Allahabad high court dismissed a plea to rename the Allahabad high court to Uttar Pradesh high court or Prayagraj high court saying that the petition was frivolous and has been filed to gain publicity.
The petition was filed by a high court lawyer under article 226 of the constitution issuing a writ of mandamus with a view of renaming of Allahabad high court to either Prayagraj high court or Uttar Pradesh high court.
The court before dealing the matter discussed the history of the Allahabad high court which in brief mentioned how the court came into being under the Indian high court's act, 1861 through the royal order of the British rule in India. In 1864 the Secretary of State for India asked the Governor-General in council ‘to take into consideration the question of establishing High Court in the North-Western Provinces and furnish me with your opinion on the subject at an early date as practicable.’ And four years later the court was established as high Court of Judicature for the North-Western Provinces. In later years the provinces were united and after independence, they were named “Uttar Pradesh” and By Section 101(5) of the Government of India Act, 1915-1919, the name of ‘High Court for the North-Western Provinces’ was changed to “High Court of Judicature at Allahabad” and later by the government of India act,1935 the chief court in Oudh was also merged with the Allahabad high court.
The court then discussed the present articles of the Indian constitution that dealt with the administration and power of the high courts under articles 214-231. The court further referred to article 372 of the Indian constitution and stated that “By virtue of Article 372 until and unless the Parliament amends the amalgamation order, the name of the high court, which is ‘High Court of Judicature at Allahabad’ cannot be changed.” The court highlighted the separation of power was important and integral for constitutional democracy and organs of the state must function in their prescribed limits. The court thus refused to encroach on the power and function of the legislature and rejected the petition stating that “ The Courts cannot direct the Legislature to enact a particular law and, therefore, this Court finds that the present writ petition is nothing but a ‘publicity stunt litigation’ which has been filed to get some publicity. If the petitioner is so concerned, he should convince the Parliament for change of name of the High Court.” The court found the petition to be frivolous and filed for the sole purpose of publicity. However, the court refrained itself from imposing cost since the petitioner was a practicing lawyer of the high court itself.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :