Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Seeking ‘Uniform Judicial Code’ For Judicial Terms, Case Registration Process Across HCs

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday refused to entertain a plea moved by Lawyer and BJP leader Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay seeking directions for the Law Commission of India to prepare a comprehensive report on “Uniform Judicial Code” to make judicial terms, abbreviations, case records and the process of case registration uniform across high courts.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Yashwant Varma asked Upadhyay to seek clarification in respect of an order passed by the Supreme Court which had dismissed a similar plea moved by him as withdrawn.

“Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for liberty to withdraw the petition. Dismissed as withdrawn,” the Supreme Court had said in its order.

At the outset, Chief Justice Sharma said that the Apex Court had dismissed his petition and thus, he must seek a clarification on the order.

As Upadhyay attempted to persuade the court to hear the plea, Chief Justice orally said: “Little English we also understand. You seek a clarification on this.”

The bench added: “If your matter was withdrawn from the Supreme Court and no liberty was granted, how can we entertain it?”

Accordingly, the PIL was withdrawn by Upadhyay. However, the court granted him liberty to seek clarification of the order of Apex Court.

“The petition is withdrawn with the liberty,” the bench said.

In the alternative, Upadhyay had sought for constitution of an Expert Committee for preparation of the report in consultation with other High Courts.

“Injury to citizens is extremely large because the court fees sought for similar matters and that of similar valuation in different States under the jurisdiction of different high courts are different. It must be noted that judicial equality is a matter of constitutional right, its differentiation based on the jurisdiction of courts violates the Right to Equality enshrined under Article 14 and Article 15. Moreover, it promotes regionalism, hence it is a clear violation of Articles 14-15,” the plea said.

The plea submitted that the terminology used by different High Courts for different types of cases are not uniform which causes inconvenience not just to the general public but also to the advocates and authorities.

“Not just the terms used by them to refer to the same types of cases are different but even the abbreviations used to refer to these terms are different in case the same term is used. It is inexplicable as to why there is difference in terminologies, procedure, court fees etc. within courts when all are governed by the same laws, have the same jurisdiction and deal with the same types of cases. common terminologies highlighted to bring out the drastic difference,” the PIL read.

Title: ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS 

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 321