Denial of access to justice

Division of State is a process that will continue for some more months or perhaps years. Except for territorial and political division, Telangana is yet to effectively come into existence. The administrative division is still to complete. Of the three EStates, the Judiciary is stipulated to be common for unspecified time. While the provisions facilitated formation of Telangana High Court beyond the permitted period of 10 years for common capital, in practice it might not take that long. And it should not take. Until each State gets its own full-fledged High Court, justice remains distant dream for the people of both States.

The Executive and the Legislature are bound to trample upon the rights and interests of the people in their day-to-day administration compelling individuals to knock on the doors of justice. It is right of the citizen that the doors of justice should be next or nearer to his residence. Access to justice is fundamental of all fundamental rights. If not, how can the right guaranteed is enforced? Who will give protection to our rights, if not the courts? With all its deficiencies or defects, the judiciary is the institution all of us need to have, to protect and believe in. Political rulers should realise that more than the need of the people of Telangana, it is the right of access to justice of the citizens in Andhra Pradesh that suffers most. Imagine the difficulty of a person from Chittoor to reach Hyderabad seeking justice. The high cost of justice and long time to travel will force him to give up his rights. The State forces him to deprive his constitutional entitlement on his own. Ambedkar and other framers of our Constitution did not imagine this ‘atrocity.’ Andhra Pradesh has right to its own High Court as Telangana does.

It is argued that the division of judiciary will increase jobs in two States etc. It is partly true. Still, it is not for lawyers and judges, but for the seekers of justice ie., people. Separate the High Court for people, not for lawyers or judges. Even if a judge, belonging to Andhra, does justice according to law, an adverse result might be suspected by a Telangana litigant or vice-versa. The faith in him and, because of that, in judiciary will suffer a serious dent, which needs to be avoided as a matter of duty.

Constitution provided under the Article 231 for common High Courts for two or more States. It is an exception. The rule is each State, small or big, has constitutional authority to have a High Court as ordained by the Article 214. It is not proper to continue the ‘exception’ of common High Court for north-east States (Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland and Mizoram) and for Punjab & Haryana States. It’s denial of access to the people of Arunachal, Nagaland and Mizorum because it means that unless one possesses enough money to go to Guwahati, they cannot get justice.

The Indian Constitution is unique in providing right to remedy at the apex court through the Article 32. But it is practically impossible for a poor man in Kanyakumaari to reach and move the Supreme Court to enforce the Article 32. What is guaranteed by a rule book is totally denied practically. The Supreme Court should have a Bench at three sides of the nation – South, East and West – besides at the centre, either at Hyderabad or Nagpur, so that the top court is nearer the people.

One should not assess the need of the court, based on the number of cases pending. The population around should be the criteria for creating a court of justice. Most of the people do not seek justice because the court is far off, and cost of travel, fees of lawyer are very high besides the loss of time that could have fetched him some money. That is the reason for people for giving up their rights. For 127 crore people, the litigation figures are a little above three crores. This shows that the Indians are not litigants or cannot afford the litigation and, so, they sacrifice their rights. In other way, the State was converted into a haven for criminals, manipulators and exploiters who violate rights of people without fear of consequences of punishment. It is surely not the rule of law!

Political rulers should understand that the judiciary is part of their development activity because without effective and speedy dispute resolution process, there is no possibility of development. The court of law is a development necessity.

Why High Court should be last on list?
The division of the judiciary in AP was dealt under Part IV of the Telangana Act. Section 30 says the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad shall be the common High Court for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh till a separate High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh is constituted under the Article 214 of the Constitution, read with Section 31 of this Act. It provides for sharing of expenditure between the two States based on the population ratio.

Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh Reorganization Acts in 2000 created separate High Courts for new-born States on the ‘Appointed Day’ itself. The Union preferred to retain the AP High Court for both the States through Section 30 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act for an unspecified period. Though the division of High Court needs consultation with the apex judicial body as per the Constitution, it does not mean that it should be deferred uncertainly.

It was reported that the Telangana State will face a huge staff crunch among the judiciary after bifurcation because of the historically lower recruitment in the region. According to the Telangana Act, the strength of the Telangana and the residuary State judiciary will be finalised based on population. This means the Telangana judiciary will get 42 per cent of the total jobs. Telangana Act Section 2 (h) defines “population ratio” in relation to the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, i.e., at the ratio of 58.32:41.68 as per the 2011 Census.

Deeply divided
The State bar and bench have already divided along regional lines and the events during the agitation saw certain undesirable condemnation of constitutional offices on either side. The polarisation of judges and advocates belonging to two regions is deep, complete and at times reached the levels of disrespect or even contempt. The dignity of the AP High Court as a Constitutional institution was also affected because of the bias and the protest against bias, as both took new lower standards. The Center and the two Telugu States should not deny the Telugu people of their right to access to justice. It should be on the top of the agenda for the three governments – Telangana, Andhra Pradesh and the Union. It’s not justified for politicians for not having a will to provide a High Court of their own.