‘Name it after state’: PIL seeks renaming of Allahabad HC
The Allahabad HC seeks the central government's response on a PIL to rename it the High Court of Uttar Pradesh, with a reply due in four weeks.
The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court on Wednesday sought a reply from the central government and the high court administration within four weeks on a public interest litigation (PIL) petition seeking renaming of the Allahabad high court to the high court of Uttar Pradesh in all documents that include rules, judgments, orders and circulars. The petitioner could, thereafter, file its rejoinder within two weeks, it added.
The hearing took place before a division bench comprising Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla. The petitioner also sought directives for proper allocation of the jurisdiction between the Allahabad high court and its Lucknow bench. Deepanker Kumar, a resident of Lucknow, has filed the PIL petition through his advocate Ashok Pandey.
The petitioner’s counsel submitted: “Out of 25 high courts across the country, 19 are named after the state to which they belong and six have been named after the city where they were initially established.”
Citing different notifications and documents, the counsel further argued that in some of them, the name of the high court was mentioned as the Allahabad high court and in some as the high court of Uttar Pradesh.
The petitioner requested the court to direct the Union government and all parties concerned to mention it as the high court of Uttar Pradesh, and not the Allahabad high court, in all notifications, communications, judgments, orders and decrees.
{{/usCountry}}The petitioner requested the court to direct the Union government and all parties concerned to mention it as the high court of Uttar Pradesh, and not the Allahabad high court, in all notifications, communications, judgments, orders and decrees.
{{/usCountry}}On the other hand, the counsel for the Union government and the high court administration contended that this was the second writ petition filed for renaming of the high court. Petitioner no. 1 (Ashok Pandey) of the first writ petition, who is also arguing the subsequent matter, had filed a PIL seeking similar relief. The said petition was dismissed vide judgment dated August 31, 2020.
{{/usCountry}}On the other hand, the counsel for the Union government and the high court administration contended that this was the second writ petition filed for renaming of the high court. Petitioner no. 1 (Ashok Pandey) of the first writ petition, who is also arguing the subsequent matter, had filed a PIL seeking similar relief. The said petition was dismissed vide judgment dated August 31, 2020.
{{/usCountry}}“The only difference is that the name sought suggested was either the Prayagraj high court or the Uttar Pradesh high court, whereas, this time it is only the high court of Uttar Pradesh. However, this fact has not been disclosed in the current petition,” the counsel submitted.
{{/usCountry}}“The only difference is that the name sought suggested was either the Prayagraj high court or the Uttar Pradesh high court, whereas, this time it is only the high court of Uttar Pradesh. However, this fact has not been disclosed in the current petition,” the counsel submitted.
{{/usCountry}}After hearing the matter, the court directed their centre and the high court administration to file their affidavits of replies. It also directed to list the PIL after six weeks for further hearing, the petitioner’s counsel said.
