High Court for Puducherry

Puducherry was merged with India in 1962 and the jurisdiction of the Madras High Court was extended to it.
In 2017, the Puducherry legislature unanimously resolved to have its own High Court; subsequently it also passed a resolution seeking establishment of the High Court.
As per Article 241 of the Constitution, Parliament has the power to constitute a High Court for a Union territory or declare any court in any such territory to be a High Court.

The Puducherry government spends exorbitant sums of money towards expenses of the large High Court. As its population is small, this amount can be reduced to less than a quarter of the amount spent with a much smaller High Court.

The Constitution of India provides for a high court for each state, but the Seventh Amendment Act of 1956 authorised the Parliament to establish a common high court for two or more states or for two or more states and a union territory.
When a common High Court is established for more than one State, administrative expenses have to be paid only from the consolidated fund of the ‘State’ in which the principal seat of the High Court is situated.
However, this provision is not followed with respect to Puducherry which shares the disproportionately exorbitant expenses with Tamil Nadu.
Also, administrative expenses of a High Court at the Union Territory shall be drawn from the ‘Consolidated Fund of India’ under the Constitution.

A Puducherry High Court with four to five judges can ensure quick action on pendency of matters .

In the All India Judges Association And Others vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors judgement, the Supreme Court observed that the time has now come for protecting one of the pillars of the Constitution, namely, the judicial system, by directing increase, in the first instance, in the Judge strength from the existing ratio of 10.5 or 13 per 10 lakhs people to 50 Judges for 10 lakh people.
It was also discussed in the Law Commission of India Report titled Arrears and Backlog: Creating Additional Judicial (wo)manpower’, in 2014.
However, as of 2016, the ratio is only 12 judges for one million population.
This ratio at Puducherry can be increased if a separate High Court with four to five judges is established.

Size of population and territory is irrelevant: The number of cases filed and disposed of at Puducherry in 2010 is four times higher than the numbers at Sikkim, Manipur and Goa (with High Courts) put together.
Bigger States have more judges and staff whereas smaller States have lesser numbers of these.

Also the number of cases disposed of from Puducherry (28,631 cases) is three times more than the number of cases (9,031 cases) disposed by four High Courts (Tripura, Manipur, Meghalaya and Sikkim) put together in 2016.

A High Court for Puducherry will also strengthen voices seeking Statehood.
The Constitution enabled the establishment of a legislature and Council of Ministers for certain Union Territories with the intent of providing them Statehood gradually.
Consequently, out of the seven Union Territories originally placed under Article 239A, all except Puducherry were granted Statehood by 1989.
However, most Union Territories under 239A at least had Benches of High Courts when they attained Statehood.

In March 2016, the Government of India had suggested that the establishment of a High Court will be taken up if the Puducherry government proposes the idea. However, the decision of the Puducherry legislature has still not been conveyed to the Central government.
The Puducherry government should now form a committee to prepare a comprehensive report and a draft Bill backing its proposal and forward it to the Central government.

Today Current Affairs Upsc Exam Syllabus & Previous Yearpaper.