V SUBRAMANIAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT issue is the constitutionality of the Presidential Order titled 'the Madras High Court (Establishment of a Permanent Bench at Madurai) Order, 2004', hereinafter referred to as, 'the Order', issued in exercise of the powers under sub-Section (2) of Section 51 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (37 of 1956), hereinafter referred to as 'the SR Act'.

(2.) THIS is a matter concerning the constitution of Madras High Court Bench at Madurai. In fact this is a second round of litigation. The earlier round of litigation went even to Supreme Court and the facts leading to the same and ultimately resulting in filing of these writ petitions are narrated below.

(3.) THE first salvo for creation of a Bench of Madras High Court in southern region of Tamil Nadu and Madurai in particular, was fired by passing a resolution of the Bar Association at Kanniyakumari. The Bar Associations of other districts followed suit in later years and in the year 1983, the matter was referred to Justice Jaswant Singh Commission. The said Commission, after making enquiries, had filed its report in the year 1985 favouring the constitution of a Circuit Bench of Madras High Court at Madurai, to have jurisdiction over seven districts namely Kanyakumari, Madurai, Tirunelveli, Pudukkottai, Thanjavur, Ramanathapuram and Tiruchi. The said report, though initially not favoured by the then Chief Justices before 1995, on 31. 8. 1995, the Full Court of Madras High Court headed by Mr. K. A. Swami, the then Chief Justice, had passed a resolution favouring a Circuit Bench at Madurai. It was communicated to the Government, which vide G. O. Ms. 398, Home (Courts. VII) Department, dated 10. 3. 1998, accepted the decision taken by the High Court. Land was acquired at Ulaganeri, Madurai and requisite amount also was sanctioned for the construction of the building and for providing infrastructural facilities. Thereafter, the Central Government considered as to whether the SR Act can be invoked or not for constituting the Madurai Bench and it opined that SR Act can be invoked and approval was given by the then Union Minister for Law and Justice, on 14. 8. 1998 for establishment of Permanent Bench of Madras High Court at Madurai. By D. O. Letter No. K-11018/5/98-US-I, dated 31. 12. 1999, the succeeding Union Law Minister, had also opined that having regard to expiry of 14 years of Justice Jaswant Singh Commission's report, straightaway the Permanent Bench can be constituted at Madurai instead of a Circuit Bench. The said view was accepted by the then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and the same was communicated to the then Chief Justice of Madras High Court, who had given nod for the constitution of a Permanent Bench of Madras High Court at Madurai. The Government had accepted the same and then on 13. 4. 2000, foundation stone for the construction of Madurai Bench building was laid by the then Honourable the Chief Justice of India presided over by the then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. The building has been constructed by providing infrastructural facilities. But when the notification was to be issued, the Central Government again opined that a Parliamentary Act has to be enacted for setting up a Bench and phonographic message, to that effect, was sent to the State Government on 30. 8. 2002 which, in turn, was communicated to the High Court by D. O. Letter No,90169, dated 6. 9. 2002. A Committee of 3 Judges was set up to monitor the progress of the Madurai Bench building as also the provision with regard to infrastructural facilities, which include the residential quarters for the Judges manning the Madurai Bench. The Committee, in its last report dated 13. 1. 2004, opined that the construction of the building with infrastructural facilities would be over by 31. 3. 2004. Accordingly, 13. 4. 2004 was fixed as the date for inauguration of Madurai Bench. For several reasons, including the General Elections notification because of the dissolution of the Lok Sabha and preponing of elections, the Madurai Bench could not be inaugurated as scheduled on 13. 4. 2004 and we need not give details except stating that the Presidential Notification was issued on 6. 7. 2004, which reads thus,