2505 Travancore-Cochin [ COUNCIL ] li'njh Court (Amdt.) 25C6 Bill, 1953 Clauses 2 to 6, the Schedule, Clause 1, the Ernakulam there has been a grievance Title and the Enacting Formula were added to expressed by the people living in the the Bill. southernmost part of this area. I need not say that before the integration there was a High DR. K. N. KATJU: Sir, I beg to move that Court in each of the States. There was a the Bill be passed. Travancore High Court established in Trivandrum, and a Cochin High Court MR. CHAIRMAN: The question is: established in Ernakulam. Now, Trivandrum is absolutely down south, and the result is that, "That the Bill be passed." The following the establishment of the High Court at Ernakulam, the litigants in Trivandrum have motion was adopted. to come from their homes down south, up north to Ernakulam. This grievance was expressed very strongly in the State itself. As a THE TRAVANCORE-COCHIN HIGH matter of fact, the Government wanted to COURT (AMENDMENT) BILL, 1953 bring legislation there, and it would have been passed in the State itself. But legal opinion THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS was taken and it was found that under our AND STATES (DR. K. N. KATJU) : Mr. Constitution any law relating to the Chairman, I beg to move that the Bill further reorganisation of the High Court or anything to amend the Travancore-Cochin High Court affecting the High Court must come under the Act. 1125, be taken into consideration. Union List and it is only Parliament that can pass the necessary legislation. Sir. I am afraid this might prove a little more controversial, though in my opinion it is The result of this Bill can be very briefly a very harmless measure. The House will stated. It only makes a small amendment to recollect that the State of Travancore-Cochin the original Act. Section 6 of the original Act, consists of two States and no more. At the which is a Travancore-Cochin Act, provides time of the integration there was some discus- that the High Court of Judicature of the sion as to the location of the headquarters for United State of Travancore and Cochin shall administrative purposes and as to the location sit at Ernakulam. Now, if this section were of the High Court. There was a good deal of allowed to stand as it is, the result would be discussion about it. and ultimately it was that the High Court would be incompetent to agreed, after an examination by a committee, sit elsewhere. The object of the Bill is to allow that the administrative headquarters, namely, the Chief Justice to establish what I may call a the Secretariat and the Legislature, should be Circuit Court, or a Division Bench, of such located in Trivandrum and the High Court Judges of the High Court, not exceeding^three should be located in Ernakulam, which used in number, as may from time to time be to be the capital of Cochin. That was done. nominated by the Chief Justice, to sit in Trivandrum and—I ask "Ron. Members to The maximum strength of the Travancore- note this—exercise, in respect of cases arising Cochin High Court is eight, but the present in the district of Trivandrum only—the strength is seven, one Judge having recently southernmost tip of the State and nowhere died. I suppose the place of the lamented else, the jurisdiction and powers conferred by Judge who passed away will soon be filled. the Act on a single Judge or7 a Division Bench of two Judges, as the Chief Justice may Hon. Members are fully aware of the determine. We are most anxious that the status topographical position of Travancore and of the High Court of Travancore-Cochin Cochin. I have got a map here. The State runs should remain unimpaired and that it should really from north to south on the west coast. continue to administer justice efficient- Ever since the establishment of the High Court at

2507 Travancore-Cochin L 9 APRIL 1953 ] High Court (Amdt.) 2508 Bill, 1953 ly and impartially as it has been doing. But it Ernakulam is a fairly central place; three has been found in many places that justice, if districts are to the north of Ernakulam, and it is concentrated too much in one place, gives three districts to the south, and the distances rise To inconvenience and expense. The are not long, and there is road transport, and House will remember that recently we have there will be a railway built. I submit, Sir, that passed orders to have a Circuit Court" estab- the Bill in its present shape will meet the lished in Delhi, and the result has been that the requirements of the situation. Chief Justice of the Punjab High Court appoints two Judges to come down to Delhi Sir, I move. and those two learned Judges hear and dispose of Cases which arise in Delhi. Similarly, in MR. CHAIRMAN: Motion moved: Uttar Pradesh they have got a Bench sitting at "That the Bill further to amend the Lucknow which disposes of cases arising in Travancore-Cochin High Court Act, 1125, Lucknow and some of the contiguous districts. be taken into consideration." In Rajasthan, the High Court sits at Jodhpur, but a Bencb sits at Jaipur. Therefore, for the SHRI M. MANJURAN (Travancore- convenience of litigants residing in the Cochin): Sir, I would oppose this Bill for the Trivandmm district, the provision is that the reason that it was a solemn undertaking at the Chief Justice shall send as many as three time of the integration of these two States and Judges—may "be one, may be two, just as the in the course of the various negotiations bet- exigencies of the situation may require—and ween the two States, that the High Court those learned Judges will sit there and dispose should be situated at Ernakulam and the of cases, with this restriction, that they will Ordinance of the Rajpramukh promulgated in dispose of only such cases which can be 1949 is to that effect. disposed of either by one Judge sitting alone or by two Judges sitting together. If any case Now, coming to the Bill itself, we find that requires the decision of what we call in the there has been a lot of talk abput it in the lower courts a larger Bench, namely, three Travancore-Cochin Legislative Assembly. Judges, or five Judges, then that case must go The Travancore-Cochin Government first to Ernakulam so that the whole High Court thought that it would be their responsibility to may. deal with it. That is the upshot of It." pass a Bill. Then it seems under better advice from the Government of India they thought Now, I have noticed that some amendments that that responsibility developed on the have been given notice of. It will be for you. Government of India. But the only article in Sir, to decide as to whether those the Constitution applicable to such matters is amendments, are in order. They really want to article 225 which states as follows: — turn the Bill topsy-turvy. Instead of leaving the High Court to continue at Ernakulam, the "225. Subject to the provisions of this harmless suggestion is made that the High Constitution and to the provisions of any Court should be completely transferred to law of the appropriate Legislature made by Trivandrum and that at Ernakulam there virtue of powers conferred on that should be a small Bench sitting. It is really a Legislature by this Constitution, the complete turnover of Rie position. I may say jurisdiction of, and the law administered in, that the Bill which I have introduced was any existing High Court, and the respective intended only to remove the inconvenience powers of the Judges thereof in relation to caused to the southernmost area. Otherwise, If the administration of justice in the Court, you look at the distances, and hon. Members including any power to make, rules of who come from that part of the country will Court and to regulate the sittings of the know, Court and of members thereof sitting alone or in Division Courts, 2509 Travancore-Cochin [ COUNCIL ] High Court (Amdt.) 2510 Bill, 1953

[Shri M. Manjuran.] shall be the same not meet with anybody's criticism for the entire as immediately before the commencement period of its existence. And the States of this Constitution:" Ministry's Report on page 1 states that there were And it seems that there has been some trouble certain difficulties with regard to the with theTlTentral Government because they formation of. Ministries in Travancore- have taken it as a matter coming within the Cochin and PEPSU and this really Union List under items 78 and 79 of that accounts for the whole trouble of the southern List. But it should be noted that these items parts. It was at the time of negotiations for the deal only with the question of constitution and coalition Ministry that the States Ministry gave organisation and not with the question it up as a concession to the Tamil Nad Congress of jurisdiction. This Bill actually people that a portion of the High Court involves the questions of.jurisdiction and would be , located at Trivandrum. It' was internal administration. It is a fundamental not because there was any public opinion about objection because unless article 225 of the it. Neither in the States Ministry's Report nor in Constitution is itself repealed, Parliament the Statement of Objects and Reasons is it does not obtain the power to make any given that there has been any agitation in that change in any of the existing High Courts as it behalf. It was true that when in 1949 this High stood before the commencement of the Court was located at Erna-kulam, considerable Constitution. I am afraid that even after inconvenience was felt by certain lawyers who all the legal advice of both these Governments had to come from Trivandrum to Ernakulam there is considerable lack of but three and a half years have passed now and understanding. Nobody can introduce any we want to send them back to Trivandrum. This changes under the Constitution. This is a matter which reminds one of the jurisdiction matter is entirely a State matter experiments of Mahommed Tuglak in shifting and not a Union matter or a Concurrent matter. his headquarters from place to place. I am The proviso to clause 2 of the Bill is quite not wanting to do that. In the Statement of clear. It concerns only the jurisdiction and it is Objects and Reasons the Home Minister has entirely a State matter in terms of item 65 of relied very much on the distance involved and the the State List and the Central Government hardship to litigants from southern parts of has no power whatever to introduce a Bill of the State. The entire length of the State would this nature. be less than 250 miles and if for the district Then, Sir, it is stated in the Report of the of Trivandrum a portion of the High Court is States Ministry on page 18 that after the located there, this will serve a length of hardly general election early in 1952 there has been a 60 miles leaving out 190 miles. The Quilon demand in the southern area of Travancore- district people will not be satisfied by that Cochin'for the transfer of the High Court to because the headquarters of the district of Trivand-rum. That means in the course of 3§ Quilon i.e., the town of Quilon is only 42 years after' the integration of these States there miles fnton Trivandrum whereas it is nearly was practically no clamour over the shifting of 100 miles from Ernakulam. So I don't the location of the High Court to any place. know what kind of law is being made applicable to the people of Quilon when a part of the High (Interruption.) Court is being shifted to Trivandrum to cater to Sir, the States Ministry claim in their report the needs of the litigants of the Trivandrum that after the general election early in 1952 district. It is not going to solve any problem at there has been a demand in the southern .area all. If it were to cater for the convenience of the of Travancore-Cochin for the transfer of the people, it could be taken to a central place High Court to Trivandrum. This High Court which would be between say 120 miles of which came into existence in 1'949 did Cape Comorin 25II Travancore-Cochin [ 9 APRIL L953. ] High Court (Amdt.) 2512 Bill, 1953 and 120 miles from Shoranur. That would be years and fighting the Travancore State a central place. But here we are not having a Congress, were to be conceded, the minimum central place. There is great agitation for distance that they will have to travel is 500 linguistic provinces everywhere and the miles and I don't understand what logic is Central Government has been forced to there when the Home Minister says that they concede to the constitution of an Andhra Pro- will have to travel about 150 miles to vince. Time may not be very much away Ernakulam. That would look very strange. when a Kerala province would come into being which means portions of Malayalam With regard to judges, it was stated that the speaking area north of the present boundary of normal strength of the Travancore-Cochin the Travancore-Cochin State should be added High Court is 7 and out of the 4 districts, these to the present State of Travancore-Cochin and 3 judges are going to cater to the needs of the the Tamil area which it now comprises would litigants of one district. It will be an be detached from it, which means that uneconomic proposition and will disable the Ernakulam would be the most centrally residual part of the High Court at Ernakulam located place for a Kerala Province. To take to discharge its duties properly because there things at very short range, in order to flatter will be only 4 judges for 4 districts and 3 the people of Tamilnad who, of course, Judges for one District and the population and maintain the present Ministry in power, would area of the district of Travancore would not satisfy the needs of the people of Kerala approximate one-fifth of the State. So one- province to come. If that were to be taken into fifth of the State would get 3/7th of the consideration, Ernakulam is the only place number of judges where 4/5th of the State will where the High Court could be situated. There get 4 Judges to discharge the duties that is the port at Ernakulam and laws are being devolve on the High Court. Taking things changed. It is bound to be more and more from a point of reality, this is not something commercial laws that will operate. The that would be called just because 1/5 of the income of every State now can be analysed area and population will have 3 High Court and we will find that the income from land judges and 4/5th of the population and area revenue and matters related to land is reduced will have 4 Judges. In ordinary arithmetical comparatively and income from commercial calculation I think this would be a great and industrial enterprises is increasing. In that injustice. It would considerably increase the context I am afraid that not much of that cost of administration of justice. New importance could be attached to the portion of buildings will have to be hired for use and Travancore-Cochin which is neither new staff will have to be employed. All these industrialised nor commercially advanced. are going to cost the people unnecessary for There is the Port of Cochin facing the town of the purpose of one out of 10,000 who will be Ernakulam. So the location of a High Court the number of litigants. If this is the case that cannot be ruled out from there as we have got those litigants should be given all the con- a High Court for Bombay and one for Madras. veniences and if they would not go to the The distance of over 150 miles that the people High Court, the High Court should go to them, from the southern most part will have to travel then it is a very queer theory that is being is not a great distance. The Tamil people of propounded here. It was suggested that if the Trivandrum want to attach themselves to the Mountain does not go to Mahomed, then proper Tamilnad with its Headquarters and Mahomed must go to the Mountain and so our High Courts are going to the litigants and High Court at Madras. The distance that they canvassing them. It is a very queer affair. will have to travel will be atleast 500 miles. If Then in the State ment of Objects and Reasons their demand, for which the Tamilnad it is said Congress" has been standing all these 2513 Travancore-Cochin [ COUNCIL ] High Court (Amdt.) 2514 Bill, 1953 [Shri M. Manjuran.] that the Government institution. Instances were cited of High of Travancore-Cochin gave very careful Courts that exist at Lucknow and at Allahabad. thought to the matter and came to the But these were due to factors which could be conclusion that the constitution of a Bench of brought under "history". But here the the High Court at Trivandrum would be the question of the integration of Travancore- best way of serving public needs. It would Cochin is quite recent and the commitments not be public needs but it would be the thereof are also very recent. So if every private needs of the Ministry whose day this Parliament as well as the State precarious existence is very much concerned Legislatures were only to transact business with this matter. Either the Government of of doing and undoing, I think the nation Travancore-Cochin when they admitted a will come to a standstill. This is not very Bill which did not lie in their power, were important matter. It is not a very urgent matter making a rehearsal or they were not giving either. But as in the case of the child presented any thought to the subject. This before Solomon to be torn between the two compliment of the Home Minister therefore to mothers, I would still say, if the High Court is to their thinking capacity is really undeserving be torn in two, I would rather have it because they did not think over the shifted entirely to Trivandrum than have it implications of the Constitution and the torn to pieces. We who belong to that part of particular sections by which rights were the country do not mind its going away to devolving on them for legislating in such Trivandrum, because the High Court should matters. They have never thought out maintain its dignity. You cannot do that by this matter because.as already pointed out, splitting the High Court, or by having three of article 225 of the Constitution would have the Judges sitting at Trivandrum and four of the the High Court functioning as it was on the day Judges sitting at Ernakulam and making it very the Constitution commenced. The High difficult for the ordinary functioning of the full Court of Travan-core-Cochin was functioning bench and such other small normal things as at Ernaku-lam on the day the Constitution com- single bench and division benches. The whole menced i.e., 26th January 1950. So these High Court could not be divided mathematically are the few matters which, I feel would into constituting a full bench of three judges and weigh with the Home Minister to change division bench of two judges and a single judge his attitude on this amending piece of of one. It requires six and so it is no good, it legislation. serves no purpose sending three judges there and leaving three people here and It is unnecessary and there is hardly any creating all the endless troubles. We do agitation. The agitation has come only after not know, because the hon. Minister has not the Travancore-Cochin State Ministers went given us the information, whether a lot of cases to promise their support to the Tamilnad are pending, or whether people are not Congress to provide a Bench of not less than 3 coming from the southern districts to Judges in Ernakulam for the disposal of their cases. ' Trivandrum, and all matters relating there to, There has been no complaint like that and which has, of course, been conceded by the things are going on very amicably and smoothly report of the States now. But this Bill has been introduced there " Ministry. because the States Ministry there wants it and they want to create all sorts of difficulties. I Now, there is another thing. Although there do hope, Sir, that the States Ministry will again has been much done to please people of all go into the legal position and drop this-Bill, if kinds of thought— and for democracy they they want to serve the needs of the people like to have things that way, I do not think it is of that State. Thank you. very good every time to divide the High Court to please all. kinds of people everywhere. The High Court, as far as possible, should be an indivisible

2515 Trauancore-Cochin [ 9 APRIL 1953 ] High Court (Amdt.) 2516. 3 Bill. 1953 SHRI RAJAGOPAL NAIDU (Madras): Mr. the Ceded Districts people and the coastal Chairman, I would entirely agree with the Circars people. views expressed by the previous speaker on this Bill. SHRI P. V. NARAYANA (Madras): It was given the go-by, Sir. (MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN in the Chair) SHRI RAJAGOPAL NAIDU: No, even now I find there is the demand on the part of There is deep politics behind the in the Ceded Districts people to locate either troduction of this Bill. Probably the the High Court or the administrative Home Minister was not aware of the headquarters within the limits of the Ceded reasons for which the Government of Districts. Well, Sir, it was only for this reason Travancore-Cocrfcn induced the Central that the High Court was located at Government to bring forward this Bill. Ernakulam which was the headquarters of the Sir, it has not been brought forward Cochin State, and the administrative with the idea of advancing the conve headquarters was located at Trivandrum. nience of the litigant public. It is not Sir, the hon. Home Minister has been one that is brought forward at the citing some instances. of one State having a instance of the litigant public. On the sort of Circuit Court or a permanent bench other hand. I feel. Sir, there is the ques located at a certain place. I think he cited tion involved of the maintenance of Allahabad and Lucknow, and some-other parity between the erstwhile Travancore instances also. But may I point out to the hon. and Cochin States. There is the question Minister • that in a big State like Madras—of of maintaining the prestige, so far as course, it is going to be truncated the erstwhile Travancore State is now—there is only one High Court and it concerned and also the maintenance of is not itinerary? The Judges of the High the status quo as far as the High Court Court do not go and sit as division benches is concerned with regard to the Cochin in any place or they do not have to sit as a State. Sir, the present Travancore- Circuit Court. Sir. the litigant- public will Cochin State before the integration have to travel nearly 700 miles if they want consisted of two States, namely the to come from the northernmost district of Visag' Travancore State and the Cochin State. to Madgfis City. From the south they have to Each of these two States, as the hon. "travel nearly 500 miles and from the west Minister admitted, had their own about 500 to 600 miles. But with all that, I think separate High Courts, the Travancore they are not having Circuit Courts and they are State having its High Court located at not having any permanent Divisions sitting in Trivandrum and the Cochin High some other places other than the Madras Court being located at Ernakulam. city. Therefore, I would very much desire that After the integration, they had only the hon. Home Minister should apply the one High Court situated at Ernakulam principles that are being followed in major and the administrative headquarters States like Madras, Bombay, Bengal and of the whole State was located at others and not quote the examples of some Trivandrum. That was because the other smaller States. It may be that to a Rajpramukh happened to be the ex- certain extent there may be some justification ruler of the Travancore State. So to have a Circuit Court in regard to the they wanted to have a sort of agree Uttar Pradesh because Uttar Pradesh is a very ment as proposed in the case of the big State. But there is absolutely no proposed Andhra State where if they justification to have such an arrangement were to respect the Sri Bagh Pact, the for the Travancore-Cochin State—a permanent High Court would be in the Ceded bench located at Trivandrum—especially as the Districts and the administrative ...... distance between Ernakulam^

SHRI ABDUL RAZAK (Travancore- Cochin): What agreement is the hon. Member referring to?

SHRI RAJAGOPAL NAIDU: I was referring to the Sri Bagh Pact between 2517 Travancore-Cochin [ COUNCIL ] High Court (Amdt.) 251 8 Bill, 1953 [Shri Rajagopal Naidu] and Trivandrum is I Then, Sir, they should naturally have a sort understand—I -cannot state it with great of skeleton establishment located al accuracy— only about 100 to 150 miles and Trivandrum and the cost of printing of the the distance from one end to the other end 1 of cause list comes when there is the High Court, the State is only about 200 miles. and, for the printing of the cause list, there should be a printing press located at I do not know, Sir, why the public Trivandrum. Along with the Judges, the .exchequer of the State be wasted in having a stenographers and all the establishment will sort of Division Court located in Ernakulam. have to be moving constantly from place to On the other hand. I would very much endorse place and all this will mean expenditure to the the point of view- expressed by the previous State. After all, as I had already submitted, the speaker to let the capital and the High Court distance from Trivandrum to Ernakulam is be located in one and the same place, namely, only about 100 or 125 miles and there is at Trivandrum so that the administrative absolutely no justification unless it be, as I expenditure may be reduced to a considerable had already said, a question of maintenance of extent, so that there may not be very much parity between the erstwhile Travancore and money spent for purposes of the administra- the Cochin States. tion of the High Court. My hon. friend has been referring to the Constitution. I quite see that there is some Now, Sir, I would like to mention how it is force in his argument as to why the matter costly to the litigants to have a Division Bench should come up at all before the Central located in Trivandrum. For instance, Sir, the Government for the passing of this Bill. But, filings will have to be done only at Ernakulam of course, there is no express prohibition in as things stand now. If they were to have a the Constitution and it may be said. Sir, that division Bench located at Trivandrum, the because in the absence of an express litigant has to engage a lawyer at Ernakulam prohibition there is nothing prohibiting the and when it ■comes up for hearing at Central Government from bringing forward Trivandrum he has naturally to. engage the this Bill. At the same time. Sir, I find that same lawyer or some other lawyer and he has neither 'n the Concurrent List nor in the Union to go all the way from Trivandrum to List nor in the State List any express provision Ernakulam when the case comes up for is made with regard to the question of hearing. In that way, it is certainly costly to adjustment of jurisdiction within the State by the litigant because he has to have two lawyers the High Court and so, I personally feel that or even if he engages the same lawyer whom there is no harm in moving this Bill. he has engaged for the purpose of the case at Ernakulam at the time of the institution of the case naturally he will demand more fees Then, Sir, lastly, I agree with one of the because he will have to go all the way from amendments that has been moved—■ which is Ernakulam to Trivandrum when the case there on the list—that the High Court which is comes up for hearing. now located in Ernakulam will have to be shifted to Trivandrum because in a Government where administration of justice Then, Sir, it is costly also to the will have to be carried oil with great effi- Government also because it means T.A. to the ciency, where administration of justice will Judges which is going to be certainly heavy. have to be carried on without much Judges will be moving very often from expenditure to the State Government, Ernakulam to Trivandrum and back and they especially a tiny Part B State like Travancore- should be sitting atleast for one or two days ;in Cochin, the High Court as well as the capital a week or atleast for ten days in a month on should be at one and the same place and the the whole. analogy of the Sri Bagh Pact cannot be applied in

2519 Travancore-Cochin [ 9 APRIL 1953 ] High Court (Amdt.) 2520 Bill, 1953 this particular case because Madras State is not being looked at with great favour by the quite different. In Madras State, the distance administration of the High Court at Allahabad from North to South is a thousand and odd and it is already a fact that the Bench at miles whereas in Travancore-Cochin, the Lucknow has thinned very much. distance from North to South is only about 200 miles. So, Sir, I would suggest that let The only other instance which was cited by things remain as they are. Let the High Court the hon. the Home Minister was the State of remain at Ernakulam and the administrative Rajasthan. There again, Sir, it is only, I might headquarters at Trivandrum; but, if any submit, a make-shift arrangement and there is - change is required, let the High Court be already a move and, as a matter of fact, it is shifted from Ernakulam to Trivandrum and let understood that the seat of the High Court is there be no Division Bench or any Circuit supposed to be at Jodhpur and this question was Court sitting from time to time 01 move from definitely considered by the Government of place to place so that no money of the State is Rajasthan only during the last few months. But, expended on this unnecessary enterprise. as this new State is of recent formation and as it is settling down to settled principles, I think it is SHRI H. C. MATHUR (Rajasthan)'. Mr. not proper to quote this State as an illustration Deputy Chairman, this innocuous looking Bill or as an example to be followed elsewhere. As I at first sight one feels may be passed without submitted, if this distance is to be taken into any criticism or comments but if we are to ive consideration and if we pass this Bill, our proper thought and careful consideration Parliament as a matter of fact will be committed to it and examine it in the all-India context as to a certain principle; we will be accepting we are supposed to, we find that it is not reasons which it would be difficult for without insinuations: it is not without very Parliament to follow later on because there serious implications. Well, Sir, if we look at would be absolutely no reason with the Parlia- the Statement of Objects and Reasons, we find ment to deny similar demands cropping up from that the only one reason on which a reliance all the various States. What justification, I ask, has been put and on which the hon. the Home Sir, would there be with Parliament to deny Minister has laid the greatest stress is the similar Benches in all the various States if this distance between Trivandrum and Ernakulam criterion is accepted and if this reason is which the litigants have to cover and the considered to be sound. 1 submit, Sir, on these inconvenience caused to them. But, Sir, as has very grounds we must allow atleast another been pointed out by the previous speakers, if additional sixty Benches in this huge Republic we examine this in the all-India context we of India. On a modest estimate. Sir, I say that in will find that this is perhaps the smallest dis- the State of Rajasthan, the State of Kotah will tance compared to the others which people in demand one Bench of the High Court; Bikaner other States have got to cover to go to the seat will demand one Bench, Udaipur will demand of the High Court and. obviously there is no one Bench. All these places definitely were justification whatsoever for opening a new seats of Government; they were capitals of Bench or making a gift of a new Bench to the important States and. Sir, they had their own people of Trivandrum. The hon. the Home High Courts and people travelling from all these Minister, while making his speech and giving three places have to cover definitely a longer illustrations, cited that we have got the seat of distance than the people from Trivandrum will the High Court at Allahabad and another have to cover going to Ernakulam or are Bench at Lucknow. I believe, Sir, that the hon. supposed to cover. the Home Minister is in possession of better Again, Sir, the means of communication information in respect of U.P. but, subject to are so poor in these States that correction, my information is that the Bench at Lucknow is

2521 Travancore-Cochin [ COUNCIL ] High Court (AmcU.) 2522 3 Bill. 1953 [Shri H. C. Mathur.] 4 It is wrong to say that there was no demand P.M. before 1952 for the location of the High Court they have got to subject themselves to far or at least a Bench of the High Court at greater inconveniences than the people in this Trivandrum. Even at the time of integration State have got to. There is already a road there was a hue and cry against the proposal in between Trivandrum and Ernakulam and I the southern districts, especially in the understand a rail link is under consideration. Trivandrum district. It is only natural that There are greater facilities, the distance is when a public office is shifted from a Taluoue lesser and the other reasons apply with far or District the people of that district will raise better force to the place which I just a hue and cry which lasts for some time and mentioned and if in principle we accept the then subsides. So it is not right to say, as the present Bill and if we put our seal we will Home Minister said, that there was no demand expose ourselves to a very bad position. I before the elections of 1952 for the location of might also submit that in trying to solve one a bench of the High Court at Trivandrum. The difficulty we are creating ten more difficulties. demand was always there but the Government And, Sir, we are sacrificing high principles there did not. pay any heed and the Central and sound judicial traditions at the altar of Government was not approached to bring in a political expediency, as was pointed out by the legislation of this nature. Now, when the previous speaker. If it be to meet the political Government of Travancore-Cochin have taken situation there, as was so correctly expressed up this matter and approached the Central by the previous speaker, it would be most Government with a request for legislation, unfortunate to drag High Courts into politics. there must be some reason underlying this And I most respectfully submit, Sir, that this request. I agree with Shri Manjuran in most of House should never permit itself to accept the thing.* he has said about this matter. It is such a position on any account. known to this House that there is a coalition SHRI C. N. PILLAI (Travancore-Cochin) : Government functionine in Travancore- In supporting this Bill I think I will be Cochin todav. The coalition is between the dishonest to myself if I do not draw the Congress Party and the Tamil Congress Party attention of the House to certain facts which which repre sent the four taluks of the led the State Government to recommend to southern most tip of the Travancore-Cochin the Central Government to bring in a State. Most of the representatives from these legislation of this nature. It is true. Sir, as the taluks belong to the Tamil Congress and it is Home Minister has said, that there were two this coalition between the Tamil Congress High Courts—one at Ernakulam, the capital Party and the Congress which is carrying on of Cochin, and the other at Trivandrum, the the administration in Travancore-Cochin to- capital of Travancore, during the time of day. Immediate removal of the High Court integration As a Member of the Committee from Ernakulam to Trivandrum was the price which carried on negotiations with the demanded by the Tamil Congress for the representatives of Cochin about the coalition. The Congress Party had no other integration, I had occasion to follow the trend alternative but to submit to this demand if they of discussions about the location of the High wanted to carry on the administration in the Court in 1949. Sir. the Cochin representatives State. Otherwise the coalition government were feeling that Ernakulam would lose its would not last an hour. So at this moment— importance if the seat of their Capital ceased not after the General Elections in 1952—but to be there and hence they insisted that at least just after the Coalition Government was a High Court should be established at formed in Travancore-Cochin the State Ernakulam Travancore as the major partner in Government was compelled to approach the the transaction graciously acceeded to this Central Government with a request in this proposal and the High Court was established behalf. Sir, at Ernakulam.

2523 Travancore-Cochin [ 9 APRIL 1953 ] High Court (Amdt.) 2524 Bill, 1953 I have absolutely no objection against this coming to the Bill—particularly in view of Bill. You may have a High Court in every ci the gross misrepresentation in this House ;trict in Travancore-Cochin. It will be quite made by the hon. Member immediately convenient to the people if all the four preceding me—I feel it my duty to recall districts have a Bench of the High Court each. certain conditions that were obtaining But this is submitting to political pressure and immediately prior to the day of integration of political blackmail. 1 have seen the States the two States of Travancore and Cochin. Ministry's Report where it is stated that the coalition Government is working quite satisfactorily. I know that this is not the occasion to say anything about it. But 1 may Sir, the Statement of Objects and Reasons say this much that the coalition has earned has not unfortunately given a correct account such a notoriety in the State within such a of the integration of these two States. Sir, the short time and if the States Ministry will call integration of Travancore and Cochin was for a copy of the discussions in the local effected behind the back of the legislature legislature they will find many of the un- both in Travancore and Cochin through means savoury things said about this coalition. of a covenant entered into by the Rulers of Travancore and Cochin, of course with the concurrence of the Government of India. Even Now, speaking of the Trivandrum district, I at the time of this integration, as the learned don't feel that there is any necessity for a High Home Minister has pointed out, there was a Court in Trivandrum. Travancore-Cochin is a High Court in Travancore and there was a sort very small State and even distant corners in of a Chief Court in Cochin and yet there was the State are not beyond 8 hours' bus travel no mention as to the location of the High from Ernakulam. There are so many roads and Court in this covenant. Sir, in order that hon. other travel facilities and I fail to see the Members may have a correct view of things as necessity of bifurcating the High Court at they stood in Travancore and Cochin I wish to Ernakulam. On this basis Madras can have a acquaint the hon. Members with the system, dozen High Courts. Mysore half a dozen. I can with the structure of judiciary that was obtain- understand U.P. having two High Courts ing in either State. because it is a huge province. But all the same my objection is not against this Bill. You may Sir, under the Cochin Chief Court with afford every facility to the litigant public of three Judges there were only 8 Munsiffs, one Trivandrum district to carry on their litigation Sub-Judge and two District Judges. Under the at their convenience. But to bring in a Travancore High Court with 7 Judges there legislation of this nature at this time to prop up were 7 District Judges, 23 Additional Judges the Coalition is not warranted by the circums- and 60 Munsiffs. From the point of view of tances. It is submitting to political pressure the file, Cochin Chief Court never had more and political blackmail and that would create a than one-tenth of the file of the Travancore very bad precedent not only for Travancore- High Court. The following are the figures as Cochin but for the whole of India. So I would they stood on 10th September 1949: suggest that Government should have taken into consideration all these facts before bringing in legislation of this nature.

SHRI ABDUL RAZAK: Mr. Deputy Chairman, this is a belated measure that fall very much short of the public needs in Travancore-Cochin. Before 20 CSD.

2525 Travancore-Cochin [ COUNCIL ] High Court {Amdt.) 2526 Bill, 1953 [Shri Abdul Razak.] Sir, for the information of hon. Members of Tnvancare Cochin High this House, I would say that when leave for the High Court Coart introducti" of this Bill was asked for in the Travancore-Cochin Assembly, there was no Criminal Appeals 5°8 6 such coalition as has been referred to by my Criminal Revision hon. friend Shri C. Narayana Pillay. There was Petitions Praja Socialist Party on the other, and the from the four southern District Court- Travancore Tamil Nad Congress and a few Centres of Nagercoil, Trivandrum, Quilon independent members in the Assembly, the and Mavelikkara. Even then, Sir, at the time of the location of this High Court in 1949 Congress opposition had to simply fizzle out the wishes of the legislatures functioning either and it did fizzle out. Leave was granted and the in Travancore or Cochin were not Bill came up for consideration in July 1952. In ascertained on this point. On the other hand the meantime there was a change in the ithe location of the High Court was arbitrarily attitude of the so-called United Front of fixed I .at Ernakulam as against the declared Leftists. A certain hon. Member belonging to opinion of the High Court of Travan-

2529 Travancore-Cochin [ COUNCIL J High Court (Amdt.) 253O Bill, 1953 [Shri Govinda Reddy.] tion of the hon. Travancore-Cochin. I do not profess-to have Minister in charge of the Bill because it is an full knowledge of what is prevailing there, but important point and undesirable consequences some time ago I was there and I stayed for a are likely to flow from the step that we are pretty long time and I found that there was still going to take. some fire smouldering in the Union. And when For the reasons that my hon. friend Mr. therefore there is na perfect harmony, would it Manjuran referred to, there was a significance be desirable to disturb that harmony by taking in locating the High Court at Ernakulam. a measure which is not wholly welcomed, by When the integration was being talked about, the State? When I came to know the position neither Travan-core nor Cochin was readily in from the concerned quarters, I thought that the a position to accept integration. But when it Union Government was not fully informed of took shape, it was found that the State of the position in taking this measure into Travancore would receive relatively greater consideration. There would still be time for the importance by integration than Cochin and Government to consider whether it would not therefore the people of Travancore came to be desirable to take this factor into like the idea, whereas the people of Cochin did consideration and; revise the necessity for this not like the idea. There were large .sections in measure again in the light of what comes 'Out Cochin who did not welcome this idea. There from that consideration. are some sections in Cochin who are even today not reconciled to this integration The other factor, Sir, which naturally is very although it has been effected in point of law important in this connection, is the precedent and in point of fact. that it is going to establish. Hon. Members have spoken on the floor of this House about it Whatever that be, those who are responsible and! whan I say that I was surprised when I for promoting this idea', thought it very got this Bill into my hands, the reason for my necessary to> placate the people of Cochin, and surprise was this. Would it be desirable to it was exactly for this reason that the High create a precedent, by breaking up the High Court of Travancore and Cochin was located at Court into different units, into different circuit Ernakulam. If the figures given by Mr. Abdul divisions? Well, this question was considered Razak are true the greater volume of work for long before now and for very good reasons this the High Court comes from the Travancore principle was not encouraged. The integrity of sector and not from the Cochin sector. As the High Court, the status of the High Court, against this fact, which alone should have been the dignity of the High Court and the respect the determining factor in the location of the and confidence which a High Court should High Court, those who were responsible for the inspire in the public if it is to serve the public, integration thought it fit to locate the High were all taken into consideration and it was Court at Ernakulam. That indicates that the decided that as a matter of general principle main purpose for which the High Court was the breaking up of a High Court into different located in Ernakulam was to pacify the people circuit divisions was not to be desired, was not of Cochin who were at a disadvantage as a to be encouraged However much the Gov- result of the integration. Well, this fact is still ernment of Travancore-Cochin mav be there. It is still true. Whatever be the other interested in having the Division Bench there, consequences, at least to see that perfect would it be justified, would it be desirable to harmony prevails between Travancore and have such a precedent in Travancore-Cochin? Cochin, it is necessary that the status quo Possibly the reason for the Government taking should not be disturbed. It is very difficult. Sir, this decision may have been the pressure of to say, if this is not reckoned with, what may Tamil Nad Congress, which I do not happen to the Union of 2531 Trauancore-Cottfun L 9 APRIL 1953 J High Court (Amdt.) 253a Bill, 1953 know, but this is going to be a matter of fact ponse to a public demand on account that if this measure is passed and if a Division of the long distances to be traversed by Bench is going to be .established at litigants coming from the southern Trivandrum, then a ■demand certainly on the parts of the Cochin and Travancore part of Tamil Nad people will arise for State. But unfortunately geography is division of the Madras High Court into against this contention as many of the different circuit Benches. Well, what would hon. Members on this side and on the that step involve? I do not mean to say .that other side of the House have pointed the High Court should not be •divided into out. I am very glad to note that the different Benches and there should be no discussion has cut across party affili Division Bench altogether. I am not against it. ations, and has been very objective. The .High Court may well sit in different As I was saying, geography is unfor Circuit Benches. That is a different matter tunately against the contention of our altogether. But would it be justified in the hon. Minister. I think that the hon. circumstances prevailing today? This is Minister, while presenting the Objects another point, Sir, which the Government are and Reasons before the House, should well advised to consider before they pass this have taken the House into confidence, Bill. If not for the second reason, at least for and put all his cards on the table, and the first reason, I think, Sir, it would not be said: "Well, look here. There are desirable for the Government to proceed with some previous circumstances in this this measure. I would like, therefore, Sir, to case; there is a previous history behind have the hon. Minister's opinion on these two it; that is the history of the integration points, as I doubt, perhaps, he may not have into one State of two separate States— rconsidered these points from fhe angle from Travancore and Cochin; compromises which these facts are placed today before the had to be resorted to; the State Capital House. was located at Trivandrum, and the High Court was set up in Ernakulam; a compromise was arrived at ...... " PRINCIPAL DEVAPRASAD GHOSH (West Bengal): Mr. Deputy Chairman, I confess the SHRI ABDUL RAZAK: May I just correct way in which the discussion on this Bill has the hon. Member? There was no such developed, has been quite a revelation at least agreement entered into at any time either to Members like us who have come from a before or after the integration. distant part of fhe country. It now looks—in (Interruption.) fact, after listening to the speeches for about an hour and a half it seems practically crystal clear—that this measure that is proposed to be put before the House is not an administrative MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order, order. measure at all. It has got decidedly political implications behind it. Not that I think that political implications are anything to be PRINCIPAL DEVAPRASAD GHOSH: My ashamed of, but the fact is—and I am hon. friend may be technically correct, but I constrained to say as much—that our hon. think I am substantially right, for that was the Home Minister or the States Minister was not spirit of the compromise. I should say that, if quite fair to the House in the manner in which these were the facts, then at this time of the he presented this Bill before this House. It day, to advance reasons of administrative appeared at first sight that this Bill was a convenience on the score of 100 miles or 150 simple, innocuous and more or less miles or 200 miles or so, is hardly fair to this unimportant administrative mea-.sure, simply House. And if it were a question of pledge brought in to cater to the convenience of the that Cochin ought to be given the High Court public, and in res- or that in Cochin should be located the High Court, well, that pledge should not be gone back upon. It now looks as if some sort of pressure by the Travancoreans has been brought 2533 Travancore-Cochin [ COUNCIL ] High Court (ArndtJ 2534 BUI, 1953 [Principal Devaprasad Ghosh.] to bear. blackmailing in regard to the objects of the Bill. They seem to be thinking like this. "Now the But if a Government feels that certain things Travancore-Cochin State is a reality. We oi have got to be done to appease, to satisfy, to Travancore have got Trivandrurn as its please the people, what is wrong in it? I will administrative capital. Let us try to bring as not accept this argument. My friend over there much of the High Court to Trivandrum as has produced a good argument and that is possible." This sort of infiltrating tactics is against taking the High Court to the undesirable. I am not against Trivandrum as litigants. Surely, what is the first principle of such, in view of the difficulties experienced justice? Take justice to the door of the for the bulk of the High Court cases come man who seeks it. It is not fair that you ask from Travancore. As my friend Mr. Manju-ran people to travel long distances to seek himself has conceded, it would be justice. Take the State of Madras. It is from administratively better if the High Court itself Chatra-pur right down to Kanya Kumari is located in the administrative capital of and has only one High Court. It is Trivandrum but it is hardly fair to this House monstrous that people who want justice should to suggest that this Bill is only an travel such long distances. The high principle administrative measure and is based upon involved in this Bill is thoroughly welcome nothing but the principle of administrative and the Latin proverb says: 'He gives convenience. twice who gives quickly.' In this case it is also a matter of cheapness. Instead of Another point, Sir, which has been made out engaging a lawyer in Madras paying him a by some of my friends and which I think the thousand rupees a day, I can very well engage hon. Minister should take very careful account a local "lawyer who knows my case at fiezwada of, is this that a very bad precedent would be or Ananta-pur where a Division Bench of the set up, if, for reasons like these, the High High Court is sitting. Courts are sought to be truncated or bifurcated or trifurcated according to political exigencies. Something has been talked about the dignity I have nothing more to add, Sir. In view of the of the High Court. Does bifurcation mean loss circumstances which have been revealed in the of dignity? No, because, it is the same High course of a somewhat unexpected debate. I Court sitting in sections but carrying all the would request the hon. Minister to see if even same the authority of the whole High Court. at this stage it were advisable, in view of these There is bifurcation in a sense, but bifurcation circumstances, in view of the bad precedent here means judicial convenience. The London that is likely to be set up, to withdraw the Bill High Court does not sit at one and the same and give further consideration to this matter. place. There are one or two Judges of that Thank you, Sir. Court always travelling. The Bihar High Court used to function even in Orissa—I think it was SHRI RAMA RAO (Madras): Mr. Deputy sitting at Berhampur. Chairman, our friends from Malabar have given us a regular treat to use the English The question, next arises whether it is idiom, by telling tales out of school. I never workable. Certainly it is workable, otherwise knew there was so much dirty linen there to Dr. Katju would not have brought it here. My wash in public. (Interruption.) I suppose we friends must not forget that there is a human too (Andhras) shall have something to wash side to this matter. When we started integ- about ourselves after some time. ration, we started somewhat tenuously, (Interruption.) tentatively, fearfully. It was full of compromises, political compromises, Now, Sir, the first argument of some of our constitutional compromises, moral com- friends is that there has been a good deal of promises perhaps and certainly compro- political pressure and 2535 Trauancore-Cochin [ 9 APRIL 1953 ] High Court (Amdt.) 2536 Bill, 1953 mises with regard to time and distance. This be at Bezwada, at Anantapur, at Bill marks the second stage in our progress as Hyderabad. The fact remains that the High the process of integration was marked by Court has thus not only to be "bifurcated" several stages. All these so-called Indian but "trifurcated." It is a superstition to say that States of old did not jump into our present all the capitals should be at one and the same federal polity all at once. They passed certain place. I don't see any reason why in our stages. It may be that this Bill to some extent country we should have the legislative supplies an instance of the reverse process. and judicial capitals together. In fact the Down South, they said to themselves at the executive capital and the legislative beginning, "You take the High Court to capital may be at different places. Ours is Ernaku-lam. We shall have the Government not a Presidential form of Government. If it at Trivandrum". After some time they find had been so, probably it would have been that it is not working well and they want a necessary in the interests of this country to change. If I were representing the interests of have had a different set up. It will not be to my friends of Ernakulam, I would say as a the country's good to have all these capitals at quid pro quo, "Decentralise some parts of the the same place. Delhi has become a monster administration, transfer some Departments to city and if Bengal is to improve, Calcutta, "the great monster should not develop Ernakulam". That would be a logical step, a into a greater monster. Are there no good exchange. Instead of doing that, they big towns in Bengal where several of the are because of their political squabbles of Departments of the Government could be territorial animosities, making it impossible transferred so that these towns may grow into for the poor man to get the justice he wants. big cities so that the local and regional life may develop. We have to think therefore There is also involved in this a general not in the narrow terms of our friends principle of democratic proT gress. My from Travancore-Cochin but in terms of the friend Shri Naidu raised the question of development of our higher polity on* Andhra. I raise the question of Vishala correct lines. Therefore, Mr. Deputy Andhra. If you don't accept the principle of Chairman, I support the high principles of this the Bill today, the same objection will be Bill. raised tomorrow against us. It is not necessary and I don't see anywhere stated in DR. K. N. KATJU: Mr. Deputy Chairman, I any scriptures that it is necessary that the was rather sorry to hear from my hon. friend High Court, the Government and the from Calcutta that I had not in my opening Legislature should be sitting at one and speech, placed the matter fairly and fully be- the same place. Having borrowed British fore the House. I repudiate the very gentle institutions, we have been going rather too insinuation and I stick to what I said before far with regard to this borrowing. It viz., that the chief reasw for the Bill is the may be necessary for a small country like administrative reason and the reason of England to have the High Court, the convenience. Let us first deal not only as the Courts of Appeal, the Capital, Minister here but also as a lawyer with, what Parliament and the Cabinet and has been said several times here about the generally speaking, the Imperial set up dignity and the status of the High Court. I all in London but it would not be a think those remarks proceed upon some desirable concentration here in India. misapprehensions of the existing position in Take Vishala Andhra. It will be" from India. As a lawyer myself having spent 40 Chatrapur right down to somewhere near years in the law courts, no one can be more the gates of Coimbatore, Salem or Kolar. jealous of the dignity and the rank and status How can you justly say that for this long of the High Court thun myself. But there are stretch of territory we should have only two systems under which High Courts one High Court at one place? Working in work— section, it may 2537 Trauancore-Cochin [ COUNCIL ] High Court (Amdt.) 2538 Bill, 1953 [Dr. K. N. Katju.] The system in the United States of America system which prevails in England which we is quite different. You know you have got the have copied and a system which prevails in the Supreme Court here and the cases are heard by United States. Now take for instance the two Judges many times. In America, the Allahabad High Court or better still the Supreme Court functions—not only the Calcutta High Court which has won a great Supreme Court but other courts also—under name for itself during the last 150 years and a what they call the quorum process. A court to High Court with which my hon. friend from an American mind means the whole court— Calcutta is familiar. The Calcutta High Court the Supreme Court of the U.S.A. consisting of consists of 20 Judges—a very important Court nine judges. And when I went there, all the and a very large number—and if all these learned Judges came together and heard a Judges were to sit together for hearing and case. Every case is heard by all the nine deciding every case, then of course it would be judges. Of course, as I said, the quorum a majestic court, for 20 Judges hearing a case process is there, that is to say, if one judge and bringing their judicial mind to decide upon falls ill and cannot come, the quorum of the it. It will be really something awe-inspiring. court is seven and no case can be heard by any But in our country the position is this. In this Court below the quorum. There, of course, court of 20 Judges, when I go as a suitor, when you have divided the High Court from the I bring a suit before the Calcutta High Court, Supreme Court and the litigant may have a the case would be heard in the name of the legitimate complaint and say, "My case might High Court by one single Judge. Mr. Justice A have been heard by nine judges and the or Mr. Justice B would hear my case. He hears judicial experience and the judicial wisdom the witnesses and delivers the judgment and judicial knowledge of all the nine judges and~l.he case comes to an end, the nineteen might have been effectively brought on my other Judges having had nothing to do with it. case; but now I have been deprived of this If I come on appeal, then the appeal may be great privilege and my case is being sent to heard either by two or three Judges and the and heard by seven judges only." But this case nnishes, so far as the High Court is system has not been put into force here in our concerned. In the Allahabad High Court where country. I therefore say that it is a question of we have got what is called original jurisdiction, whether the judge is one or two who heard the appeals are sent to the High Court in. the case case in India. Whether they sit, let us say, in of a man who has got 7 years of imprison- Calcutta in that building which is known as ment—a matter of the utmost importance to the Calcutta High Court Building, or whether him—and the appeal is heard by just one judge they sit in Burdwan or whether they sit in and finished. There is no further appeal in the Midnapore, does not make any difference. High Court at all. If it is a matter of property worth Rs. 10 lakhs, when the appeal is made, it There is another advantage. You know, Sir, is heard by two Judges and finished. Therefore, there is the question of precedents. One High when we are talking of the dignity and status of Court is bound by its own decisions and they the court, so far as the litigant in India is are binding upon the Judges. Now, take for concerned, though the building may be very instance a small court. Take any court, say the imposing and the number of Judges may be Bhopal Court. The Judicial Commissioner, very large, so far as the particular individual Bhopal, is a single judge, and the High Court litigant is concerned, he is only concerned with in Bhopal is subject to the judgments of the those one or two judges before whom his case Supreme Court here in Delhi. But the Judicial may be put by the order of the Chief Justice or Commissioner, Bhopal, is bound by no by the Registrar. judgments. Every judgment of every High Court in India has ; 2539 Travancore-Cochin [ 9 APRIL 1953 ] High Court (Amdt.) 2540 Bill, 1953 merely persuasive authority in Bhopal. Now, then it can refer the case or urge the Chief that may be something very detrimental— Justice that this case should be heard and leaving the case entirely to the discretion of one disposed of by more Judges or all Judges of Judge. If you were to split up the High Court the whole Court. Then the whole case goes into • different courts, then the people may there and the litigants will have the think there will be tremendous confusion, two advantage. I therefore, submit that this system judgps taking one view and two other judges of Circuit Courts does not and cannot taking another view and there being no possibly, in the existing circumstances in uniformity. But where you have a circuit court, India, affect the dignity or status of the High or where the same High Court is sitting in Court in any way whatsoever. On the other division benches at different places, then it is hand, if anything, its status is raised. one High Court and they are bound by the Thirdly, Sir, you will remember that this decisions of the High 'Court. Take for instance practice has grown. I may mention two or this very Bill that is before us now. The three places in Madhya Bharat from where I Travancore-Cochin High Court consists of come. They have got the capital at Gwalior— eight judges. There will be a Bench of the High as a matter of fact it is now at both the Court sitting in Trivandrum and the other places— and the High Court at Indore. A judges will be sitting in Cochin. The Bench sits at Gwalior and functions very well. Trivandrum Bench, when it decides cases will Then comes the question of administration. In be deciding the cases in the name

[Dr. K. N. Katju.] , DR. K. N. KATJU: I think that is a? means to a litigant in terms of worry suggestion worthy of consideration. and expense. Of course today there is the aeroplane and there is the rail Then somebody said "Well, if you. way and travelling has become very have the Court in one place, you have easy but do please take yourself back, got an important and competent Bar". let us say, to 100 years. Take the case Now, a legend has grown of which of Calcutta, with undivided Bengal and lawyers, of course, have taken advant Bihar and Orissa tagged on to one big age from time to time that it is ad province, imagine those were the days vocacy which wins. People forget that of the bullock cart and the small sailing it is the case which wins and it is not boat and you have a small litigant with the advocacy. Lawyers take advantage/ small petty suits, petty criminal revi because it serves them. In my view, sions coming all the way from Cuttack after 40 years of very active practice,, in Orissa and crossing literally seven the best way of winning a case is not rivers. I do not know how many days to argue it. You just state the facts of it took to go to Calcutta for the pur the case and keep quiet and the Judge- pose of having his suit fought and no will decide the case. If there are any body ever thought of having Circuit lawyer Members here they would find; Courts. Have you ever consideredthis...... what it means in physical suffering, SHRI C. C. BISWAS .-Even there the; physical travel and difficulties and in advocacy won, and not the case. expenditure? Justice nowadays must be brought to the home of the litigants as much as possible. Of course, if it DR. K. N. KAf JU:. This is one of the deep were a question of the village pancha- rooted cancers, I tell you-which has gained yats, I imagine many hon. Memberscurrency that it is. advocacy which wins and it would share my view and have ad is not the-case which wins. ministration of justice on the spot. Of course, so far as appellate justice is Now, I come to the administration; side. I concerned, it may not be possible bu started my short opening speech? by saying that we must make some attempt in that when the States were integrated, the arrangement direction and, therefore, this present arrived at was that the seat of executive power will tendency to establish Circuit Courts or be at Trivandrum and the seat of the judicial to send Judges, I think, instead ofpower will be at Cochin, and the High Court went being rather questioned should be en there. Now,, you look at this map. Here is couraged. Please remember one thing; Kanya Kumari, down south tip and here is; —I am speaking, as I said, from per Ernakulam. Trivandrum is in between. Now, sonal experience—if you have a. Court what will be your own feeling if you were living consisting of two Judges coming over at Kanya Kumari? Here is Trivandrum which and over again there for ten years has got a very good old High Court Building and they might become stale; but here, take you are asking, in the name of what I do not know, in this particular case, it is the Chief in the name of dignity and status of the High Justice who sends the Judges. What Court, people to travel all the way to will the Chief Justice do? Probably he Ernakulam passing Trivandrum on the way with a sends two Judges for three months, six beautiful High Court building. months; then they go back and other people come. It is a continuous pro This legislation has been sponsored here cess of fresh minds deciding cases, not by my own desire; it has been sponsored listening or hearing cases. There is no at the express and intense desire of the State possibility of stagnation on the part of Government and the people of the State. If judicial mind. That is a matter ...... there had been no bar under the Constitution, it

SHHI M. MANJURAN: YOU advocate quick changes of Judges for fresh minds to come?

2S43 Travancore-Cochin [ 9 APRIL 1953 ] High Court (Amdt.) 2544; ■^ Bill, 1953 would never have come here. Probably it 50,000 more required and the people will pay would have been passed by Resolution. It is it very gladly. If you agree-that it would be for true that the distance from Kanya Kumari to the benefit of the people, what more do we Ernakulam is somewhere about 230 miles. It require? This House is sitting here for the pur- means nothing. Why should it mean? poses of promotion of welfare of the people and advancement of their wishes. SHRI M. MANJURAN: It is less than 200 I may tell you, Sir, that the result of this miles. Bill will be that every place, excepting one, will be nearer Ernakulam, than Trivandrum. SHRI C. N. PILLAI: It is about 120 miles. SHRI ABDUL RAZAK: Quilon? DR. K. N. KATJU: YOU are mistaken; I have got the figures here. This is a place DR. K. N. KATJU: I said "excepting one" called Nagercoil. It is 175 miles from and there the difference is only about 40 to 50 Ernakulam and Kanya Kumari is another 25 miles. So the House, if I may put it this way, miles from it. So, it makes 200. may vote for this measure with very clean and clear conscience. There is nothing really of Don't let us talk here as Members of this political jugglery about it. The people want it honourable House. Please consider yourself as and I think the example which is being set a litigant for the time being and consider what here is an example which has to be widely it means. I suggest, Sir, that the Bill is on followed. That is all that I have to say. principle a Bill which really ought to have the SHRI GOVINDA REDDY: Article blessing of the House. My hon. friend there 225...... said that the Home Minister is setting a very dangerous precedent because the High Court SHRI M. MANJURAN: I asked may be divided up. Well, I am not terrified; as whether article 225 does not interfere a matter of fact, I would be very happy if it with the...... happens, namely, many many Circuit Courts, SHRI GOVINDA REDDY: This article Circuit Courts and Judges going about. Do you deals with the sittings, creation of Division remember that in England for the last 600 Benches, etc. years there has been the practice of Judges going on circuit? They go from town to town; DR. K. N. KATJU: This Bill has become they bring justice to the home of the people. necessary because under the existing Act that We have had too much of this centralised was the advice given. Section 6, which hon. administration of justice. Members would find in the Bill, of the Act as it stands, SHRI M. MANJURAN: Were the High says that the High Court of Judicature of the Court Judges used to be itinerary? United State of Travancore and Cochin shall sit at Ernakulam. DR. K. N. KATJU: Yes, it is High Court Judges going on circuit. It was thought that this created a bar and the High Court would not sit SHRI GOVINDA REDDY: My point was anywhere else and therefore this thing that it would only embarrass Government. I had to be done. And, secondly, the agree that it would serve the people better. object of the Bill is that there must be a Division Bench or a Single Bench at Trivandrum. Legal advice was obtain DR. K. N. KATJU: It would not embarrass ed and it was thought that this thing the Government because probably there will was absolutely necessary and may I be another Rs. suggest ......

SHRI M. MANJURAN: How is im- possible?

:2545 Trcumncore-CocHin [ COUNCIL ] High Court (Amdt.) 2546 Bill, 1953 DR. K. N. KATJU: May I suggest with great date of the commencement of the respect that I can take the opinion which is Constitution. available to me. It may be unsafe for me to accept the legal opinion offered on the floor of SHRI C. C. BISWAS: But this article begins the House. with the words, "subject to the provisions of this Constitution" and we are here taking SHRI M. MANJURAN: I want to say that action under the provisions of the item 65 of the State List provides for Constitution? 'Jurisdiction and powers of all courts except the Supreme Court, with respect to any of the SHRI M. MANJURAN: Under which article matters in this List'. of the Constitution? MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Have you read item 78 of the Union List? MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Article 225 is not in the way. The question SHRI M. MANJURAN: Yes, I have read is: that. It is about 'Constitution and organisation' only. These are the points it deals with. This is "That the Bill further to amend the neither 'constitution' nor 'organisation' but the Travancore-Cochin High Court Act, 1125, location of the High Court which is provided be taken into consideration." for. If you will go through the article governing the Supreme -Court you will see The motion was adopted. that the Seal of the Supreme Court is differently dealt with apart from its 'constitution and organisation'. We shall now take up clause by clause consideration of the Bill. There ' are three DR. K. N. KATJU: I am speaking as a amendments to Clause 2 by Shri Abdul Razak. member only—not as a lawyer. Item 65 of the All the amendments may be moved together. State List speaks of "■jurisdiction and powers of all courts'. It has nothing to do with DR. K. N. KATJU: May I raise a point of organisation, namely where the High Court order, Sir? I would like to have your ruling shall sit and at how many places it can sit. whether this amendment is in order. It Item 78 of 'the Union List, we were advised, is practically turns the Bill topsyturvy. I the proper applicable .article. understand that if an amendment is a negative amendment then it is not permissible. SHRI M. MANJURAN:But this Bill seems to disturb the jurisdiction of the High Court. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: But you seek to amend section 6 by this Bill. DR. K. N. KATJU:May I suggest that 'jurisdiction' remains the same? Jurisdiction is not touched. The only question is whether two DR. K. N. KATJU: The thing is that the Judges or a single Judge of the High Court at High Court shall continue at Emakulam but it Emakulam can hear the cases in Trivandrum shall also sit as a Division Bench at or they should hear the cases at Emakulam. Trivandrum. The amendment says that the Nothing to do with jurisdiction. High Court should itself go over to Trivandrum and a Division Bench will begin SHRI M. MANJURAN: But it is laid down to sit ia Cochin. in Article 225 that the High Courts should remain as they were on MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Sine* your Bill seeks to amend section 6 I think his amendment is also in order.

SHRI A. ABDUL RAZAK: Sir, I beg to move:

2547 Travancore-Cochin [ 9 APRIL 1953 ] High Court (Arndt.) 2548-' Bill, 1953 "That for clause 2 of the Bill, the "That in clause 2 of the Bill, in the following clause be substituted, namely: — proposed proviso to section 6, for the words 'district of Trivandrum' ther words 'districts '2. Amendment of section 6, Tra- of Trivandrum and Quilon' be substituted." vancore-Cochin Act No. V of 1125.— In section 6 of the Travancore-Cochin High MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Amendments Court Act, 1125— moved: (i) for the word "Ernakulam" the "That for clause 2 of the Bill, the- word "Trivandrum" shall be substituted; following clause be substituted, -namely: — and "I. Amendment of section 6, Tra (ii) the following proviso shall be vancore-Cochin Act No. V of 1125. ------added at the end, namely: — In section 6 of the Travancore- "Provided that such Judges of j the Cochin High Court Act, 1125— High Court, not exceeding three : in number, as may from time to j time be (i) for the word "Ernakulam" the word nominated by the Chief Justice, shall sit "Trivandrum" shall be substituted; and at Ernakulam and exercise, in respect of cases arising ! in the district of Trichur, (ii) the following proviso shall be- the juris- i diction and powers conferred added at the end, namely: — by this Act on a single Judge or a , Division Bench of two Judges, as j the "Provided that such Judges of the High Chief Justice may determine".' " Court, not exceeding three in number, as may from time to time be nominated by Before moving the next amendment ' No. 2, the Chief Justice, shall sit at Ernakulam Sir, I seek your permission and j the leave of and exercise, in respect of cases arising in the House to delete the word 'Kottayam' the district of Trichur, the jurisdiction and appearing therein. powers conferred by this Act on a single Judge or a Division Bench of two Judges, MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Is it the as> the Chief Justice may determine".' " pleasure of the House to grant him leave to make that amendment? "That in clause 2 of the Bill, for: the proposed proviso to section 6, the following HON. MEMBERS: Yes, yes. new proviso be substituted;, namely: —

SHRI ABDUL RAZAK: Sir, I beg to move 'Provided that five Judges to De- : nominated by the Chief Justice from time to time, shall sit at Trivandrum and "That in clause 2 of the Bill, for the exercise, in respect of cases arising in the proposed proviso to section 6, the j following districts, of Quilon and Trivandrum, the new proviso be substituted, jurisdiction and powers conferred by this namely: — Act on a single Judge, a Division Bench i of two Judges or a Full Bench of five 'Provided that five Judges to be Judges, as the Chief Justice may nominated by the Chief Justice determine'." from time to time, shall sit at Trivandrum and exercise, in res "That in clause 2 of the Bill, in the - pect of cases arising in the districts J proposed proviso to section 6, for the words of Quilon and Trivandrum, the 'district of Trivandrum' the-; jurisdiction and powers conferred by this Act on a single Judge, a Division Bench of twoTudges or a Full Bench of five Judges, as the Chief Justice may determine'."

I

2S4Q Travancore-Cochin [ COUNCIL ] High Court (Amdt.) 2550 Bill, 1953 [Mr. Deputy Chairman.] this particular aspect is concerned, the local words 'districts of Trivandrum and Government is deprived of the benefit of his Quilon' be substituted." legal knowledge. Therefore for all these considerations, and SHRI ABDUL RAZAK: Sir, in moving Amendment No. 1, I hope that my friends, more particularly for the consideration that particularly my hon. friends Mr. Manjuran not even one-tenth of the current file is and Mr. C. Narayana will not have any answered for by the appeals preferred from objection. Notwithstanding that, there are the Trichur District, I submit that this other very strong reasons for the location of amendment may be accepted. the seat of the High Court in Trivandrum. Firstly, Trivandrum happens to be the seat of DR. K. N. KATJU: I am unable to accept the Government and as such it would be any of the amendments. The first two handy to have the High Court also there. I am amendments really try to overturn the Bill sure that even hon. Members from the Cochin completely. There is no desire on the part of area would not stand on questions of prestige the Central Government or of the State or sentiments against this. Recent experience Government to move the seat of the High shows that there has been in the High Court of Court from Ernakulam to Trivandrum. It Travancore-Cochin nearly 200 writ should remain there for various reasons; not applications. Out of these 200 applications, if only because the arrangements proceeded my memory is right, 98 were against the upon an amicable settlement with the different Government of Travancore-Cochin in political parties but also because of adminis- Trivandrum. So, for the purpose of the dis- trative convenience and also because of posal of these writ applications every time convenience of the litigants. As I told the files from the Secretariat had to be flown and House just now, all the places in the State of the Secretariat staff had also to be flown to Travancore-Cochin, every place excepting the Trivandrum and back. This means a very Trivandrum District and portions of Quilon serious dislocation of the normal business of District, are nearer Ernakulam than Trivand- the Secretariat. rum. Trivandrum District consists, according to my information, of 21 lakhs of people and all those people now have justice brought Secondly, the Republican Constitution nearer to them in Trivandrum town itself. So requires or makes it incumbent that the far as Quilon is concerned, the town of Quilon Advocate-General of the State should attend is nearly 50 miles from Trivandrum and about the Legislative Assembly and in Travancore- 90 to 92 miles from Ernakulam. Cochin the Legislative Assembly sits in Trivandrum. So every time the Legislative SHRI K. C. GEORGE: Quilon is only 42 Assembly meftts in Trivandrum, the miles from Trivandrum. Advocate-General, whose office is at present in Ernakulam, has to fly to Trivandrum and DR. K. N. KATJU: I am sorry, it is 42, but back. That means invariably he is not able to there are northern portions of the District give a good account of himself either in the which will be nearer. But anyway so far as Assembly or in the High Court. Trivandrum District is concerned, they are definitely nearer Trivandrum and, as the Thirdly, it is common knowledge that the House knows, there are associations and ties State Government should have ready by its which bind the people of a district together. side the advice and opinion of the Chief When you come to another district, the ties Justice. Now the seat of the High Court being are not so close and a difference of 50 miles located in Ernakulam, such advice of the Chief or so is not much. And all the speeches that I Justice is not available to the local have heard here do not make any difference. (Government. That means so far as The Bill has 255 Travancore-Cochin [ 9 APRIL 1953 ] High Court (Amdt.) 2552 Bill, 1953 been very carefully drafted and I suggest to the ' MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The House that it is in consonance with the wishes question is: of the people at large and as such it should not be " touched. "That in clause 2 of the Bill, in the proposed proviso to section 6, for the words 'district of MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The ■ Trivandrum' • the words 'districts of question is: Trivandrum and Quilon' be substituted." "That for clause 2 of the Bill, the The motion was negatived. following clause be substituted, namely: — MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The question is: '2. Amendment of section 6, Tra- vancore-Ccohin Act No. V of 1125.— In "That clause 2 stand part of the Bill." section 6 of the Travancore-> Cochin High Court Act, 1125— The motion was adopted. (i) for the word "Ernakulam" the Clause 2 was added to the Bill. word "Trivandrum" shall be substituted; and As for clause 1, there are no amendments of which notices have been received. (ii) the following proviso shall be added at the end, namely: — Clause 1, the Title and the Enacting formula were added to the Bill. "Provided that such Judges of the High Court, not exceeding three in number, as DR. K. N. KATJU: Sir, I beg to move that may from time to time be nominated by the Bill be passed. the Chief Justice, shall sit at Ernakulam and exercise, in respect of cases arising SHRI RAJAGOPAL NAIDU: Sir, I have in the district of Trichur, the jurisdiction been listening to the reply given by the hon. and powers conferred by this Act on a the Home Minister with rapt attention. I single Judge or a Division Bench of two only ask him this question. When there is Judges, as the Chief Justice may deter- a provision in the Constitution under article mine".' " 130 enabling the Supreme Court to sit in Delhi or in such other place or places as the Chief The motion was negatived. Justice of India may, with the approval of the MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The ' President, from time to time, appoint, yet, Sir, question is: in practice why is it that the Supreme Court is sitting only at Delhi and not sitting in any other "That in clause 2 of the Bill, for the place in India? Sir,' if the hon. Home Minister proposed proviso to section R, the had convinced anybody with his arguments, he following new proviso be substituted, should have set an example by seeing namely: — that the Supreme Court sits not only in Delhi but in Madras, in Calcutta, and in other places. If 'Provided that five Judges to be it is a question of justice going to the litigants, nominated by the Chief Justice from time and . if we have to accept the principle to time, shall sit at Trivandrum and adumbrated by the hon. Home Minister that the exercise in respect of cases arising in the courts will have to seek the litigants, why districts of Quilon and Trivandrum, the should the Supreme Court always sit in jurisdiction and powers conferred by this Delhi and not in other places in India? If this Act on a single Judge, a Division Bench principle has not been applied in the case of the of two Judges or a Full Bench of five Judges, as the Chief Justice may determine'." 'The motion was negatived.

2553 Travancore-Cochin [ COUNCIL ] High Court (Amdt.) 2554 Bill, 1953 [Shri Rajagopal Naidu.] . Supreme Court, at Trivandrum been extended to the Quilon if it has not been applied through- the length district also. The demand of the people of and breadth of India, about two thousand Quilon and of the Bar I Association there is that miles north to south, and about the same the Quilon district should be included within number of miles east to west, why should this the jurisdiction of the Bench that is to be principle be applied in the case of a tiny little constituted at Trivandrum. Nobody loses State like Travancore-Cochin. There is no anything by it. But that suggest- ■ ion has been logic behind this Bill. There is no reason rejected by the Government. That only behind it. I very strongly oppose this Bill. Of supports the argument that has been advanced course it is going to be made into law by the by my hon. friend that this arrangement has been thumping majority of the Government in this made simply to meet the wishes of the Tamil Nad House. But what is the reason behind it? I fail Congress Party for ■ political purposes. If the to see the reason. I have not been convinced. people of the Trivandrum district are to be given this privilege, I cannot understand why it should not be extended to the people of Quilon Another point which I had raised has not also. Government's unwillingness to do so been answered. Probably it has been ignored only supports the argument of my hon. friend by the hon. Home Minister as of smaller Mr. Mathai Manjuran and of my hon. friend Mr. importance. Even in all these cases, the case C. Narayana Pillai that had it not been . for will have to be filed at one place. Whether it political purposes, the question of serving the is in first appeal or second appeal or revision, public needs would not have arisen. So, even the case has to be filed only at Ernakulam at this late stage I would ask the hon. Minister where the High Court is now located. Is the to think over this matter and include the Quilon hon. Home Minister going to say that all cases district also within the jurisdiction of ' this that are to be heard at Trivandrum will have to Bench. Trivandrum would be nearer and be filed only at Trivandrum? Does he mean to more convenient to the people of Quilon. say there will be a Registrar there to receive Quilon is connected to Trivandrum by all those cases that are filed? railway whereas there is no railway connection between Quilon and Ernakulam. Particularly I say once again that if this principle is to important it is as for Shencottah and such be applied, it should be applied to the places are concerned, it is a . very circuitous Supreme Court of India first. The Supreme route—it is nearly 180 ' miles to Ernakulam. Court Judges should move from place to There is no direct railway line. For the people place, and article 130 of the Constitution of Shencottah, Trivandrum is very near, com- should be given effect to. pared to Ernakulam and if the jurisdiction is extended to Quilon, it would be very SHRI K. C. GEORGE (Travancore- convenient to the people of Shencottah Cochin): Sir, I really wanted to speak on my also. The Quilon Bar Association also amendment, but somehow I could not do have demanded this. .' They have passed a so, and so I take this opportunity to say resolution to that effect. I do not understand what I wanted to say on my why that right should be denied to them. amendment. The hon. "Minister would have done well to accept my amendment. In the name of serving the needs of the The Statement of Objects and Reasons states people this principle has been accepted, that the constitution of a Bench of the according to the Statement of Objects and High Court at Trivandrum would be the Reasons. If this Bill has been brought for the best way of serving the public needs. And this convenience of the people, I ask why is object would have been really served had the partiality shown to some people only, unless it jurisdiction of this Bench which is going to be for a political purpose? If it is for.- be constituted

2555 Travancore-Cochin [ 9 APRIL 1953 ] High Court (Avidt.) 2556 Bill, 1953

a political purpose, let not the argument about 20. That a decision of a minority of the serving the people's needs be advanced. If the people of Travancore-Cochin should be object is to serve the people's needs, I can regularised by an Act of the Central Parliament accept the Bill to that extent. I support it. But is something which is antidemocratic. There do it with good grace. Now it has been done was agitation over it. The population of very shabbily. It appears so dirty. I request the Travancore-Cochin today is 93 and odd lakhs. hon. Home Minister to reconsider the matter The Home Minister has mentioned that the and accept this amendment. With these words, district of Trivandrum consists of about 21 lakhs I support the Bill to the extent I have indicated. of people. What about the 70 odd lakhs of people? They oppose this Bill. And it is this SHRI M. MANJURAN: Sir, the hon. Central Parliament that is legalising this for the Home Minister said that it was advan sake of 20 lakhs of people against 70 lakhs of tageous for High Courts to be moving people, and they are teaching us elementary about the country. I am only sorry lessons of democracy and of mobile judiciary. that he has not brought in a Bill to These are very strange things; not that legalize mobile High Courts. As a I care very much where the High Court is; it matter of fact I was very glad to know is immaterial to me. There are many that this principle of decentralisation occasions when political parties are put into has been accepted by the Central Gov High Court transactions. The other day, ernment, and that sooner or later we our friend Mr. Mathur stated that a certain would have sittings of our Parlia post was given to the Opposition Member of ment ...... the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly. There have been like instances of High Court MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: He expressed Judges in the Travancore-Cochin. his personal opinion as a lawyer.

SHRI M. MANJURAN: Inflicted with I (Expunged as ordered by the Chair.) personal opinion, we should reply to that. Political matters are somehow entangled One point that has been made out is that there with judicial activities. I want only to come has been a strong demand by the people of to that point. This is a matter in which we Travancore-Cochin. That argument has not should leave no room for apprehension. We have been substantiated. I know there was some got some experience in these matters and we feel talk in the Travancore-Cochin Legislative that this experience would always recur. The Assembly. But this was passed on to the Ministry wants a High Court to be put there Centre because they would not have been able and the High Court will quite likely see to pass the Bill there. There have been what the Ministry wants. There might dissensions, it is very plain to see. Out of the be troubles. I am afraid of these troubles very 109 members of the Travancore-Cochin much. I am sorry my faults are great, but Legislative Assembly, 20 members belong to greater are the faults of our" administrators. the district of Trivandrum. There would Nine-thousand sq. miles is the entire area of have been opposition on the part of all the the State. The Home Minister is saying that remaining 89 members to this Bill. It was people ' will find it very difficult to move for that reason that the Travancore-Cochin about. Two-hundred and fifty miles is the 1 Ministry passed on the burden of this Bill to entire length of the State whereas in 1 Rajasthan the Central Parliament. Even if all the legal the two High. Courts are catering to the needs opinion that has been brought to bear on the of tens of thousands of square miles. What matter had not been there, it would have been would be the distance for the people to impossible for them to have got this Bill come ! and go? As Mr. Nai'du has expressed, through. It was 89 against 20 CSD.

2557 Travancore-Cochin [ COUNCIL ] High Court (Amdt) 2558 Bill, 1953 [Shri M. Manjuran.] not democratic at all. In order that the in Madras it is sometimes about 600 Travancore-Cochin Ministry should make it miles away from the litigant public. convenient and should get away from the In Travancore-Cochin there is suffi brunt of opposition which they have to face cient tranrport and cheap too. From locally, they have shifted all this burden to the Trivandrum it takes hardly 30 or 35 Central Government. Again I pointed out the minutes to reach Ernakulam by plane. possibility of the formation of the State of Much is made of the inconvenience Kerala where the difference between the caused to the litigant public. If there length and the breadth would be very well is any meaning in saying that the adjusted if the High Court were situated in activities of the High Court will be Ernakulam. In view of these facts, there was prejudiced because the litigant public absolutely no point for this temporary disloca- have to come from hundred miles, what tion which would only create lasting and happens to those who have to travel permanent bad blood among the people, much longer distances and keep creating local rivalries and prejudices, creating in waiting for a simple li troubles and tribulations in future. cence at the door of the Government offices in Trivandrum? So, we still hope that the Government will It is only some portions that are farther be well advised to reconsider it and drop the away from Ernakulam but all the other Bill, which course is not going to bother any places are nearer to Ernakulam. That one, but which is certainly going to be helpful means that Ernakulam is more centrally to all. situated than Trivandrum. There are so many things which the hon. Minister DR. K. N. KATJU: Mr. Deputy Chairman. I has skipped over. These are matters do not think I can add anything useful. My that are affecting the political situation hon. friend who just now preceded me, has and I am sure that the Congress Party given expression to many views which, I sub- is going to lose most out of the bargain mit, are not well-founded; and I do not want to and out of the charity that they are tire the House. There is just one thing only going to show to the Tamil Nad which I should like to mention. Article 130 of Congress. In spite of Mr. Razak's the Constitution says: enunciation and in spite of anybody's saying otherwise, we feel there were "The Supreme Court shall sit in Delhi or some conditions under which the Minis in such other place or places as the Chief try of Travancore-Cochin was formed Justice of India may, with the approval of and one of those conditions was the the President, from time to time, appoint." institution of a portion of the High Court in Trivandrum. So there is no With the approval of the President it was point in saying that there is no political decided that the High Court shall sit at bargaining under these considerations. Ernakulam. If at that time this language had Politics being a very dangerous affair been followed in the Travancore High Court it is going to be a boomerang against Act, then very likely this matter would not have the Congress there. As Mr. Reddy come here at all. It would have been decided at pointed out, it is going to animate the the discretion of the Executive and on the feelings of people there. This is an initiative of the Chief Justice. I repeat once unwanted Bill which would create end again that there is no sinister motive behind it. less puzzles and rivalries there in the As the House knows, the population of Tri- Ministry and among the ordinary pub vandrum itself is nearly two lakhs— one lakh lic. If there is anything sufficient time and 86 thousand, and I imagine that the State should be given to the people of Government Travancore-Cochin to express their opinion on this Bill. This opportunity has not been given to them. It has been passed against the 70 lakh people and in favour of only 20 lakhs of people. It is being passed against 88 Members of the Legislative Assembly in favour of 20 Members. It is a Bill which is

2559 Travancore-Cochin [ COUNCIL ] High Court (Amdt.) 2560 Bill, 1953 was motivated by considerations of con- The motion was adopted. venience of these people living at the tip of our country and that is the reason for The House stands adjourned till t P.M. the Bill. tomorrow.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The The Council then adjourneo question is: till two of the clock in ihe afternoon on Friday, the 10th "That the Bill be passed." April '.953