8 months ago

Supreme Court Upholds Kolhapur Bench of Bombay High Court

Supreme Court Upholds Kolhapur Bench of Bombay High Court
SC rejects plea against decision to set up Kolhapur bench of Bombay High Court · indianexpress.com

The Supreme Court of India recently made a decision about a new court in the city of Kolhapur.

A lawyer named Ranjeet Baburao Nimbalkar had asked the court to stop the plan to create a new branch of the Bombay High Court in Kolhapur.

However, the Supreme Court said no and supported the plan.

The court said that this new branch will help people who live far away from the main court in Mumbai.

The new court will handle cases from six districts, including Kolhapur, Solapur, and Sangli.

The Supreme Court also said that the decision was made carefully and follows the rules of the Constitution.

The new court was officially opened on August 17, 2024, by a former Chief Justice of India.

Key facts

Petitioner
Ranjeet Baburao Nimbalkar, a lawyer
Supreme Court Judges
Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria
Notification Date
August 1, 2024
Inauguration Date
August 17, 2024
Jurisdiction
Kolhapur, Solapur, Sangli, Satara, Ratnagiri, and Sindhudurg
Legal Provision
Section 51(3) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956

Quotes

Supreme Court of India

The highest judicial authority in India.

“The establishment of the Kolhapur bench is in consonance with the constitutional vision of bringing justice closer to the people and it does not infringe Article 21 in any manner. The decision facilitates access to justice for litigants from a region which is geographically distant from the principal seat of the High Court. The Constitution does not envisage a single model for judicial administration. It permits institutional discretion to be exercised within the framework of law to meet practical and geographical needs.”
indianexpress.com
“There is no material to suggest that the Chief Justice acted unilaterally in disregard of the institutional inputs and relevant considerations. Even assuming that the consultative process would not conform to the petitioner’s expectations, this circumstance by itself would not vitiate the exercise of power under Section 51(3).”
indianexpress.com

Sources

Related news