M A I N   N E W S

Haryana Assembly adopts resolution on separate HC
Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, December 15
The Haryana Legislative Assembly today unanimously adopted a resolution demanding the creation of a separate High Court for the state.

Though the resolution said that the new High Court be set up in Chandigarh, it was silent about its territorial jurisdiction. This was pointed out by several MLAs, including Mr Karan Singh Dalal (Congress) and Dr Sushil Indora (INLD).

Replying to the debate, the Chief Minister, Mr Bhupinder Singh Hooda, however, did not agree that the issue of territorial jurisdiction of the new court should be decided now. “Those who are raising this issue only want to delay the creation of the separate High Court for the state. At present, our only concern should be to have a separate High Court. The technicalities should be left to Parliament and the Central Government,” he said.

An emotional Chief Minister recalled how he along with Mr Birender Singh (Finance Minister) and Mr Shamsher Singh Surjewala (MLA from Kaithal) had first advocated that the inter-state disputes between Punjab and Haryana should be delinked from each other. Haryana’s priority had been to get its due share in the river waters.

Blaming the INLD and the BJP for the delay in resolution of the water dispute, Mr Hooda said even the Supreme Court had based its judgement on the SYL canal on the Indira Gandhi Award and the Rajiv-Longowal accord. However, these two parties had opposed the accord as a result of which Haryana had been denied its due share in the river waters even now.

He urged the members to either support the resolution or oppose it and not to raise any technical objections. This put the INLD members on defensive and Dr Indora declared that if the Chief Minister could get a separate High Court for the state, his party would wholeheartedly support the resolution.

The resolution urged the Central Government to move a Bill in Parliament for creation of a separate High Court for Haryana, to be located at “Chandigarh, the Capital of the State”. It said : “Whereas the framers of the Constitution of India were candid on the issue that there should be a separate High Court for each of the States... And whereas the State of Haryana came into existence with effect from 1st November, 1966, by virtue of the provisions as contained in section 3 of the Punjab Reorganization Act, 1966...Apparently, on account of certain unresolved territorial disputes between the State of Punjab and Haryana, Parliament, in its wisdom, enacted section 29 in Part IV of the Punjab Reorganization Act, 1966, whereby it established a common High Court for the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory of Chandigarh...”

“States like Himachal Pradesh and newly created States like Jharkand, Chattisgarh and Uttaranchal which came into existence much later than Haryana, are having their own separate High Courts from the very day of their inception. Presently, except the seven eastern states falling under the jurisdiction of the Guwahati High Court, there is no State in the country which is not having its own separate High Court...

“And whereas during this long period, the interests of the State of Haryana have suffered manifold due to the common High Court. It is a matter of fact that Haryana has never been able to get its proportionate representation on the Bench as per the ratio of 60:40 between Punjab and Haryana. Even at present there are only eight Judges from Haryana out of 29 Judges in position against the total sanctioned strength of 53. Similar is the case with the insufficient/under representation of the State of Haryana in the Bar. Had there been a separate High Court, the disposal of the cases would have been much faster and judicial system would have been further strengthened in the State.”

Acknowledging that the Assembly had earlier passed a similar resolution on March 14, 2002, the resolution said : “Since the new Lok Sabha has come into existence, it is apt to take up the matter afresh with the new Parliament.”

Interestingly, an earlier draft of the resolution had appealed to Parliament to enact the law to create a separate High Court for Haryana, it was later amended to make the appeal to the Central Government. It was realised by the Government at the last moment that Parliament on its own could not take up a Bill unless it was moved by someone. Hence the appeal was made to the Central Government.

The resolution was moved by the Parliamentary Affairs Minister, Mr Randeep Singh Surjewala. Initiating the debate, the elder Surjewala said along with the separate High Court, Haryana should also have a separate capital, which would accelerate the state’s development. Mr Birender Singh also pleaded that the inter-state disputes should be delinked for their early solution.