'Argue On Law, Avoid Emotions': HC Tells Lawyer In PIL For Renaming Allahabad HC As 'High Court Of UP' In Official Docs

Hearing the PIL (Public Interest Litigation) plea filed before the Allahabad High Court seeking to rename HC as the "High Court of Uttar Pradesh" in the official documents, Chief Justice Arun Bhansali today asked the counsel for the petitioner to present only legal arguments in the matter while keeping his emotions aside.

"Agar aapko yahi sab bolna hai to 5 minutes aur bol lijiye. Agar legal arguments denge to suna jayega aapko. Emotional arguments mat kariye," (If this is all you have to say then speak for 5 more minutes and then rest your case. If you present legal arguments you will be heard. Don't make emotional arguments), a bench of CJ Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh orally remarked.

#AllahabadHighCourt is hearing a PIL plea seeking direction to refer to Allahabad HC as 'The High Court Of Uttar Pradesh' in all the official documents.

Hearing is before Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh. pic.twitter.com/DMrJs2kdAB

— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) April 16, 2024

The statement of the bench was prompted by Advocate Ashok Pande's argument (who was appearing for the PIL petitioner), wherein he contended that while districts under 'Oudh' fall within the jurisdiction of the Lucknow Seat of the High Court, the term 'Oudh (Awadh)' lacks a definitive definition. He further asserted that according to the Ramcharitmanas, 'Oudh' refers to the place where Lord Rama resides.

For context, earlier, the Lucknow seat was known as Chief Court in Oudh, and vide The United Provinces' High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948, the Chief Court of Oudh (Presently Lucknow Seat) and Allahabad High Court were amalgamated.

Further, noting that the petitioner wanted to argue further in the matter, the division bench posted the matter for further hearing on May 13. "Agar aapko aur argue karna hai to hum next date laga dete hain," remarked the bench while adjourning the matter.

For context, the HC is dealing with this PIL plea seeking a direction to the Central Government and other authorities to refer to the HC, the High Court for Uttar Pradesh as 'The High Court of Uttar Pradesh' in all the notifications, communications, judgement, orders and decrees.

The PIL plea, moved by Lucknow based Advocate Deepanker Kumar, also 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 'proper name' of the High court in its orders/ judgement, notices and notifications.

Before the Court, the counsel for the petitioner (Pande) argued that since all the High Courts in the country are the creation of the Constitution and not of some law made or a charter issued by the 'Invader' British Government and so, after the Constitution came into being, it was duty of the Government to re-name the existing High Courts after the name of the State to which they belong.

It was argued that the confusion surrounding the 'proper' name of the High Court has led to uncertainty among the masses, state functionaries, as well the Judges of both High Courts and the Supreme Court and 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 the Special Reference No. 1 of 1964, Advocate Pande contended that in the said matter, the Apex Court had referred to the High court as High Court of Uttar Pradesh and the Lucknow bench of the HC was named as the Lucknow Bench of High Court of Uttar Pradesh.

However, disagreeing with this argument, the bench specifically remarked that regardless of any previous observations by the court referring to the Allahabad High Court as the High Court of Uttar Pradesh, it does not alter its name.

"If there are observations of any court wherein the Allahabad High Court has been referred to as the High Court Of Uttar Pradesh, it doesn't make any difference, it doesn't change the law. Despite such observations, it will continue to be Allahabad High Court," the bench said.

The petitioner's counsel also contended that the Allahabad High Court is not a judicature but a High Court and it is a creation of of the constitution of India and not of the law made by the British. However, the Court was not impressed with this 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 caused confusion among the lawyers, the bench remarked that there was no such confusion and it was the petitioner who was trying to create such a confusion.

The matter will be heard next on May 13.