'Similar Plea Was Dismissed In 2020': Allahabad High Court Adjourns Hearing In PIL To Rename HC As 'High Court Of UP'

However, before the bench adjourned the hearing in the matter, Advocate Pandey contended before the Court that 19 of the Country's high courts had been named after the states where they were situated; however, the same was not the case with the other 6 High Courts.

It was his primary contention before the Court 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.

Advocate Pandey also submitted 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 argued that according to the Ramcharitmanas, 'Oudh' refers to the place where Lord Rama resides.

For context, earlier, the Lucknow seat was known as the 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.

He also argued that in many official letters/communications of the Union Government, the Allahabad High Court was referred to as the High Court of Uttar Pradesh. He submitted that he had impleaded the HC as High Court of UP in many matters, and the Supreme Court registry never objected to it.

During the hearing of the case, the Divison bench also asked Advocate Pandey if he had filed a Demand Draft of Rs. 25,000/- while with the plea as there was a connected matter seeking similar reliefs (petition filed in 2021) in which he was the leading petitioner along with 7 other persons.

The query was raised in light of an order of the High Court passed in 2016 wherein the HC had directed its Registry that each petition (filed by Advocate Pandey or Hindu Personal Law Board) be accepted for filing only if it is accompanied by a Demand Draft of Rs 25,000/-. This direction was passed, stating that Pandey is involved in filing PILs merely as a means of publicity.

Thereafter, the bench raised the issue regarding the dismissal of a PIL plea seeking similar relief in 2020.

It may be noted that in the said PIL plea, the High Court observed that Pandey had filed the same "to get some publicity." The Court added that "if the petitioner is so concerned, he should convince the Parliament for change of name of the High Court." More details of the 2020 order here.

Before adjourning the hearing, the Court asked him to either submit a DD of Rs. 25K or delete his name as a petitioner in the connected matter (2021 petition).

Background of the PIL pleas

As stated earlier, the PIL plea has been moved by Lucknow-based Advocate Deepanker Kumar, through Advocate Pandey, 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/ judgement, notices and notifications.

The matter has been tagged with another PIL plea filed by Advocate Ashok Pandey 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, as well the Judges of both 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.

Hearing the matter in April, a bench led by Chief Justice Arun Bhansali 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 had said.

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 and it was the petitioner who was trying to create such confusion.

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.