Law mentions new HC for AP, Centre has to create it, says Chief Justice

Hearing a plea seeking a separate a High Court for AP, a division bench comprising Chief Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta and Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar expressed displeasure at the counter affidavit filed by the Centre.

After perusing its language and contents, the bench told the assistant solicitor-general that the counter-affidavit had been drafted without application of mind. The bench observed that the Centre was shying away from its responsibility in constituting the separate High Court.

The bench asked the ASG under what provision of law the Centre had sought the opinion of the Chief Justice of India with regard to the bifurcation of the High Court.

Neither the CJI nor the Supreme Court had any role in the bifurcation of the High Court. There was no mention of bifurcation of the High Court in the Act, which mentioned the constitution of a separate HC for AP, the bench said.

The bench asked, “If the CJI had given such a reply, why was it not made part of the record? Can we call the action of the Centre in this regard an executive reference made to the apex court on an administrative side? And from where did this idea of state quota of judges emanate?”

The bench asked the ASG how much money had been allocated to AP as promised under the bifurcation Act. When the ASG replied that the Centre had allocated '1,500 crore, the bench asked him how much of the money was earmarked for the HC.

The bench pointed out though the Telangana state government does not have any obligation in the creation of a separate HC for AP, it had come forward to extend logistics support.

Justice Sengupta said, “It is the duty of the Centre to create a separate HC. Instead of taking steps, it is blaming others and (this) is not proper on its part.”

Referring to a point mentioned in the Centre’s affidavit that the Chief Justice of India had accorded in-principle approval for the division of judges in the ratio of 60:40 and also about the green signal for allocation of judges in accordance with the respective state quotas, the bench asked from where this idea of state quota of judges had emanated.

The bench wanted replies to these questions by Thursday. Meanwhile amicus curiae G. Vidyasagar submitted that there is no expressive prohibition in the Constitution for having a High Court for a state outside its jurisdiction. He said that the Governor was earlier empowered to issue notification for the creation of a High Court; the power was now vested with the President.