commissioner or Civil Judge of LucknowCommissioner andOrder 1950of Government of India Act 1915 1919 the name of ‘High Court for the North Western Provinces’ was changedto “High Court of Judicature at Allahabad”. The High Court at Fort William in Bengal was made as “High Court of Judicature at Calcutta” Court of ‘Judicial Commissioner’ in Oudh Avadh came to an end with passage of ‘Oudh Court s Act’ U.P. Act No. 4 of 1925 hereinafter referred to as “U.P. Act 1925”) which also paved the way for establishment of ‘Chief Court’ for Oudh consisting of a Chief Judge and four or more Judges who shall be appointed by Governor General in Council. Section 8 and 9of U.P. Act 1925 provided that ‘Chief Court’ would be deemed to be ‘highest Court of appeal and revision’ for civil appellate jurisdiction and criminal jurisdiction. By Section 21 of U.P Act 1925 four grades of Civil Courts in Oudh were contemplated as under 1) The Court of the District Judge 2) The Court of Additional Judge 3) The Court of the Subordinate Judge 4) The Court of the Munsif 12. Government of India Act of 1915 1919 was repealed and replaced by the Government of India Act 1935. Chapter II of Part IX of the Government of India Act 1935 provided for the administration and powers of the High Court. By Government of India Act 1935 Chief Court in Oudh was included within the meaning of High Court Sections 219 to 229 of the Government of India Act 1935 gave power to British Crown to constitute High Court by Letters Patent for any province or any part thereof or reconstitute in like manner an existing High Court for that province or for any part thereof or where there are two High Courts in that province amalgamate that Courts. The Indian Independence Act was passed in 1947. In 1948 Governor General in exercise of powers under Section 229 of the Government of India Act 1935 issued U.P. High Courts Order 1948 published in gazette of Government of India. Clause III of the Amalgamation Order from appointed date i.e. 26thJuly 1948 provided that High Court in Allahabad and the Chief Court in Oudh shall be amalgamated and constitute one High Court in the name of ‘High Court of Judicature at Allahabad’. All these enactments have now been consolidated and repealed by the provisions of the Constitution of India which came into force on 26thJanuary 1950 13. With the aforesaid historical backdrop it is evident that High Court of Allahabad was created by Royal Charter. Initially it was called as ‘High Court of Judicature for North Western Provinces’ which had the area of aforesaid Province but Oudh was a different Province not governed by North Western Provinces. ‘High Court of Judicature for North Western Provinces’ subsequently became ‘High Court of Judicature at Allahabad . 14. Chapter V of Part VI of the Constitution of India deals with administration and powers of the High Courts. Articles 214 231 deal with the High Courts. Therefore all the previous enactments dealing with establishment administration and affairs of the High Court are deemed to be replaced by Articles 214 231 of the Constitution of India thereby Letters Patent were also deemed to be replaced. 15. Article 225 of the Constitution of India deals with the High Court existing at the time of enacting the Constitution of India which allowed the existing High Court to continue with respective powers as were exercising immediate before the commencement of the Constitution. The said provisions are quoted hereunder: Article 225. Jurisdiction of existing High Courts.— Subject to the provisions of this Constitution and to the provisions of any law of the appropriate Legislature made by virtue of powers conferred on that Legislature by this Constitution the jurisdiction of and the law administered in any existing High Court and the respective powers of the Judges thereof in relation to the administration of justice in the Court including any power to make rules of Court and to regulate the sittings of the Court and of members thereof sitting alone or in Division Courts shall be the same as immediately before the commencement of this Constitution Provided that any restriction to which the exercise of original jurisdiction by any of the High Courts with respect to any matter concerning the revenue or concerning any act ordered or done in the collection thereof was subject immediately before the commencement of this Constitution shall no longer apply to the exercise of such jurisdiction 16. Article 372 provides for continuance in force of existing laws and their adoption which reads as under “Article 372. Continuance in force of existing laws and their adaptation.—(1) Notwithstanding the repeal by this Constitution of the enactments referred to in Article 395 but subject to the other provisions of this Constitution all the laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution shall continue in force therein until altered or repealed or amended by a competent Legislature or other competent authority 2) For the purpose of bringing the provisions of any law in force in the territory of India into accord with the provisions of this Constitution the President may by order make such adaptations and modifications of such law whether by way of repeal or amendment as may be necessary or expedient and provide that the law shall as from such date as may be specified in the order have effect subject to the adaptations and modifications so made and any such adaptation or modification shall not be questioned in any court of law 3) Nothing in clauseshall be deemed— a) to empower the President to make any adaptation or modification of any law after the expiration ofto prevent any competent Legislature or other competent authority from repealing or amending any law adapted or modified by the President under the said clause Explanation I.—The expression “law in force” in this article shall include a law passed or made by a Legislature or other competent authority in the territory of India before the commencement of this Constitution and not previously repealed notwithstanding that it or parts of it may not be then in operation either at all or in particular areas Explanation II.—Any law passed or made by a Legislature or other competent authority in the territory of India which immediately before the commencement of this Constitution had extra territorial effect as well as effect in the territory of India shall subject to any such adaptations and modifications as aforesaid continue to have such extra Explanation III.—Nothing in this article shall be construed as continuing any temporary law in force beyond the date fixed for its expiration or the date on which it would have expired if this Constitution had not come into force Explanation IV.—An Ordinance promulgated by the Governor of a Province under Section 88 of the Government of India Act 1935 and in force immediately before the commencement of this Constitution shall unless withdrawn by the Governor of the corresponding State earlier cease to operate at the expiration of six weeks from the first meeting after such commencement of the Legislative Assembly of that State functioning under clauseof Article 382 and nothing in this article shall be construed as continuing any such Ordinance in force beyond the said period 17. All laws in force in territory of India would govern not only enactment of the Indian Legislatures but also the common law of the land which was being administered by Courts in India. The same included not only the present law but also the rules of the English Common Law such as rules of interpretation of statues etc. (AIR 192 Bombay 214). The State Government changed the name of city of Allahabad to Prayagraj on 16thOctober 2018 and in this backdrop this petition has been filed 18. Article 215 provides that there shall be a High Court for each State. Every High Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt 19. By virtue of Article 372 until and unless the Parliament amends the amalgamation order the name of the high court which is ‘High Court of Judicature at Allahabad’ cannot be changed. When the petitioner was put a question during the course of arguments that who could change the name of the High Court he did not give answer. In constitutional democracy all organs of the State i.e executive legislature and judiciary are required to act and performed their respective functions within the limits prescribed by the Constitution of India. The separation of powers is the foundation of functioning of a democratic polity governed by rule of law. One organ should not encroach upon the power and functions of other organs The Courts cannot direct the Legislature to enact a particular law and therefore this Court finds that the present writ petition is nothing but a ‘publicity stunt litigation’ which has been filed to get some publicity If the petitioner is so concerned he should convince the Parliament for change of name of the High Court. This Court is not empowered to direct the Parliament or State Legislature to enact a particular law and therefore we find this petition a frivolous petition which has been filed with sole purpose of gaining some publicity. We therefore dismiss this petition but refrain ourselves from imposing cost as the petitioner is none other than a practicing Advocate of this Court Order Date: 31.08.2020 Digitally signed by PANKAJ KUMAR JAISWALDN: C=IN O=Personal PostalCode=482001 S=MADHYA PRADESH SERIALNUMBER=c052265a862770d8fcbbda965136bbb2dd4b2337fe9607999f74159818cea6a6 CN=PANKAJ KUMAR JAISWALReason: I am the author of this documentLocation: your signing location hereDate: 2020 09 22 17:34:49Foxit Reader Version: 9.5.0PANKAJ KUMAR JAISWALDigitally signed by Justice Dinesh Kumar SinghDN: C=IN S=Uttar Pradesh Phone=938c9813791219de658b135aefc17622749e67d38a4946c8b2779ce6749b516a PostalCode=226001 STREET="Suit No. 102 HIgh Court Guest House Kaiserbagh Lucknow" OU=judge high court allahabad O=ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT CN=Justice Dinesh Kumar SinghReason: I am the author of this documentLocation: your signing location hereDate: 2020 09 22 17:35:35Foxit Reader Version: 9.5.0Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh 

Summary: Courts do not have the right to change the name of their respective court – Allahabad High Court While squashing the plea to rename the Court as Prayagraj High Court or Uttar Pradesh High Court held that in a constitutional democracy, all organs of the State, i.e. executive, legislature and judiciary, are required to act and performed their respective functions within the limits prescribed by the Constitution of India held by Justice Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal and Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh in the case of Asok Pande Vs UOI [PIL Civil No 14171 of 2020]. The State Government changed the name of the city of Allahabad to Prayagraj on 16 October 2018 and, in this backdrop, this petition has been filed by an advocate. The Court briefly discussed the history of setting up this Court. East India Company, which was incorporated by Charter of 1600, got amalgamated with English East India Company. In due course, the East India Company conquered vast territory and became the Ruler. The East India Company strengthened its hold on the native Indians. First major freedom movement exposed the vulnerability of the East India Company which led the Queen to issue a proclamation in the year 1858 and the British Parliament passed the Government of India Act, 1858. Consequently, the East India Company and its affairs were taken over by the British Government. The British Government wanted to establish judicial institutions for rendering better justice to alleviate the corrupt practice in the judicial system. For the aforesaid purpose, the British Parliament passed ‘Indian High Courts Act, 1961’. Under this Act, provisions were made not only for the replacement of the Supreme Courts of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay and for the establishment of High Courts in their places, but also for the establishment of High Court by Letter Patent in any part of other Majesty’s territories, not already included in the jurisdiction of any other High Court. The Court further reflected that “In 1864, the Secretary of State for India asked the Governor-General in council ‘to take into your consideration the question of establishing High Court in the North-Western Provinces and furnish me with your opinion on the subject at an early date as practicable. Four years later from the establishment of three High Courts in Presidency Towns, on 16th March 1866, the High Court of Judicature for the North-Western Provinces came into existence under Letters Patent, replacing the only Sudder Diwani Adalat and Nizamut Adalat. Letters Patent, as subsequently amended, are the present Charter of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. Aforesaid Charter conferred jurisdiction upon newly formed High Court in respect of Civil, Criminal, Testamentary and Interstate as well as Matrimonial matters. The first sitting of High Court took place at Agra in 1866, but in 1868 it was shifted to Allahabad.” In 1902, a new name to two Provinces was given i.e. ‘United Province of Agra and Oudh’. It became ‘Uttar Pradesh’ in1950 under the United Provinces (Alteration of Name) Order, 1950. By Government of India Act, 1915-1919, the name of ‘High Court for the North-Western Provinces’ was changed to ‘High Court of Judicature at Allahabad’. All the enactments have now been consolidated and repealed by the provisions of the Constitution of India which came into force on 26th January 1950. The Court held that “With the aforesaid historical backdrop, it is evident that High Court of Allahabad was created by Royal Charter. Initially, it was called as ‘High Court of Judicature for North Western Provinces’ which had the area of aforesaid Province but Oudh was a different Province, not governed by North-Western Provinces. ‘High Court of Judicature for North Western Provinces’ subsequently became ‘High Court of Judicature at Allahabad’.” The Court further reiterated that, “Article 225 of the Constitution of India deals with the High Court, existing at the time of enacting the Constitution of India, which allowed the existing High Court to continue with respective powers as were exercising immediately before the commencement of the Constitution. Article 215 provides that there shall be a High Court for each State. Every High Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself.” By the aforesaid provision, the court interjected that “By virtue of Article 372 until and unless the Parliament amends the amalgamation order, the name of the high court, which is ‘High Court of Judicature at Allahabad’ cannot be changed.” High Court held that “The Courts cannot direct the Legislature to enact a particular law and, therefore, this Court finds that the present writ petition is nothing but a ‘publicity stunt litigation’ which has been filed to get some publicity.” Finally, the petition has been dismissed, but Court refrained from imposing cost as the petitioner was none other than a practising Advocate of this Court. Click here to read the judgement