On 18th August 2025,

The history of the Bombay High Court entered a new phase. A Bench at Kolhapur has now begun functioning, inaugurated in the august presence of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India. The event marks a milestone for the legal fraternity of Western Maharashtra, particularly the six districts that the new Bench will cater to. I extend my heartfelt congratulations to the members of the Bar who fought tirelessly for this demand and to the citizens who now have justice closer to their doorstep.

 

While I wish the Bench every success and personally offer my services to mentor young advocates in these districts to prepare for High Court practice, I must also place on record certain concerns. These views are not meant to reopen old debates or undo what has been done. Rather, they are meant to ensure that in the future, decisions of such historic importance are taken through a transparent, rational, and institutionally sound process.

 

On 1st August 2025, the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, with the Governor’s approval, issued an order under Section 51(3) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 appointing Kolhapur as a place where Judges of the High Court may sit. The power is legally available, but the question is whether the procedural propriety and institutional discipline were fully observed before exercising this discretion.

 

No other High Court in India has more than two benches besides its principal seat. Bombay High Court is now unique with four: Nagpur, Aurangabad, Panaji, and Kolhapur. The necessity, feasibility, and prudence of creating a fourth Bench deserves careful scrutiny.

 

The story of the earlier benches is instructive.

• Nagpur Bench: Emerged in 1956, when the States Reorganisation Act merged the Nagpur High Court into Bombay High Court. This was not a fresh demand but an integration of an already functioning High Court.

• Aurangabad Bench: Rooted in the Nagpur Pact of 1953, which promised representation to Marathwada after its merger from Hyderabad. The Bench was created in 1981 and upheld in Narayan Shamrao Puranik (1982) 3 SCC 519.

• Panaji Bench: Established under the Bombay High Court (Extension of Jurisdiction to Goa, Daman and Diu) Act, 1981, and given permanence in 1982. After Goa became a State in 1987, this Bench became structurally distinct.

 

Thus, each of these Benches was born out of historic compulsions, regional reorganisations, and political accords. In contrast, the Kolhapur Bench arises in a region that was always part of the old Bombay State.

 

In 1985, the Union Government set up the Justice Jaswant Singh Commission to lay down principles for setting up benches. Its report, later cited by the Supreme Court and relied upon even in Parliament (Rajya Sabha, 2023), cautions that such decisions must never rest on emotional, sentimental, or parochial considerations.

 

The Commission stressed objective factors: caseload, distance from principal seat, availability of infrastructure, financial feasibility, and long-term judicial policy. By these metrics, demands for benches at Pune, Solapur, and Nashik have historically been equally forceful. Why Kolhapur alone was chosen remains unexplained.

 

This is not the first time Kolhapur was considered.

• 1996–97 Committee & Full House: After extensive study, the Judges’ Committee concluded that no further benches should be created. A Full House meeting in April 1997 overwhelmingly accepted this view.

• 2006 Administrative Committee: Reaffirmed the 1997 decision.

• 2013 Committee: Could not reach consensus on benches at Kolhapur, Solapur, or Pune.

• 2015–18 Notes & Consultations: Successive Chief Justices floated the idea but, respecting earlier Full House decisions, refrained from unilateral orders.

• 2022 Meeting with Bar Council & Advocates: Again, no conclusive outcome.

 

Given this background, the order of 1st August 2025 raises a crucial institutional query: Was the Full House consulted before reversing its earlier stance? If not, propriety may have been compromised.

 

Creating a new Bench is not merely symbolic—it requires massive expenditure. Judges’ bungalows, staff quarters, IT infrastructure, bar rooms, and a modern court complex must be built. At the same time, many district courts in Maharashtra still lack basic facilities. The Supreme Court had directed, back in 2002, that India must move towards 50 judges per million population. Maharashtra has yet to cross half that number.

 

Should scarce resources be diverted to a fourth High Court Bench when the Trial Courts—the first contact of the common man with justice—remain neglected? Or should priority have been given to upgrading grassroots courts before expanding the High Court footprint?

 

The Bench is now a reality. The focus must shift from questioning its creation to ensuring its success. That requires:

1. Immediate sanction of a modern court complex at Kolhapur on the model of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court.

2. Increase in the sanctioned strength of Bombay High Court so that shifting judges to Kolhapur does not weaken the principal seat.

3. Training programmes for young advocates in the six districts, conducted jointly by the High Court and the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa.

4. Transparency in governance: The High Court should publish in the public domain the process by which Kolhapur was chosen. This will restore confidence and set a precedent of accountability.

5. Safeguarding Bandra Project: The new Bench must not be an excuse to delay the long-pending Bandra Court Complex for the principal seat, which still faces overwhelming caseloads from Mumbai, Pune, Nashik, and Thane.

 

The establishment of the Kolhapur Bench is both a moment of celebration and a moment of introspection. It reflects the aspirations of Western Maharashtra but also tests the institutional discipline of our judiciary. Justice at the doorsteps is an ideal, but it must not come at the cost of systemic imbalance or opaque decision-making.

 

I continue to hold the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Bombay High Court in the highest regard, and I am confident that once the Bench is operational, the focus will shift towards quality, speed, and accessibility of justice. Yet, as we write this new chapter, we must not forget the lessons of the past: judicial expansion must rest on rational policy, not regional sentiment alone.