In a significant development, the Supreme Court on Friday, May 24, stayed the Uttarakhand High Court’s directive to the State government to identify a suitable location for relocating the High Court premises from Nainital. This decision came in response to a Special Leave Petition filed by the High Court Bar Association of Uttarakhand, challenging the High Court’s ruling.
Background and Context
The Uttarakhand High Court had previously ordered the State government to explore options for shifting the High Court premises from Nainital, citing larger public interest. The decision was influenced by various factors, including practical difficulties faced by litigants, young lawyers, and the State government itself.
Key concerns included the shortage of residential houses for young lawyers, unaffordable expenses for poor litigants to stay in Nainital, and the lack of adequate medical facilities and connectivity in the region. Additionally, the High Court noted that in more than 75% of cases, the State government is a party, leading to substantial expenditure on travel and daily allowances for its representatives.
Court Proceedings
During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the State Government, argued that the High Court’s order was akin to a referendum. Senior advocate Sidharth Luthra, appearing for the caveator Supriya Juneja, provided the Supreme Court with the background and historical context related to the matter. He also referred to a resolution passed by the High Court addressing the concerns raised by litigants and lawyers.
Luthra requested the Supreme Court to allow the ongoing administrative exercise related to the potential relocation to continue, despite the stay order.
Previous Proposals and Considerations
Earlier, land located at Golapur in Haldwani was proposed as a potential site for the High Court’s relocation. However, this proposal was rejected because 75% of the earmarked land was surrounded by dense forest, and the High Court did not want to uproot any trees for the construction of the new premises.
The High Court emphasized its vision to establish a long-term solution, stating, “Every institution is established with a vision to remain established for a long period, therefore, we also want the High Court to be established at a new location so that there will be no need to shift it again in the next 50 years.”
Public Opinion and Next Steps
Notably, the High Court had directed the Registrar General to open a portal by May 14, 2024, allowing lawyers to express their preference for or against the relocation. Additionally, the Court sought public opinion on the matter, recognizing the importance of considering the views of the general public.
This stay by the Supreme Court has paused the High Court’s relocation efforts, but the discussions and administrative exercises surrounding the issue are expected to continue.
