Allahabad High Court Seeks Response From Centre & HC On PIL To Rename It As 'High Court Of Uttar Pradesh'

“Keeping the question of maintainability of petition and the objection for the reliefs claims in view of a decision of Coordinate Bench in PIL Civil No. 14171 of 2020 open for consideration on the next date and also those objections to be raised at that time, let counter affidavit be filed by the opposite parties within four weeks as in the connected petition vires of Amalgamation Order 1948 is also under challenge,” the Court's order reads.

A bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla passed this order on the PIL plea moved by Lucknow-based Advocate Deepanker Kumar through Advocate Ashok Pandey.

The plea seeks a direction to the High Court authorities to rename its Rules (Allahabad High Court Rule, 1952) as Uttar Pradesh High Court Rules and to mention the 'proper name' of the High Court in its orders/judgements, notices, and notifications.

The matter has been tagged with another PIL plea filed by Advocate Ashok Pandey himself (in 2021) seeking the following three reliefs:

• A writ of certiorari to quash the United Provinces High Court Amalgamation Order of 1948.
• A writ of mandamus to reallocate territorial jurisdiction among the benches of the "Uttar Pradesh High Court".
• A writ of mandamus to declare the Indian High Courts Act of 1861 unconstitutional and prevent its application.

In the PIL plea filed by Kumar, it has been contended that the confusion surrounding the 'proper' name of the High Court has led to uncertainty among the masses, state functionaries, and Judges of both the High Courts and the Supreme Court.

It has also been submitted that the Advocates are particularly perplexed, with some referring to it as "The Allahabad High Court" while others opt for "The High Court of Uttar Pradesh."

Importantly, referring to the Supreme Court's observations in Special Reference No. 1 of 1964, the PIL petitioner has contended that in the said matter, the Apex Court had referred to the High Court as the High Court of Uttar Pradesh and the Lucknow bench of the HC was named as the Lucknow Bench of High Court of Uttar Pradesh.

In April 2024, the petitioner's counsel strongly argued that the Allahabad High Court is not a judicature but a High Court and that it is a creation of the constitution of India and not of the law made by the British. However, the Court was not impressed with these arguments.

Further, when the Counsel for the petitioner attempted to argue that the observations of the Supreme Court and the President of India referring to the Allahabad High Court as the High Court of Uttar Pradesh had confused the lawyers, the bench remarked that there was no such confusion. It was the petitioner who was trying to create such confusion.

The PIL plea also contends that 19 of the Country's high courts were named after the states where they were situated; however, the same was not the case with the other 6 High Courts.

It is the primary contention of the PIL petitioner that since all the High Courts in the country are the creation of the Constitution and not of some law made or charter issued by the 'Invader' British Government and hence after the Constitution came into being, it was the duty of the Government to rename the existing High Courts after the name of the State to which they belong.

It has been contended that in many official letters/communications of the Union Government, the Allahabad High Court was referred to as the High Court of Uttar Pradesh.

In related news, the Union Law Ministry informed the Rajya Sabha last year that no proposal to introduce legislation regarding the potential renaming of certain high courts in the country is pending before it.

Case title - Deepanker Kumar vs. Union Of Bharat Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Law And Justice , New Delhi And Another

Click Here To Read/Download Order