The Supreme Court of India has today recalled its December 15, 2015 order wherein it had invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and had appointed Justice Virendra Singh, former judge of Allahabad High Court as the Lokayukta of Uttar Pradesh. Apex Court has now appointed Justice Sanjay Misra, a former judge of the same High Court as the new Lokayukta.
Reversing its earlier order, the bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and PC Pant observed:
In the facts stated above, we are persuaded to hold that our order appointing Shri Justice Virendra Singh (Retd.) as Lokayukta was on the basis of the statement made on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh which now appears to be somewhat inaccurate. The picture that emanates from the above narration of facts is hazy, unclear and uncertain and we are left in serious doubt as to whether the constitutional/statutory functionaries or at least two of them had, at all, agreed on any name or names. It is unfortunate that constitutional/statutory functionaries, inspite of prolonged and extended meetings, continued to have serious differences on a relatively simple issue i.e. appointment of the Lokayukta.
Earlier on December 16 last year, hearing the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 301 of 2015, the same bench had appointed Justice Virendra Singh (Retd.) as the Lokayukta of the State of Uttar Pradesh. Pursuant to this order, on December 18, 2015, Governor of Uttar Pradesh had issued a consequential order appointing Justice Virendra Singh (Retd.) as the Lokayukta.
Challenging the above appointment, the petitioner-journalist, Sachchidanand Gupta ‘Sachchay’ approached the Court claiming that the Supreme Court was misled by the Uttar Pradesh Government into passing the order.
During the proceedings, court was supplied with a letter dated December 16, 2015 of the Chief Justice of Allahabad HC to the Governor of Uttar Pradesh. In the letter it was said that in a meeting on December 15, 2015, objections were raised to the name of Justice Virendra Singh (Retd.) by the Chief Justice of the High Court and the UP Chief Minister had agreed that his name would be dropped from the panel. Letter also set out the basis of his objections.
After a perusal of further documents, the bench observed:
…it is clear that the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the High Court had reservations on the name of Shri Justice Virendra Singh (Retd.). In this regard, there is a subsequent letter dated 6th January, 2016 of the Leader of Opposition which clearly belies the fact that any agreement was reached on any name between the Hon’ble Chief Minister and the Leader of Opposition.
Miffed with the revelation, bench observed:
The picture that emanates from the above narration of facts is hazy, unclear and uncertain and we are left in serious doubt as to whether the constitutional/statutory functionaries or at least two of them had, at all, agreed on any name or names. It is unfortunate that constitutional/statutory functionaries, inspite of prolonged and extended meetings, continued to have serious differences on a relatively simple issue i.e. appointment of the Lokayukta.
Opinion of High Court Chief Justice mandatory and primary
Noting the reservation of the Chief Justice of Allahabad HC, bench referred to Justice KP Mohapatra v. Sri Ram Chandra Nayak and others [(2002) 8 SCC 1], wherein the Supreme Court had held:
For such appointment, Chief Justice of the High Court would be the best person for proposing and suggesting such person for being appointed as Lokpal. His opinion would be totally independent and he would be in a position to find out who is most or more suitable for the said office. In this context, primacy is required to be given to the opinion of the Chief Justice of the High Court
…consultation with the Chief Justice is mandatory and his opinion would have primacy.
Justice Sanjay Misra to be the new Lokayukta
Bench then appointed former judge of the Allahabad HC – Justice Sanjay Misra as the Lokayukta of Uttar Pradesh. Bench observed:
In making the aforesaid appointment we have taken note of the fact that the name of Justice Sanjay Misra appears in the common list of names that were discussed as mentioned in the letters of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the High Court and the Hon’ble Chief Minister referred to above.
Complete judgment can be read here.
The Supreme Court of India has today recalled its December 15, 2015 order wherein it had invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and had appointed Justice Virendra Singh, former judge of Allahabad High Court as the Lokayukta of Uttar Pradesh. Apex Court has now appointed Justice Sanjay Misra, a former judge of the same High Court as the new Lokayukta.
Reversing its earlier order, the bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and PC Pant observed:
In the facts stated above, we are persuaded to hold that our order appointing Shri Justice Virendra Singh (Retd.) as Lokayukta was on the basis of the statement made on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh which now appears to be somewhat inaccurate. The picture that emanates from the above narration of facts is hazy, unclear and uncertain and we are left in serious doubt as to whether the constitutional/statutory functionaries or at least two of them had, at all, agreed on any name or names. It is unfortunate that constitutional/statutory functionaries, inspite of prolonged and extended meetings, continued to have serious differences on a relatively simple issue i.e. appointment of the Lokayukta.
Earlier on December 16 last year, hearing the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 301 of 2015, the same bench had appointed Justice Virendra Singh (Retd.) as the Lokayukta of the State of Uttar Pradesh. Pursuant to this order, on December 18, 2015, Governor of Uttar Pradesh had issued a consequential order appointing Justice Virendra Singh (Retd.) as the Lokayukta.
Challenging the above appointment, the petitioner-journalist, Sachchidanand Gupta ‘Sachchay’ approached the Court claiming that the Supreme Court was misled by the Uttar Pradesh Government into passing the order.
During the proceedings, court was supplied with a letter dated December 16, 2015 of the Chief Justice of Allahabad HC to the Governor of Uttar Pradesh. In the letter it was said that in a meeting on December 15, 2015, objections were raised to the name of Justice Virendra Singh (Retd.) by the Chief Justice of the High Court and the UP Chief Minister had agreed that his name would be dropped from the panel. Letter also set out the basis of his objections.
After a perusal of further documents, the bench observed:
…it is clear that the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the High Court had reservations on the name of Shri Justice Virendra Singh (Retd.). In this regard, there is a subsequent letter dated 6th January, 2016 of the Leader of Opposition which clearly belies the fact that any agreement was reached on any name between the Hon’ble Chief Minister and the Leader of Opposition.
Miffed with the revelation, bench observed:
The picture that emanates from the above narration of facts is hazy, unclear and uncertain and we are left in serious doubt as to whether the constitutional/statutory functionaries or at least two of them had, at all, agreed on any name or names. It is unfortunate that constitutional/statutory functionaries, inspite of prolonged and extended meetings, continued to have serious differences on a relatively simple issue i.e. appointment of the Lokayukta.
Opinion of High Court Chief Justice mandatory and primary
Noting the reservation of the Chief Justice of Allahabad HC, bench referred to Justice KP Mohapatra v. Sri Ram Chandra Nayak and others [(2002) 8 SCC 1], wherein the Supreme Court had held:
For such appointment, Chief Justice of the High Court would be the best person for proposing and suggesting such person for being appointed as Lokpal. His opinion would be totally independent and he would be in a position to find out who is most or more suitable for the said office. In this context, primacy is required to be given to the opinion of the Chief Justice of the High Court
…consultation with the Chief Justice is mandatory and his opinion would have primacy.
Justice Sanjay Misra to be the new Lokayukta
Bench then appointed former judge of the Allahabad HC – Justice Sanjay Misra as the Lokayukta of Uttar Pradesh. Bench observed:
In making the aforesaid appointment we have taken note of the fact that the name of Justice Sanjay Misra appears in the common list of names that were discussed as mentioned in the letters of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the High Court and the Hon’ble Chief Minister referred to above.
Complete judgment can be read here.
The Supreme Court of India has today recalled its December 15, 2015 order wherein it had invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and had appointed Justice Virendra Singh, former judge of Allahabad High Court as the Lokayukta of Uttar Pradesh. Apex Court has now appointed Justice Sanjay Misra, a former judge of the same High Court as the new Lokayukta.
Reversing its earlier order, the bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and PC Pant observed:
In the facts stated above, we are persuaded to hold that our order appointing Shri Justice Virendra Singh (Retd.) as Lokayukta was on the basis of the statement made on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh which now appears to be somewhat inaccurate. The picture that emanates from the above narration of facts is hazy, unclear and uncertain and we are left in serious doubt as to whether the constitutional/statutory functionaries or at least two of them had, at all, agreed on any name or names. It is unfortunate that constitutional/statutory functionaries, inspite of prolonged and extended meetings, continued to have serious differences on a relatively simple issue i.e. appointment of the Lokayukta.
Earlier on December 16 last year, hearing the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 301 of 2015, the same bench had appointed Justice Virendra Singh (Retd.) as the Lokayukta of the State of Uttar Pradesh. Pursuant to this order, on December 18, 2015, Governor of Uttar Pradesh had issued a consequential order appointing Justice Virendra Singh (Retd.) as the Lokayukta.
Challenging the above appointment, the petitioner-journalist, Sachchidanand Gupta ‘Sachchay’ approached the Court claiming that the Supreme Court was misled by the Uttar Pradesh Government into passing the order.
During the proceedings, court was supplied with a letter dated December 16, 2015 of the Chief Justice of Allahabad HC to the Governor of Uttar Pradesh. In the letter it was said that in a meeting on December 15, 2015, objections were raised to the name of Justice Virendra Singh (Retd.) by the Chief Justice of the High Court and the UP Chief Minister had agreed that his name would be dropped from the panel. Letter also set out the basis of his objections.
After a perusal of further documents, the bench observed:
…it is clear that the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the High Court had reservations on the name of Shri Justice Virendra Singh (Retd.). In this regard, there is a subsequent letter dated 6th January, 2016 of the Leader of Opposition which clearly belies the fact that any agreement was reached on any name between the Hon’ble Chief Minister and the Leader of Opposition.
Miffed with the revelation, bench observed:
The picture that emanates from the above narration of facts is hazy, unclear and uncertain and we are left in serious doubt as to whether the constitutional/statutory functionaries or at least two of them had, at all, agreed on any name or names. It is unfortunate that constitutional/statutory functionaries, inspite of prolonged and extended meetings, continued to have serious differences on a relatively simple issue i.e. appointment of the Lokayukta.
Opinion of High Court Chief Justice mandatory and primary
Noting the reservation of the Chief Justice of Allahabad HC, bench referred to Justice KP Mohapatra v. Sri Ram Chandra Nayak and others [(2002) 8 SCC 1], wherein the Supreme Court had held:
For such appointment, Chief Justice of the High Court would be the best person for proposing and suggesting such person for being appointed as Lokpal. His opinion would be totally independent and he would be in a position to find out who is most or more suitable for the said office. In this context, primacy is required to be given to the opinion of the Chief Justice of the High Court
…consultation with the Chief Justice is mandatory and his opinion would have primacy.
Justice Sanjay Misra to be the new Lokayukta
Bench then appointed former judge of the Allahabad HC – Justice Sanjay Misra as the Lokayukta of Uttar Pradesh. Bench observed:
In making the aforesaid appointment we have taken note of the fact that the name of Justice Sanjay Misra appears in the common list of names that were discussed as mentioned in the letters of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the High Court and the Hon’ble Chief Minister referred to above.
Complete judgment can be read here.
The Supreme Court of India has today recalled its December 15, 2015 order wherein it had invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and had appointed Justice Virendra Singh, former judge of Allahabad High Court as the Lokayukta of Uttar Pradesh. Apex Court has now appointed Justice Sanjay Misra, a former judge of the same High Court as the new Lokayukta.
Reversing its earlier order, the bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and PC Pant observed:
In the facts stated above, we are persuaded to hold that our order appointing Shri Justice Virendra Singh (Retd.) as Lokayukta was on the basis of the statement made on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh which now appears to be somewhat inaccurate. The picture that emanates from the above narration of facts is hazy, unclear and uncertain and we are left in serious doubt as to whether the constitutional/statutory functionaries or at least two of them had, at all, agreed on any name or names. It is unfortunate that constitutional/statutory functionaries, inspite of prolonged and extended meetings, continued to have serious differences on a relatively simple issue i.e. appointment of the Lokayukta.
Earlier on December 16 last year, hearing the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 301 of 2015, the same bench had appointed Justice Virendra Singh (Retd.) as the Lokayukta of the State of Uttar Pradesh. Pursuant to this order, on December 18, 2015, Governor of Uttar Pradesh had issued a consequential order appointing Justice Virendra Singh (Retd.) as the Lokayukta.
Challenging the above appointment, the petitioner-journalist, Sachchidanand Gupta ‘Sachchay’ approached the Court claiming that the Supreme Court was misled by the Uttar Pradesh Government into passing the order.
During the proceedings, court was supplied with a letter dated December 16, 2015 of the Chief Justice of Allahabad HC to the Governor of Uttar Pradesh. In the letter it was said that in a meeting on December 15, 2015, objections were raised to the name of Justice Virendra Singh (Retd.) by the Chief Justice of the High Court and the UP Chief Minister had agreed that his name would be dropped from the panel. Letter also set out the basis of his objections.
After a perusal of further documents, the bench observed:
…it is clear that the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the High Court had reservations on the name of Shri Justice Virendra Singh (Retd.). In this regard, there is a subsequent letter dated 6th January, 2016 of the Leader of Opposition which clearly belies the fact that any agreement was reached on any name between the Hon’ble Chief Minister and the Leader of Opposition.
Miffed with the revelation, bench observed:
The picture that emanates from the above narration of facts is hazy, unclear and uncertain and we are left in serious doubt as to whether the constitutional/statutory functionaries or at least two of them had, at all, agreed on any name or names. It is unfortunate that constitutional/statutory functionaries, inspite of prolonged and extended meetings, continued to have serious differences on a relatively simple issue i.e. appointment of the Lokayukta.
Opinion of High Court Chief Justice mandatory and primary
Noting the reservation of the Chief Justice of Allahabad HC, bench referred to Justice KP Mohapatra v. Sri Ram Chandra Nayak and others [(2002) 8 SCC 1], wherein the Supreme Court had held:
For such appointment, Chief Justice of the High Court would be the best person for proposing and suggesting such person for being appointed as Lokpal. His opinion would be totally independent and he would be in a position to find out who is most or more suitable for the said office. In this context, primacy is required to be given to the opinion of the Chief Justice of the High Court
…consultation with the Chief Justice is mandatory and his opinion would have primacy.
Justice Sanjay Misra to be the new Lokayukta
Bench then appointed former judge of the Allahabad HC – Justice Sanjay Misra as the Lokayukta of Uttar Pradesh. Bench observed:
In making the aforesaid appointment we have taken note of the fact that the name of Justice Sanjay Misra appears in the common list of names that were discussed as mentioned in the letters of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the High Court and the Hon’ble Chief Minister referred to above.
Complete judgment can be read here.
The Supreme Court of India has today recalled its December 15, 2015 order wherein it had invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and had appointed Justice Virendra Singh, former judge of Allahabad High Court as the Lokayukta of Uttar Pradesh. Apex Court has now appointed Justice Sanjay Misra, a former judge of the same High Court as the new Lokayukta.
Reversing its earlier order, the bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and PC Pant observed:
In the facts stated above, we are persuaded to hold that our order appointing Shri Justice Virendra Singh (Retd.) as Lokayukta was on the basis of the statement made on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh which now appears to be somewhat inaccurate. The picture that emanates from the above narration of facts is hazy, unclear and uncertain and we are left in serious doubt as to whether the constitutional/statutory functionaries or at least two of them had, at all, agreed on any name or names. It is unfortunate that constitutional/statutory functionaries, inspite of prolonged and extended meetings, continued to have serious differences on a relatively simple issue i.e. appointment of the Lokayukta.
Earlier on December 16 last year, hearing the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 301 of 2015, the same bench had appointed Justice Virendra Singh (Retd.) as the Lokayukta of the State of Uttar Pradesh. Pursuant to this order, on December 18, 2015, Governor of Uttar Pradesh had issued a consequential order appointing Justice Virendra Singh (Retd.) as the Lokayukta.
Challenging the above appointment, the petitioner-journalist, Sachchidanand Gupta ‘Sachchay’ approached the Court claiming that the Supreme Court was misled by the Uttar Pradesh Government into passing the order.
During the proceedings, court was supplied with a letter dated December 16, 2015 of the Chief Justice of Allahabad HC to the Governor of Uttar Pradesh. In the letter it was said that in a meeting on December 15, 2015, objections were raised to the name of Justice Virendra Singh (Retd.) by the Chief Justice of the High Court and the UP Chief Minister had agreed that his name would be dropped from the panel. Letter also set out the basis of his objections.
After a perusal of further documents, the bench observed:
…it is clear that the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the High Court had reservations on the name of Shri Justice Virendra Singh (Retd.). In this regard, there is a subsequent letter dated 6th January, 2016 of the Leader of Opposition which clearly belies the fact that any agreement was reached on any name between the Hon’ble Chief Minister and the Leader of Opposition.
Miffed with the revelation, bench observed:
The picture that emanates from the above narration of facts is hazy, unclear and uncertain and we are left in serious doubt as to whether the constitutional/statutory functionaries or at least two of them had, at all, agreed on any name or names. It is unfortunate that constitutional/statutory functionaries, inspite of prolonged and extended meetings, continued to have serious differences on a relatively simple issue i.e. appointment of the Lokayukta.
Opinion of High Court Chief Justice mandatory and primary
Noting the reservation of the Chief Justice of Allahabad HC, bench referred to Justice KP Mohapatra v. Sri Ram Chandra Nayak and others [(2002) 8 SCC 1], wherein the Supreme Court had held:
For such appointment, Chief Justice of the High Court would be the best person for proposing and suggesting such person for being appointed as Lokpal. His opinion would be totally independent and he would be in a position to find out who is most or more suitable for the said office. In this context, primacy is required to be given to the opinion of the Chief Justice of the High Court
…consultation with the Chief Justice is mandatory and his opinion would have primacy.
Justice Sanjay Misra to be the new Lokayukta
Bench then appointed former judge of the Allahabad HC – Justice Sanjay Misra as the Lokayukta of Uttar Pradesh. Bench observed:
In making the aforesaid appointment we have taken note of the fact that the name of Justice Sanjay Misra appears in the common list of names that were discussed as mentioned in the letters of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the High Court and the Hon’ble Chief Minister referred to above.
Complete judgment can be read here.
The Supreme Court of India has today recalled its December 15, 2015 order wherein it had invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and had appointed Justice Virendra Singh, former judge of Allahabad High Court as the Lokayukta of Uttar Pradesh. Apex Court has now appointed Justice Sanjay Misra, a former judge of the same High Court as the new Lokayukta.
Reversing its earlier order, the bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and PC Pant observed:
In the facts stated above, we are persuaded to hold that our order appointing Shri Justice Virendra Singh (Retd.) as Lokayukta was on the basis of the statement made on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh which now appears to be somewhat inaccurate. The picture that emanates from the above narration of facts is hazy, unclear and uncertain and we are left in serious doubt as to whether the constitutional/statutory functionaries or at least two of them had, at all, agreed on any name or names. It is unfortunate that constitutional/statutory functionaries, inspite of prolonged and extended meetings, continued to have serious differences on a relatively simple issue i.e. appointment of the Lokayukta.
Earlier on December 16 last year, hearing the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 301 of 2015, the same bench had appointed Justice Virendra Singh (Retd.) as the Lokayukta of the State of Uttar Pradesh. Pursuant to this order, on December 18, 2015, Governor of Uttar Pradesh had issued a consequential order appointing Justice Virendra Singh (Retd.) as the Lokayukta.
Challenging the above appointment, the petitioner-journalist, Sachchidanand Gupta ‘Sachchay’ approached the Court claiming that the Supreme Court was misled by the Uttar Pradesh Government into passing the order.
During the proceedings, court was supplied with a letter dated December 16, 2015 of the Chief Justice of Allahabad HC to the Governor of Uttar Pradesh. In the letter it was said that in a meeting on December 15, 2015, objections were raised to the name of Justice Virendra Singh (Retd.) by the Chief Justice of the High Court and the UP Chief Minister had agreed that his name would be dropped from the panel. Letter also set out the basis of his objections.
After a perusal of further documents, the bench observed:
…it is clear that the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the High Court had reservations on the name of Shri Justice Virendra Singh (Retd.). In this regard, there is a subsequent letter dated 6th January, 2016 of the Leader of Opposition which clearly belies the fact that any agreement was reached on any name between the Hon’ble Chief Minister and the Leader of Opposition.
Miffed with the revelation, bench observed:
The picture that emanates from the above narration of facts is hazy, unclear and uncertain and we are left in serious doubt as to whether the constitutional/statutory functionaries or at least two of them had, at all, agreed on any name or names. It is unfortunate that constitutional/statutory functionaries, inspite of prolonged and extended meetings, continued to have serious differences on a relatively simple issue i.e. appointment of the Lokayukta.
Opinion of High Court Chief Justice mandatory and primary
Noting the reservation of the Chief Justice of Allahabad HC, bench referred to Justice KP Mohapatra v. Sri Ram Chandra Nayak and others [(2002) 8 SCC 1], wherein the Supreme Court had held:
For such appointment, Chief Justice of the High Court would be the best person for proposing and suggesting such person for being appointed as Lokpal. His opinion would be totally independent and he would be in a position to find out who is most or more suitable for the said office. In this context, primacy is required to be given to the opinion of the Chief Justice of the High Court
…consultation with the Chief Justice is mandatory and his opinion would have primacy.
Justice Sanjay Misra to be the new Lokayukta
Bench then appointed former judge of the Allahabad HC – Justice Sanjay Misra as the Lokayukta of Uttar Pradesh. Bench observed:
In making the aforesaid appointment we have taken note of the fact that the name of Justice Sanjay Misra appears in the common list of names that were discussed as mentioned in the letters of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the High Court and the Hon’ble Chief Minister referred to above.
Complete judgment can be read here.
19th
19th
Feb, 2025
19th
19th
Feb, 2025
Supreme Court of India has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking a direction from the court under Article 142 of the Constitution to set up the main seat of the High Court for the state of Uttar Pradesh at Agra instead of Allahabad, in terms of the terms of the Indian High Court Act, 1861.
Dismissing the petition, Chief Justice of India TS Thakur observed that such a judicial order cannot be issued by the court.
The petitioner Pt. Nawin Sharma appeared in person before the bench which also comprised of Justice UU Lalit.
The petition prays:
Issue a Writ or direction in the nature of Mandamus-Directing the Respondents No: 1 & 2, even by invoking the power enshrined under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, to create infrastructure and necessary establishment for setting up the main seat of the High Court at AGRA, which is the Principal Seat of High Court for Uttar Pradesh (formerly United Provinces) in terms of the Indian High Court Act 1861.
We tried to dig a little into the history:
Before 1861
Prior to the setting up of an High Court for the present day Uttar Pradesh, the highest court for the region was that of Sudder Dewani and Nizamat Adalat for the North-Western Provinces. This Court sat at Agra, although Bengal Regulation VI of 1831 had provided that it was ” to be ordinarily stationed at Allahabad “.
The 1861 Act
With an aim to implement uniformity in the administration of Justice and to amalgamate the Supreme Courts and Sadar Adalats, British Parliament passed the Indian High Courts Act in 1861 (24 and 25 Vic. C104) whereby Her Majesty was empowered to abolish the Supreme Courts and Sadar Adalats, and in their place to constitute a High Court of Judicature for each of the three Presidencies, which should be the supreme over all the Courts in the Presidency towns and also in the Mofussil.
Setting up of High Court
The Letters Patent setting up the High Court were issued on the March 17, 1866 and published in the Gazette of India on June 13, 1866 and the High Court came into existence and the Court of Sudder Dewani and Nizamat Adalat ceased to exist. It appears that as the local Government favoured the early establishment of a High Court, temporary accommodation was provided for six Judges at Agra. (Only temporary accommodation was required as the decision had already been taken to erect a new building in Allahabad for the Sudder Court).
The first Chief Justice and the Judges of the High Court of North Western Provinces at Allahabad were named in the above Letters Patent itself. The main difficulty in the way of the transfer to Allahabad was, it seems, the housing of the new High Court, and its Judges. In its third year of existence, Court was divided between Agra and Allahabad, the Chief Justice and three Judges sitting at Agra and two Judges at Allahabad. For three years, during 1866 to 1869 the High Court thus formed, continued to function at Agra and it was not before the autumn of 1869 when the Chief Justice first sat at Allahabad.
Thus in the year 1869, the seat of the ‘High Court for the North-Western Provinces’ came to be shifted from Agra to Allahabad. In the year 1919, its designation was altered to ‘the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad’ in 1919 by a supplementary Letters Patent issued on March 11, 1919. This designation continues upto the present day. Later, on February 25, 1948, the Chief Court of Oudh was also amalgamated with the High Court of Allahabad.
Also Read:
The historical journey of High Court of Delhi which is celebrating its Golden Jubilee in 2016.
Supreme Court of India has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking a direction from the court under Article 142 of the Constitution to set up the main seat of the High Court for the state of Uttar Pradesh at Agra instead of Allahabad, in terms of the terms of the Indian High Court Act, 1861.
Dismissing the petition, Chief Justice of India TS Thakur observed that such a judicial order cannot be issued by the court.
The petitioner Pt. Nawin Sharma appeared in person before the bench which also comprised of Justice UU Lalit.
The petition prays:
Issue a Writ or direction in the nature of Mandamus-Directing the Respondents No: 1 & 2, even by invoking the power enshrined under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, to create infrastructure and necessary establishment for setting up the main seat of the High Court at AGRA, which is the Principal Seat of High Court for Uttar Pradesh (formerly United Provinces) in terms of the Indian High Court Act 1861.
We tried to dig a little into the history:
Before 1861
Prior to the setting up of an High Court for the present day Uttar Pradesh, the highest court for the region was that of Sudder Dewani and Nizamat Adalat for the North-Western Provinces. This Court sat at Agra, although Bengal Regulation VI of 1831 had provided that it was ” to be ordinarily stationed at Allahabad “.
The 1861 Act
With an aim to implement uniformity in the administration of Justice and to amalgamate the Supreme Courts and Sadar Adalats, British Parliament passed the Indian High Courts Act in 1861 (24 and 25 Vic. C104) whereby Her Majesty was empowered to abolish the Supreme Courts and Sadar Adalats, and in their place to constitute a High Court of Judicature for each of the three Presidencies, which should be the supreme over all the Courts in the Presidency towns and also in the Mofussil.
Setting up of High Court
The Letters Patent setting up the High Court were issued on the March 17, 1866 and published in the Gazette of India on June 13, 1866 and the High Court came into existence and the Court of Sudder Dewani and Nizamat Adalat ceased to exist. It appears that as the local Government favoured the early establishment of a High Court, temporary accommodation was provided for six Judges at Agra. (Only temporary accommodation was required as the decision had already been taken to erect a new building in Allahabad for the Sudder Court).
The first Chief Justice and the Judges of the High Court of North Western Provinces at Allahabad were named in the above Letters Patent itself. The main difficulty in the way of the transfer to Allahabad was, it seems, the housing of the new High Court, and its Judges. In its third year of existence, Court was divided between Agra and Allahabad, the Chief Justice and three Judges sitting at Agra and two Judges at Allahabad. For three years, during 1866 to 1869 the High Court thus formed, continued to function at Agra and it was not before the autumn of 1869 when the Chief Justice first sat at Allahabad.
Thus in the year 1869, the seat of the ‘High Court for the North-Western Provinces’ came to be shifted from Agra to Allahabad. In the year 1919, its designation was altered to ‘the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad’ in 1919 by a supplementary Letters Patent issued on March 11, 1919. This designation continues upto the present day. Later, on February 25, 1948, the Chief Court of Oudh was also amalgamated with the High Court of Allahabad.
Also Read:
The historical journey of High Court of Delhi which is celebrating its Golden Jubilee in 2016.
Supreme Court of India has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking a direction from the court under Article 142 of the Constitution to set up the main seat of the High Court for the state of Uttar Pradesh at Agra instead of Allahabad, in terms of the terms of the Indian High Court Act, 1861.
Dismissing the petition, Chief Justice of India TS Thakur observed that such a judicial order cannot be issued by the court.
The petitioner Pt. Nawin Sharma appeared in person before the bench which also comprised of Justice UU Lalit.
The petition prays:
Issue a Writ or direction in the nature of Mandamus-Directing the Respondents No: 1 & 2, even by invoking the power enshrined under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, to create infrastructure and necessary establishment for setting up the main seat of the High Court at AGRA, which is the Principal Seat of High Court for Uttar Pradesh (formerly United Provinces) in terms of the Indian High Court Act 1861.
We tried to dig a little into the history:
Before 1861
Prior to the setting up of an High Court for the present day Uttar Pradesh, the highest court for the region was that of Sudder Dewani and Nizamat Adalat for the North-Western Provinces. This Court sat at Agra, although Bengal Regulation VI of 1831 had provided that it was ” to be ordinarily stationed at Allahabad “.
The 1861 Act
With an aim to implement uniformity in the administration of Justice and to amalgamate the Supreme Courts and Sadar Adalats, British Parliament passed the Indian High Courts Act in 1861 (24 and 25 Vic. C104) whereby Her Majesty was empowered to abolish the Supreme Courts and Sadar Adalats, and in their place to constitute a High Court of Judicature for each of the three Presidencies, which should be the supreme over all the Courts in the Presidency towns and also in the Mofussil.
Setting up of High Court
The Letters Patent setting up the High Court were issued on the March 17, 1866 and published in the Gazette of India on June 13, 1866 and the High Court came into existence and the Court of Sudder Dewani and Nizamat Adalat ceased to exist. It appears that as the local Government favoured the early establishment of a High Court, temporary accommodation was provided for six Judges at Agra. (Only temporary accommodation was required as the decision had already been taken to erect a new building in Allahabad for the Sudder Court).
The first Chief Justice and the Judges of the High Court of North Western Provinces at Allahabad were named in the above Letters Patent itself. The main difficulty in the way of the transfer to Allahabad was, it seems, the housing of the new High Court, and its Judges. In its third year of existence, Court was divided between Agra and Allahabad, the Chief Justice and three Judges sitting at Agra and two Judges at Allahabad. For three years, during 1866 to 1869 the High Court thus formed, continued to function at Agra and it was not before the autumn of 1869 when the Chief Justice first sat at Allahabad.
Thus in the year 1869, the seat of the ‘High Court for the North-Western Provinces’ came to be shifted from Agra to Allahabad. In the year 1919, its designation was altered to ‘the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad’ in 1919 by a supplementary Letters Patent issued on March 11, 1919. This designation continues upto the present day. Later, on February 25, 1948, the Chief Court of Oudh was also amalgamated with the High Court of Allahabad.
Also Read:
The historical journey of High Court of Delhi which is celebrating its Golden Jubilee in 2016.
Supreme Court of India has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking a direction from the court under Article 142 of the Constitution to set up the main seat of the High Court for the state of Uttar Pradesh at Agra instead of Allahabad, in terms of the terms of the Indian High Court Act, 1861.
Dismissing the petition, Chief Justice of India TS Thakur observed that such a judicial order cannot be issued by the court.
The petitioner Pt. Nawin Sharma appeared in person before the bench which also comprised of Justice UU Lalit.
The petition prays:
Issue a Writ or direction in the nature of Mandamus-Directing the Respondents No: 1 & 2, even by invoking the power enshrined under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, to create infrastructure and necessary establishment for setting up the main seat of the High Court at AGRA, which is the Principal Seat of High Court for Uttar Pradesh (formerly United Provinces) in terms of the Indian High Court Act 1861.
We tried to dig a little into the history:
Before 1861
Prior to the setting up of an High Court for the present day Uttar Pradesh, the highest court for the region was that of Sudder Dewani and Nizamat Adalat for the North-Western Provinces. This Court sat at Agra, although Bengal Regulation VI of 1831 had provided that it was ” to be ordinarily stationed at Allahabad “.
The 1861 Act
With an aim to implement uniformity in the administration of Justice and to amalgamate the Supreme Courts and Sadar Adalats, British Parliament passed the Indian High Courts Act in 1861 (24 and 25 Vic. C104) whereby Her Majesty was empowered to abolish the Supreme Courts and Sadar Adalats, and in their place to constitute a High Court of Judicature for each of the three Presidencies, which should be the supreme over all the Courts in the Presidency towns and also in the Mofussil.
Setting up of High Court
The Letters Patent setting up the High Court were issued on the March 17, 1866 and published in the Gazette of India on June 13, 1866 and the High Court came into existence and the Court of Sudder Dewani and Nizamat Adalat ceased to exist. It appears that as the local Government favoured the early establishment of a High Court, temporary accommodation was provided for six Judges at Agra. (Only temporary accommodation was required as the decision had already been taken to erect a new building in Allahabad for the Sudder Court).
The first Chief Justice and the Judges of the High Court of North Western Provinces at Allahabad were named in the above Letters Patent itself. The main difficulty in the way of the transfer to Allahabad was, it seems, the housing of the new High Court, and its Judges. In its third year of existence, Court was divided between Agra and Allahabad, the Chief Justice and three Judges sitting at Agra and two Judges at Allahabad. For three years, during 1866 to 1869 the High Court thus formed, continued to function at Agra and it was not before the autumn of 1869 when the Chief Justice first sat at Allahabad.
Thus in the year 1869, the seat of the ‘High Court for the North-Western Provinces’ came to be shifted from Agra to Allahabad. In the year 1919, its designation was altered to ‘the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad’ in 1919 by a supplementary Letters Patent issued on March 11, 1919. This designation continues upto the present day. Later, on February 25, 1948, the Chief Court of Oudh was also amalgamated with the High Court of Allahabad.
Also Read:
The historical journey of High Court of Delhi which is celebrating its Golden Jubilee in 2016.
Supreme Court of India has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking a direction from the court under Article 142 of the Constitution to set up the main seat of the High Court for the state of Uttar Pradesh at Agra instead of Allahabad, in terms of the terms of the Indian High Court Act, 1861.
Dismissing the petition, Chief Justice of India TS Thakur observed that such a judicial order cannot be issued by the court.
The petitioner Pt. Nawin Sharma appeared in person before the bench which also comprised of Justice UU Lalit.
The petition prays:
Issue a Writ or direction in the nature of Mandamus-Directing the Respondents No: 1 & 2, even by invoking the power enshrined under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, to create infrastructure and necessary establishment for setting up the main seat of the High Court at AGRA, which is the Principal Seat of High Court for Uttar Pradesh (formerly United Provinces) in terms of the Indian High Court Act 1861.
We tried to dig a little into the history:
Before 1861
Prior to the setting up of an High Court for the present day Uttar Pradesh, the highest court for the region was that of Sudder Dewani and Nizamat Adalat for the North-Western Provinces. This Court sat at Agra, although Bengal Regulation VI of 1831 had provided that it was ” to be ordinarily stationed at Allahabad “.
The 1861 Act
With an aim to implement uniformity in the administration of Justice and to amalgamate the Supreme Courts and Sadar Adalats, British Parliament passed the Indian High Courts Act in 1861 (24 and 25 Vic. C104) whereby Her Majesty was empowered to abolish the Supreme Courts and Sadar Adalats, and in their place to constitute a High Court of Judicature for each of the three Presidencies, which should be the supreme over all the Courts in the Presidency towns and also in the Mofussil.
Setting up of High Court
The Letters Patent setting up the High Court were issued on the March 17, 1866 and published in the Gazette of India on June 13, 1866 and the High Court came into existence and the Court of Sudder Dewani and Nizamat Adalat ceased to exist. It appears that as the local Government favoured the early establishment of a High Court, temporary accommodation was provided for six Judges at Agra. (Only temporary accommodation was required as the decision had already been taken to erect a new building in Allahabad for the Sudder Court).
The first Chief Justice and the Judges of the High Court of North Western Provinces at Allahabad were named in the above Letters Patent itself. The main difficulty in the way of the transfer to Allahabad was, it seems, the housing of the new High Court, and its Judges. In its third year of existence, Court was divided between Agra and Allahabad, the Chief Justice and three Judges sitting at Agra and two Judges at Allahabad. For three years, during 1866 to 1869 the High Court thus formed, continued to function at Agra and it was not before the autumn of 1869 when the Chief Justice first sat at Allahabad.
Thus in the year 1869, the seat of the ‘High Court for the North-Western Provinces’ came to be shifted from Agra to Allahabad. In the year 1919, its designation was altered to ‘the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad’ in 1919 by a supplementary Letters Patent issued on March 11, 1919. This designation continues upto the present day. Later, on February 25, 1948, the Chief Court of Oudh was also amalgamated with the High Court of Allahabad.