A lawyer has moved a public interest litigation (PIL) petition before the Allahabad High Court to rename the Court as the High Court of Uttar Pradesh.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
UP: In the Allahabad High Court, a public interest litigation (PIL) petition has been lodged with a request to rename the esteemed court as the High Court of Uttar Pradesh. This petition, spearheaded by Lucknow-based lawyer Deepanker Kumar and filed through counsel Asok Pandey, takes a critical stance against the colonial legacy of naming high courts after the cities in which they are located, a tradition established during British rule over India.
The petition elaborates on a broader, more symbolic issue, suggesting that continuing a practice initiated by the British colonial administration is incongruent with the principles of an independent India, particularly in the post-constitutional era. It underscores that since all high courts in India are constituted under the Indian Constitution rather than by any law or charter from the British era, it logically follows that these courts should bear names reflecting the states to which they belong, rather than the cities hosting them.
Deepanker Kumar’s plea to the court is twofold. Firstly, it seeks a directive for the Central Government and other relevant authorities to officially recognize and refer to the Allahabad High Court as the “High Court of Uttar Pradesh” in all formal documents, including notifications, communications, judgments, orders, and decrees. Additionally, it proposes that the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, be rebranded as the Uttar Pradesh High Court Rules, further aligning the court’s identity with the state it serves.
The petition highlights a prevailing confusion over the court’s nomenclature, noting discrepancies in how the court is referred to by different stakeholders, including advocates, the general public, state officials, judges, and court registry officials. This inconsistency is not merely a matter of terminology but also impacts the court’s perception and its historical and cultural representation.
The petitioner supports this argument by referring to a precedent where the Supreme Court of India referred to it as the High Court of Uttar Pradesh in a 1964 case, suggesting a historical basis for the proposed name change.
Beyond the renaming issue, the petition also ventures into the jurisdictional dynamics between the Allahabad High Court’s two benches, located in Lucknow and Prayagraj (formerly Allahabad). It argues that the legal basis for the distribution of jurisdiction between these benches—a result of the 1948 Allahabad High Court Amalgamation Order—is outdated and lacks validity post the adoption of the Indian Constitution in 1950.
While acknowledging that a separate PIL filed in 2021 already addresses this jurisdictional concern and hence not pressing it as a primary issue, the petitioner nonetheless underscores its significance in the broader context of the court’s functional clarity and legal authority.
This move to rename the Allahabad High Court reflects a deeper dialogue about decolonization, identity, and the evolution of legal institutions in post-independence India. It challenges the legacy of colonial nomenclature while advocating for a legal identity that resonates more closely with contemporary Indian statehood and sovereignty. As the petition awaits consideration, it stands as a testament to ongoing efforts to align India’s legal and institutional frameworks with its post-colonial identity and democratic ethos.
CASE TITLE:
Deepanker Kumar v. Union of India.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports of Allahabad HC
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
