Discussions regarding access to justice in India often imagine only the courtroom – the listing of dates, the heated arguments between lawyers, and the judges’ careful inspection of the nitty-gritty’s of a case. But there is more to it than meets the eye. The accessibility of justice for the average individual is often determined by factors that are not only latent in nature but also influential for the functioning of India’s judiciary. Seemingly mundane factors like the number of courtrooms, functioning lavatories, and the distance to the nearest bus stop can significantly improve the judiciary’s efficiency, which has a direct impact on litigants’ access to justice.
Unsurprisingly, the issue of access to justice is at the heart of the current furore over the Uttarakhand High Court’s order to shift its principal (and only) bench in Nainital to Dehradun, the state capital. The Supreme Court has stayed the order, which directed the state government to find a suitable location considering the issues of inaccessibility and lack of residential and medical facilities in the densely packed, tourist spot of Nainital in the Kumaon region.
While the High Court bar association has challenged the order saying it interdicts the Presidential Order that established the high court in Nainital, the Dehradun bar association has argued for shifting the high court to Rishikesh (in Dehradun) citing better facilities in the region. However, there is a halfway house solution: set up a permanent bench in Dehradun instead of shifting the entire high court out of Nainital.
Also read: Judges’ desire, lawyers’ ire—Uttarakhand High Court relocation order brings out old wounds
Challenges before the court
The Uttarakhand High Court is situated in Nainital, which faces connectivity issues, natural disaster threats, and severe congestion during tourist seasons. Given the lack of sufficient plain land in Nainital, it is always a challenge to construct new infrastructure for public or private purposes. The increase in population and the growing influx of tourists, especially during the summer season, severely exceed the carrying capacity of the town. The locational concerns coupled with the high cost of living in Nainital hinder a litigant’s access to justice by reducing connectivity and increasing the cost of litigation.
Furthermore, the Uttarakhand High Court is plagued by vacancies of judges, inadequate infrastructure, and pendency of cases. As of September 2023, there were 49,187 cases pending before the high court. The India Justice Report 2022 gives a clearer picture of the state’s performance. Among 18 large and mid-sized states, Uttarakhand is one of the worst-performing states in terms of vacant posts and case clearance rate. Moreover, the state is ranked among the lowest on infrastructure, determined by the percentage of ‘court hall’ shortfall.
The National Mission for Justice Delivery and Legal Reforms and the National Court Management System have established judicial infrastructure as one of the key factors alongside personnel strength and digital infrastructure to reduce the pendency of cases. The Uttarakhand High Court’s infrastructural inadequacy becomes prominent considering its vision to expand its capacity to discharge the increasing workload.
A halfway house solution
Currently, the debate on shifting the high court is caught between two sides seeking its location in their region—Dehradun in Garhwal and Nainital in Kumaon. The halfway house solution suggests treading the middle path – establish a new permanent bench in Dehradun and let the principal bench stay in Nainital. It is obvious that shifting the high court out of Nainital would result in the same inaccessibility and inconvenience for lawyers and litigants based in the Kumaon region. Setting up an additional bench provides an equitable solution that alleviates the concerns of both the parties and cuts across the narrow and parochial incentives that seek to limit the high court’s work and influence to only one region of the state.
So what drives the creation of a new bench and why is Dehradun the right choice? The 230th report of the Law Commission of India proposed setting up new benches in all the states to bridge their respective high court’s distance with the litigants and accommodate the increase in the strength of judges and court staff. Likewise, the Justice Jaswant Singh Commission added that factors such as distance to the high court, pendency at the principal seat, population and size of the area proposed for the new bench, availability of members of the bar, and infrastructure should be considered while setting up a new bench. Both the commissions have ruled against the consideration of parochial interests, which is relevant to the current controversy.
Beyond these principles and criteria, the case for setting up a permanent bench in Dehradun becomes stronger with the facts and numbers before us. The bench will be able to directly deal with the litigation emerging from the districts of Dehradun and Haridwar (the two most populous districts of the state) and the surrounding districts of the Garhwal region — Uttarkashi, Rudraprayag, Tehri Garhwal, Pauri Garhwal, and Chamoli. Dehradun and Haridwar cumulatively lead in number of institutions and pendency of cases with more than half of the litigation of the state arising from these two districts. A permanent bench in Dehradun will reduce the distance in accessing the high court, which will make seeking justice cheaper and speedier for the litigants.
With litigation demands growing, setting up a permanent bench will also alleviate the concerns of inadequate infrastructure and space limitations in Nainital, which prevent the high court’s expansion. Dehradun’s locational advantages can overcome these limitations with the availability of medical and residential facilities and adequate space for developing a campus for the new bench. The capital city’s increased connectivity through road, rail, and airways will also be equally crucial for improving access to the high court. This process of decentralisation will also take off the pressure from the principal bench in Nainital by dividing its workload through region-specific case management.
Access to justice has been affirmed as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution by the Supreme Court in Anita Khushwa v. Pushpa Sadna — a goal that can be furthered in Uttarakhand by decentralising its high court. Notwithstanding this proposal, the reforms in the state judiciary will only be complete when it is complemented by measures like filling vacant posts, building the digital infrastructure, and tackling the severe pendency in the lower judiciary.
The author is a fourth-year student at the NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad. Views are personal.
(Edited by Prashant)