VIJAYAWADA: With no initiative from the government to end the impasse in the courts in Andhra and Rayalaseema regions where advocates have been on a warpath demanding separate High Court benches, work in the lower courts has virtually come to a grinding halt and cases are piling up.
The strike, which has entered the 50th day in Vijayawada and over two months in Guntur and other coastal districts, is causing great inconvenience to the litigants. Though the advocates had led sustained agitations in the past (more than 133 days in 1993 and over 100 days in later years), they were forced to withdraw the stir as powerful communities played spoilsport by forcing the government not to grant separate benches.
With a majority of the litigations reaching the HC from cash-rich areas of coastal Andhra, the influential lobby in Hyderabad strongly resisted the formation of separate benches in the past so as not to lose the moolah. But this time, the situation is different what with violent protests by T-lawyers rocking the High Court proceedings.
Sources said more than 300 lower and district level courts in all 13 districts have stopped transacting business, including trials in criminal cases. "It is not a big issue compared to a large number of cases pending in the HC in Hyderabad," said senior advocate Arekakuti Sanjeeva Reddy.
He said the trial proceedings in a majority of coastal and Rayalaseema districts are much ahead of schedule where cases of 2009-10 have come up for hearing. "The situation in several Telangana districts is worrisome as even cases pertaining to 2007 have not been taken up till now," he revealed.
Finding fault with the government for throwing the blame on the HC and the Centre, constitutional experts said creation of a separate HC bench was the sole discretion of the state. "The state cabinet should first pass a resolution on setting up of a separate bench at a particular place and send it to the HC chief justice for his opinion. After getting the CJ's opinion, the state should forward it to the Centre for a formal ratification," explained senior lawyer N Rammohana Rao.
As per Article 214 of the constitution, formation of high courts and benches is in the domain of the state and not Centre. Section 51 of 1956 SRC Act deals with new states, new high courts, permanent benches/circuit or temporary benches. "It clearly states that the state government could set up as many benches as it can depending on the need in consultation with the High Court," another lawyer elaborated.
Curiously, all the southern states except Andhra Pradesh have one or more HC benches. While Tamil Nadu has a separate bench at Madurai, Karnataka has one regular bench at Gulbarga and transit bench at Devanagere. Recently, the CPM government in Kerala has also decided to set up a second bench, besides the one at Ernakulam.
While the advocates decided to continue their agitation till they achieve their demand, law minister Mopidevi Venkataramana wanted them to wait till the Srikrishna Committee submits its report. "We are sympathetic to their demand. Creation of a separate bench is not a big issue for the government. But we have to figure out sensitive issues before taking the final call," he said.
This time around, the bar associations are also split with the demand for separate benches in north coastal, central coastal and Rayalaseema regions growing unlike in the past when the demand was only for a bench between Guntur-Vijayawada. "Setting up a bench in itself is a huge burden on the exchequer. So, grant of more benches is highly impossible," a legal luminary not wanting to be named averred.
Advocates JAC convener Davuluri Samuel John felt there was no point in linking the bench issue to Srikrishna Committee report.
The strike, which has entered the 50th day in Vijayawada and over two months in Guntur and other coastal districts, is causing great inconvenience to the litigants. Though the advocates had led sustained agitations in the past (more than 133 days in 1993 and over 100 days in later years), they were forced to withdraw the stir as powerful communities played spoilsport by forcing the government not to grant separate benches.
With a majority of the litigations reaching the HC from cash-rich areas of coastal Andhra, the influential lobby in Hyderabad strongly resisted the formation of separate benches in the past so as not to lose the moolah. But this time, the situation is different what with violent protests by T-lawyers rocking the High Court proceedings.
Sources said more than 300 lower and district level courts in all 13 districts have stopped transacting business, including trials in criminal cases. "It is not a big issue compared to a large number of cases pending in the HC in Hyderabad," said senior advocate Arekakuti Sanjeeva Reddy.
He said the trial proceedings in a majority of coastal and Rayalaseema districts are much ahead of schedule where cases of 2009-10 have come up for hearing. "The situation in several Telangana districts is worrisome as even cases pertaining to 2007 have not been taken up till now," he revealed.
Finding fault with the government for throwing the blame on the HC and the Centre, constitutional experts said creation of a separate HC bench was the sole discretion of the state. "The state cabinet should first pass a resolution on setting up of a separate bench at a particular place and send it to the HC chief justice for his opinion. After getting the CJ's opinion, the state should forward it to the Centre for a formal ratification," explained senior lawyer N Rammohana Rao.
As per Article 214 of the constitution, formation of high courts and benches is in the domain of the state and not Centre. Section 51 of 1956 SRC Act deals with new states, new high courts, permanent benches/circuit or temporary benches. "It clearly states that the state government could set up as many benches as it can depending on the need in consultation with the High Court," another lawyer elaborated.
Curiously, all the southern states except Andhra Pradesh have one or more HC benches. While Tamil Nadu has a separate bench at Madurai, Karnataka has one regular bench at Gulbarga and transit bench at Devanagere. Recently, the CPM government in Kerala has also decided to set up a second bench, besides the one at Ernakulam.
While the advocates decided to continue their agitation till they achieve their demand, law minister Mopidevi Venkataramana wanted them to wait till the Srikrishna Committee submits its report. "We are sympathetic to their demand. Creation of a separate bench is not a big issue for the government. But we have to figure out sensitive issues before taking the final call," he said.
This time around, the bar associations are also split with the demand for separate benches in north coastal, central coastal and Rayalaseema regions growing unlike in the past when the demand was only for a bench between Guntur-Vijayawada. "Setting up a bench in itself is a huge burden on the exchequer. So, grant of more benches is highly impossible," a legal luminary not wanting to be named averred.
Advocates JAC convener Davuluri Samuel John felt there was no point in linking the bench issue to Srikrishna Committee report.
0 comments:
Post a Comment