![[Judges' Desire vs Lawyers' Concerns] Uttarakhand HC Relocation Sparks Controversy](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/image-4-1.png?fit=820%2C461&ssl=1)
The Uttarakhand High Court’s recent order to relocate, though temporarily stayed by the Supreme Court, has reignited historical grievances dating back to the state’s establishment in 2000. This decision has not only sparked judicial concerns but also stirred significant discontent among legal practitioners, reflecting deep-seated apprehensions regarding the court’s proposed move from Nainital.
Nainital: Armed police in riot gear marched through a group of black-clad lawyers in the courtyards of the 19th-century gothic-style Uttarakhand High Court building, On May 8,. Inside, judges discussed the unprecedented proposal of relocating the high court from Nainital, an idea as startling as the police presence that day.
That morning, the high court suggested moving a bench to Rishikesh, which unsettled the lawyers who instructed to return with a representation at 2 pm. Upon their return, they met with a heavy police presence, and everyone, including the chief justice, denied knowing why the police were there.
Read Also: Supreme Court Puts Hold on Uttarakhand HC Order on Shifting HC Out of Nainital
The proposal, initially intended to address the practical difficulties of accessing the high court, now evolved into a broader issue, reopening old regional divisions in one of India’s youngest states. The order, uploaded on May 10, allegedly different from the one announced in court two days earlier, now suggesting the relocation of the entire high court, not just a bench.
Although the Supreme Court stayed the order, it has reignited the insecurities that led to Uttarakhand’s formation in 2000, sparking the Kumaon versus Garhwal and hills versus plains debate once again. Lawyers now anxiously debating the future of the high court and the hill areas, with politicians also weighing in. BJP leader Bhagat Singh Koshyari has written to Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami about the issue.
Bhuvnesh Joshi, said,
“Just like the conflict between the Meiteis and Kukis in Manipur, this is similar,”
A senior executive member of the high court bar association in Nainital, stated,
“If you want to shift everything to the plains, then why did you create a separate hill state?”
When Uttarakhand carved out of Uttar Pradesh in 2000, Dehradun designated as the temporary capital, while the scenic Old Secretariat building in Nainital, constructed in 1900, became the high court. This building, located opposite a garden of blooming flowers with the Naina Peak as its backdrop, part of a larger complex that includes numerous nearby buildings, winding roads, gravel pathways, and deodar trees, all with a view of the mountains.
The struggle for a separate state remains vivid in the memories of the local people. The demand was driven by a desire for political change and development suited to the unique geographical and cultural characteristics of the hilly region. Even after two decades of statehood, many aspirations remain unmet.
Syed Nadeem Moon, a 62-year-old advocate, former president of the Nainital bar association, and a member of the Uttarakhand Rajya Andolankari Manch, said,
“We felt that our hills were getting left behind in the country’s development. This led to people feeling that if they want to walk hand in hand with India’s development, they would need a smaller state that would be aware of the problems of the hills,”
Established through the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act 2000, Uttarakhand comprises two regions; Garhwal and Kumaon, which have historically a contentious relationship. Kumaon consists of six districts with Nainital as its headquarters, while Garhwal has seven districts with Pauri Garhwal as its headquarters.
Moon, a participant in the Uttarakhand movement, emphasized that the goal behind the demand for statehood was the development of the hills.
He explained,
“How will this development happen? It will happen when principal institutions like the capital or the high court or the directorates stay in the hills so that infrastructure develops,”
The groundwork for the Uttarakhand High Court’s order on May 8 actually laid by the bulldozers used in Dehradun in July of the previous year.
A demolition order targeted the residential homes of former employees and VRS recipients of the Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals (IDPL) in Rishikesh. Some houses demolished, resulting in injuries to a few senior citizens. The residents took the issue to the high court, arguing that the company still owed them unpaid dues.
An appeal filed by the state regarding the IDPL homeowners originally scheduled for May 21 but heard earlier on May 8. In an unexpected turn, the court asked the Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand to present a plan for relocating a bench of the high court to the IDPL premises in Rishikesh.
Advocate Kartikey Hari Gupta, who represents the IDPL residents, expressed his confusion over the court’s inquiry about relocation.
He said,
“I am still figuring out how this happened in our case because our case was in regard to bulldozer action… In fact, my client asked me, ‘Sir, what is our concern with this?’,”
Explaining that the court considered the possibility of relocation due to the involvement of a larger residential area in the case.
On May 8, news spread rapidly, prompting bar association representatives and numerous lawyers to converge on the chief justice’s court, demanding an audience. They instructed to submit a representation by 2 pm.
By 2 pm, the high court filled with armed police officers. The bench granted the Nainital bar association a week to return with their suggestions regarding the proposed relocation after internal discussions.
Two days later, an order uploaded to the high court website, omitting details of the events on May 8 and introducing two new elements, a referendum and a directive to find land for relocating the entire high court. The order instructed the Registrar General to open a portal by May 14, which would remain accessible until May 31.
In Dehradun, posters appeared in the high court, urging lawyers to visit the court website and vote ‘YES’ for the relocation. Local media highlighted how lawyers across Garhwal coming together to advocate for a high court bench in their region. Conversely, lawyers in Nainital opposed the order and promptly approached the Supreme Court.
The high court order, in a single move, polarized the state’s bar associations.
Advocate DCS Rawat, president of the Nainital bar association, emphasized the historical “balance” sought during the state’s formation.
He explained,
“They believed that both the brothers (Kumaon and Garhwal) should be offered something to keep them at par with each other,”
Their petition highlights the state’s historical context, arguing that the high court order disregards the rationale for placing the state capital and judiciary in both regions, potentially disrupting the social balance and adversely affecting the Kumaon region.
Rajbeer Singh Bisht, secretary of the Dehradun bar association, asserts that their demand for a bench in Dehradun predates the state’s formation, dating back 42 years under the jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court.
He said,
“We used to have a strike every Saturday until 2018 to highlight this demand,”
Noting that 70 percent of the state’s cases originate from Garhwal, he advocates for a bench in Haridwar, Rishikesh, or Roorkee, arguing that Nainital’s climate and terrain ‘aren’t suitable for everyone’. This is why it has limited advocates, leading to a monopoly of a few lawyers there.
While the Nainital bar association prepared to escalate their battle to the Supreme Court, the Dehradun bar association concentrated on gathering support for the high court’s relocation referendum.
They conducted multiple meetings and garnered backing from MLAs across the Garhwal region, including Khajan Das (Rajpur Road), Brij Bhushan Gairola (Doiwala), Umesh Sharma Kau (Raipur), Savita Kapoor (Dehradun Cantonment), and Kishore Upadhyaya (Tehri).
The issue quickly gained political traction, with senior leaders weighing in. Koshiyari, in his letter to Dhami, asserted, Such decisions should be made by Parliament or the state legislature, not the high court.
He emphasized the “established agreement” during Uttarakhand’s formation, which stated,
“The High Court would be situated in Kumaon if the capital remained in Garhwal.”
This political involvement introduced a regionalism dynamic, reigniting the Kumaon versus Garhwal debate.
Rajpur Road MLA Khajan Das said,
“We had demanded a bench of the high court in Dehradun…As far as the balance is concerned, our state has different parts, and everybody’s opinion should be considered to make a decision with everyone’s suggestions,”
However, Haldwani MLA Sumit Hridayesh viewed the situation as “unwanted,” expressing a desire for “balance.”
He said,
“Since the Garhwal region already holds the Vidhan Sabha and all the important offices, the people of the Kumaon region would feel that it would become barren if the high court is also shifted out,”
The government attempted to resolve the issue by offering an alternative site in Haldwani, identifying 26 hectares of land in Gaulapar, but the high court rejected the proposal.
Haldwani offers better road and rail accessibility compared to Nainital while still being located in Nainital district and the Kumaon region. In fact, several high court lawyers and members of the judges’ administrative staff reside in Haldwani and commute to Nainital daily. However, while this location addressed the Kumaon versus Garhwal debate, Haldwani’s position at the foothills of the Kumaon region meant it fell short in the hills versus plains debate and was not deemed an ideal location for the high court.
The court order also mentioned that 75 percent of the proposed land in Haldwani densely forested.
The May 8 order stated,
“The Court does not want to uproot any of the trees to make a new High Court. Keeping in view the above fact, we are not using that land,”
Nonetheless, BJP leader from Almora, Vasudha Pant, continues to advocate for Haldwani as the most suitable alternative due to its connectivity, if the high court needs to be relocated.
Read Also: Uttarakhand HC Seeks Govt’s Response to Challenge on ‘Horizontal Reservation for Women’
Referring to most government institutions being in Dehradun, she said,
“You cannot centralize and concentrate everything in one place,”
Shiv Kumar, 32, regularly travels to Nainital for his younger brother’s bail hearing in a murder case. Each trip is a two-day-long affair costing around Rs 8,000-10,000. After a six-hour drive from Haridwar, he usually reaches Nainital around 4 am and then waits for the high court gates to open at 10 am.
He said,
“If the (high court) shift does end up making a difference, then it’s a good thing,”
Due to the nature of proceedings in the high court, litigants’ presence isn’t absolutely necessary unless the court demands it. Several high court lawyers in Nainital, acknowledged that litigants face difficulties reaching the court but noted that digitization efforts have improved access to justice. However, Kumar has yet to experience these benefits.
He said,
“We have never felt any convenience with the online hearings. Our lawyer doesn’t give us any updates. I have called her up thrice since the morning; she didn’t pick up even once,”
Ravinder from Uttar Pradesh expressed a similar distrust in online hearings. The 31-year-old, who undertakes an eight-hour journey from Muzaffarnagar to follow his two brothers’ bail application in a narcotics case, says he needs to be physically present in the court during hearings. He recognizes the benefits if the high court were relocated closer to his home.
He Said,
“We wouldn’t have to keep roaming in the hills. Accidents can happen anywhere,”
This isn’t the first time Nainital’s challenging topography has posed issues for the high court’s existence in the city.
In 2017 and again in 2019, high court lawyer MC Kandpal wrote letters to the high court, highlighting the “difficult topography” and pointing out connectivity and space issues in the city. In response, the high court swiftly invited public suggestions in 2019 for possible relocation sites. Responses came from various quarters, including professors and scientists, each proposing different locations across the state, with everyone advocating for their own neighbourhoods.
In 2020, Roorkee-based lawyer Mamtesh Sharma filed a petition demanding a high court bench in the Garhwal Division, preferably in Dehradun or Haridwar. The court dismissed the petition, stating it couldn’t issue such an order and noted that Dehradun designated as the state capital while the high court established in Nainital “to cater to the aspirations of people from both these Divisions.”
Advocate Gupta, representing the bar association in the Supreme Court, highlights the legal challenges in relocating the high court.
He told,
“If at all this exercise is to be done, it is to be done by Parliament, because this notification [of establishing the high court at Nainital has been issued under Section 26 (2) of the Reorganisation Act. That is a central legislation, The power was vested with the President of India to issue that notification. If anything has to be done again, the Parliament or the President will have to issue a notification.”
The concerns around shifting the high court echo those that inspired the state’s formation.
Many lawyers believe that relocating the high court will “aggravate” Nainital’s geographical problems, which often lead to migration from the hills, a long-standing concern for the state.
Uttarakhand Congress vice president Suryakant Dhasmana and local news reports note that the migration prevention commission has itself moved from Pauri Garhwal to Dehradun. The concentration of government departments in Dehradun heightened concerns among those who view the high court as the last bastion of hope in the hills.
Advocate Gupta suggests innovation as a solution to these concerns.
He said,
“Running away from problems is not the solution. Such problems will come up at any other place to. You can’t keep shifting. t’s a lack of management and innovation. There is no space problem in the high court,”
Hridayesh said that the high court’s placement in Nainital aids the region’s overall development.
This sentiment is prevalent among Nainital lawyers, who credit the high court’s presence for much of the city’s development over the years whether it’s the removal of encroachment, constant oversight over government contracts for development works, addressing parking space issues, or street vendors’ rights.
One Nainital lawyer, speaking on the condition of anonymity, even credited the high court’s presence for the pristine condition of Naini Lake, despite the heavy influx of tourists.
He explained with a smile,
“It’s because the judges like taking their morning walks around it,”
This relocation order brought to the forefront historical controversies surrounding administrative decisions impacting the judiciary’s functioning and public perception. As stakeholders on both sides voice their concerns, the Uttarakhand High Court‘s move continues to prompt rigorous scrutiny and debate within legal circles and beyond.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
