'Courts Exist For Convenience Of Litigants, Not Advocates': Bombay HC Rejects Bar Association's Plea Against Establishment Of Court At Wai

The Bombay High Court has rejected the writ petition filed by Satara District Bar Association, opposing its decision to establish the Court of an Additional District Judge and the Court of a Civil Judge in Maharashtra's Wai town. The Association had stated that the decision would put Judicial officers, staff and litigants to great difficulty.

While dismissing the writ petition, a bench of Justices G.S.Patel and Madhav J Jamdar said,

"The real difficulty with this Petition is that it is unclear what is the legal right that the Petitioner is asserting when it says that this High Court should not consider establishing a Court at Wai. It seems to us that this is entirely self-serving...We do not deny that the Bar has a role to play in the administration of justice. We however emphatically assert that it is the interest of the litigants that is paramount and the role of the Court and all those who enable its functioning, whether Judges or lawyers, are meant to assist the delivery of justice to the litigant."

In this regard, the Court took note of the Bombay High Court's judgment in Ahmad M Abdi v State of Maharashtra and Others, 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 89, wherein it was held that "The consumer of justice is the litigant and, therefore, the convenience of the majority of litigants should be a major and primary consideration for selecting a plot for allotment for new High Court complex. The majority of litigants come from far away districts. If the new High Court Complex is established at a place which is not easily accessible by means of a public transport to a large number of litigants who come from the Districts, it will affect their fundamental right of access to justice."

Perusing the above observation, the High Court noted that in the said case also the question of easy accessibility to litigants was considered and, the Court did not think it necessary to address 'the convenience of Advocates'.

Reliance was also placed on the Supreme Court's decision in State of Maharashtra v Narayan Shamrao Puranik And Others, (1982) 3 SCC 519, relating to the establishment of the Aurangabad Bench of the High Court, wherein it was reiterated that "Courts exist for the convenience of the litigants."

The Petitioner-Association had argued that the High Court had considered only the caseload pendency in Wai and had ignored other criteria such as buildings, infrastructure, distance, transportation and convenience of litigants, before arriving to a conclusion to establish a court at Wai.

Rejecting this contention, the Bench observed,

"It is clear that the High Court took into account other factors down to details such as adequacy of accommodation for judicial officers in Wai and it is only on being satisfied that there were all these feasibilities that it made its proposal. To say, therefore, that the High Court considered nothing except pendency of cases is factually incorrect and is demonstrated to be incorrect on the record itself."

The Court also took note of the narrative made by the Petitioner-Association about Naxalite movements, difficulties in communication and opined that there is no question of any of these other factors being adverse factors locations. "We will discount this as being a considerable exaggeration," it remarked.

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment