The Story Behind The Common High Court For Punjab & Haryana

Behind the lines activities for retaining a common High Court for Punjab & Haryana – is a story by itself and needs to be now told for the benefit of the present and next generation.

As is known when Punjab was divided in 1966 to constitute Haryana State, the question of Chandigarh was a source of great concern. After the commissions verdict Govt. of India while accepting broadly the present areas of Haryana, could not make up its mind about Chandigarh. So it was decided that Chandigarh will remain a joint capital. It has so continued. Earlier many voices were raised to declare it as capital of Punjab or Haryana but without the consent of both the states jointly given (which was not given), it automatically had to continue as joint capital. All neutral observers will now agree that it has been the best solution. Both States have benefited by an excellent city as capital and have also sensibly developed immediate areas around like Mohalli, Panchkula etc. There is thus a quietus on this and only a politician who wants to harm the interest of both states would make this an issue and also – and I believe he would find no takers.

But Re High Court, in 1966 there was a vociferous demand mostly by Haryana lawyers and politicians that there should be separate High Court of Haryana. As a matter of fact to give an overall view on the conflicting interest of legal community it is necessary to go back somewhat further. As is known Punjab High Court in 1948 had jurisdiction over Delhi also. It was only in 1953 that a circuit bench was started in Delhi. Naturally Delhi started asking for a separate Delhi High Court. But to start with, the work load was not much. So Gurgaon Bar started urging that Circuit Court at Delhi should have jurisdiction over Gurgaon. Naturally we lawyers (who are quite clannish when it comes to our self interest) opposed it.

But the real lest came on the formation of Haryana. In 1966 - 67 I was then the President of Punjab & Haryana High Court Bar Association. I was pained at the idea of division of the high Court, which was a worthy successor to Lahore high Court, which had produced stalwart judges like Sir Shadi Lal, Bakshi, Tek Chand, and Mehar Chand Mahajan – there were of course equally stalwart judges like Din Mohd and Munir, but then they were in Pakistan now.

I therefore led a deputation of the office bearers of Bar to Mr. Morarji Desai who was Deputy Prime Minister in the Central Cabinet. Morarji was a mercurial person, brutally frank and self assertive to a fault. I remember when our delegation met him in Delhi his first reaction was addressed to me as a leader of deputation was “why did you not think at the time you opposed Partap Singh Kairon – if he had remained Chief Minister. Punjab would have remained one & the present situation would not have arisen, “ He obviously did not approve my having appeared as a counsel on behalf of Memorialists against Kairon before justice S.R. Das Commission†. So we came back rather disappointed. Our delegation then met Mr. G.L. Nanda then Home Minister Central government. He told us plainly that he was willing to continue common High Court for Punjab & Haryana having his seat at Chandigarh. But if separate High Court were asked for by Punjab or Haryana then jurisdiction over Chandigarh will be vested in Delhi High Court. This inevitably would have serious consequences for the bar. All –the writ work and original jurisdiction in the High Court would go to Delhi. Thus all government orders passed by both government would have to be challenged before Delhi High Court - loss to the Bar, the inconvenience to the client, the embarrassment of both governments being answerable to an outside High Court. Nanda had said that he will not take any initiative on his own the matter being contentions but if both the chief Ministers agreed he would have a Common High Court having jurisdiction over both the States and Chandigarh.

S. Gurnam Singh, the ex judge of Pepsu and Punjab High Court was the Chief Minister of Punjab at that time. It did not take any time to get the consent from him – he understood the delicacy and uncomfortable situation of having Punjab government action and orders being supervised by Delhi High Court. But Rao Birender Singh, the Chief Minister of Haryana was a hard net to crack. He had apparently been briefed by some of his coterie that it was best for Haryana to demand a separate High Court. Some common friends tried to convince him otherwise, but he continued to give a negative reply. I and others friends were worried that this indecision by him would result in Chandigarh (which meant all writ jurisdiction, service matters) of both governments being under the jurisdiction of Delhi high Court.

So I fixed appointment with Rao Sahib and went to the Chief Minisrters house to see him at the appointed time. Rao Sahib was having a shave and a massage and I was asked to wait. Had it been my personal work I would have walked out as being a discourtesy, as I had gone after fixing time. But then this was Bar work and a larger public issue and I toned myself down. Of course I did not have to wait longer – possibly 15 – 20 minutes. I knew that talking to Rao on principles of administration of justice, suffering of convenience to the public by breaking the integrity of the Court into two would not carry the matter any further. So I adopted a direct politicians language. I told him whether he realized that if there were separate High Courts, and even if they were situate in Chandigarh, but the jurisdiction over orders passed by his government, secretariat would be supervised by Delhi High Court, because Chandigarh remaining under Central administration neither of the High Courts of Punjab and Haryana would have jurisdiction. I conjured to him the embarrassment of being judged by outside High Court rather than by judges familiar with the working of Punjab and Haryana states and also with tongue in the cheek hinting that local judges would have more sympathetic understanding of the complexity and the nuances under which the Chief Ministers have to take various administrative decisions, which understanding may not be responsive from outside judges that is of Delhi High Court. I also told him that he must realize that High Court judges to be appointed to Delhi and who alone would be hearing cases against government orders, in none of them would be have any role, not even of consultation as in case of Punjab and Haryana. I believe this hit his vanity that a Chief Minister of Haryana should be a stranger to appointment of judges of Delhi High Court, which will sit over his governments action – a blow to a politicians vanity – the feeling of not having a hand in such high appointments was some thing which a practical politician is reluctant to give up. It is not that he could in any way influence local Judges of Punjab and Haryana High Court, but it was his own mistaken bloated sense of importance which he thought will suffer in public that a Chief Minister of State had no say in the appointment of these high offices that really clinched the issue and he thereupon he wrote to Nanda Ji agreeing to a common High Court. I am free to confess after four decades that my suggestions to Rao Birendar Singh were certainly loaded but in all humility I submit my only motive was the welfare of State of Punjab and Haryana and the interests of the High Court and the Bar. Sometimes politicians need to be talked in their own language.

Happily we have continued with common High Court for Punjab and Haryana. I hope people and lawyers realize the worth of a bigger common high Court. Though I sometimes occasionally hear some misplaced persons again wanting to revive the slogan of separate High Courts, I believe it would be a judicial disaster if it were to happen, such dislocation and loss of prestige status, apart from the impossibility of so happening so long as both states have a common Capital.

Rajindar Sachar
 Dated:18/03/2009
 New Delhi

(The above article was published in The Tribune on 20th March, 2009)