Supreme Court Stays Uttarakhand High Court's Order For Its Relocation Out Of Nainital
The Supreme Court (today, May 24) stayed the Uttarakhand High Court's order asking the State government to find a suitable place to shift its premises out of Nainital. The High Court, in its order, highlighted that shifting is necessary in the larger public interest. Challenging this order, the High Court Bar Association of Uttarakhand moved the Supreme Court. While issuing notice on...
The Supreme Court (today, May 24) stayed the Uttarakhand High Court's order asking the State government to find a suitable place to shift its premises out of Nainital. The High Court, in its order, highlighted that shifting is necessary in the larger public interest. Challenging this order, the High Court Bar Association of Uttarakhand moved the Supreme Court.
While issuing notice on the Special Leave Petition, the Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Sanjay Karol also sought the State government's response. The matter is now listed after the vacations(after July 8).
At the outset of today's hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State Government, submitted that the High Court's order is a kind of referendum.
Pursuant to this, Senior advocate Sidharth Luthra, appearing for the caveator Supriya Juneja, took the Bench to a background and history linked with the present matter. He also referred to the resolution passed by the Court in light of the litigants as well as the lawyers. Luthra also requested the court “let this not operate as a stay on the administrative exercise that is going on.”
On the other hand, Senior Advocate P. B. Suresh, appearing for the Uttarakhand High Court Bar Association, argued that it was only the Parliament or the Central Government that could decide on the establishment of a Principal Bench and not the High Court.
To provide a brief background, the High Court, through its full court's resolution dated 15.09.2022, had resolved to shift the High Court from Nainital. It was against this backdrop that the impugned order was passed.
Earlier, land located at Golapur in Haldwani was proposed for shifting. However, this proposal was rejected in view of the fact that 75% of the land earmarked for the High Court was surrounded by dense forest.
“So this Court does not want to uproot any of the trees to make a new High Court. Every institution is established with a vision to remain established for a long period, therefore, we also want that High Court should be established at a new location so that there will be no need to shift it again in the next 50 years.,” the High Court added.
Apart from this, the Court also took into consideration other practical difficulties including the the shortage of residential houses faced by young lawyers, unaffordability of expenses by poor litigants for their stay in Nainital and lack of medical facilities.
“Keeping in view the larger public interest, hardships faced by litigants and young lawyers, lack of medical facilities and connectivity and the fact that in more than 75% of the cases, State Government is party and Government has to spend a huge amount on their TA & DA, shifting of High Court from Nainital is required.,” the Court added.
Notably, the Court had also, in its directions passed, asked the Registrar General to open a portal by May 14, 2024. In this, the lawyers were given a chance to give their choice by opting “YES” if they were interested in shifting to the High Court and “NO” if not. Apart from this, noting that the opinion of the public at large is also essential, the Court also gave the public a chance to exercise their choice in the same manner.
Counsels for the petitioner: Senior Advocate P B Suresh and Advocates Vinod Khanna, Vipin Nair, Karthik Jayashankar, Ayush Negi, Kartikeya Hari Gupta, Dinesh Rawat and BD Pande.
Case Title: HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND., case Title: DIARY NO. - 22967/2024