PIL filed in Allahabad High Court seeks to rename it as Uttar Pradesh High Court

A lawyer has filed a petition before the Allahabad High Court seeking to rename it as the High Court of Uttar Pradesh.

Filed by Advocate Asok Pandey on behalf of Lucknow-based lawyer Deepanker Kumar, the PIL argued that the practice of naming a High Court after the city in which it was established was a practice adopted by British colonial rulers.

Such a practice should not continue in independent Bharat, more so after the adoption of its Constitution, noted the plea.

It contended that all High Courts in the country were the creation of the Constitution and not of some law made or charter issued by the ‘Invader’ British Government and so, after the Constitution came into being, it was the duty of the Government to re-name the existing High Courts after the name of the State to which they belonged.

It sought directions to the Central government and other relevant authorities to refer to the Allahabad High Court as the ‘High Court of Uttar Pradesh’ in all notifications, communications, judgments, orders, and decrees.

The plea further urged for directions to rename the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 as the Uttar Pradesh High Court Rules.

The petitioner argued that the ambiguity regarding the correct name of the Allahabad High Court has caused confusion among the advocates, State officials, judges, court registry officials, and the general public.

As per the plea, while some referred to it as the Allahabad High Court, others chose to call it the High Court of Uttar Pradesh.

It mentioned the Supreme Court of India referring to the High Court as the High Court of Uttar Pradesh in a 1964 case (Keshav Singh, Presidential Reference No. 1 of 1964).

It further submitted that the division of jurisdiction between the two Benches of the Allahabad High Court needed a relook.

The Allahabad High Court Amalgamation Order 1948 (which merged the then Chief Court of Oudh with the High Court of Allahabad) has ceased to operate since the implementation of the Constitution in 1950, it added.

The petition further contended that the vesting of jurisdiction between the two benches of this High Court (at Lucknow and Prayagraj) was through this amalgamation order.

As no order by the President has been issued on this issue like other High Courts having benches, legally speaking, there was no valid order, which divided the jurisdiction between the two benches, it added.

The petition sought necessary directions to the concerned authorities on the judicial side.

However, this aspect has not been specifically pressed by the petitioner since another PIL filed on this issue in 2021 was already pending before the High Court.

Crime Today News | Judiciary

Source | Powered by Yes Mom Hosting

Crime Today News

Welcome to Crime Today News, your trusted source for timely and unbiased news coverage. Since our inception in 2014, we have been dedicated to delivering the latest updates to our valued readers and viewers across Telangana.

Related Posts