Chennai
The Indian High Courts Act, 1861, passed by the British Parliament, enabled the colonial government to establish high courts of judicature in India. It merged the earlier Supreme Courts, functioning in the Presidency Towns, along with Sadar Adalats, and established high courts in the three Presidential Towns of Bombay (Mumbai), Calcutta (Kolkata) and Madras (Chennai). The Act authorised Queen Victoria to issue Letters Patent under the great seal of the United Kingdom to erect and establish high courts of judicature. Thus by the charter issued by the Queen, a high court of judicature was established in Madras (1862). Initially, it was housed in the building in which, later, the old Madras Collectorate started functioning. (This is now known as the Singaravelar Maligai.) It was in 1892 that a new building was constructed and occupied. Admiring this magnificent structure, poet Chenji Ekambara Mudaliar wrote an Alankara Sindhu in 1908. Here are a few lines from that Tamil poem: “Constructing with finesse A dome like Andaa’; Adding in next round Many ‘kudam’-like domes, Planting atop pot clones Leaving onlookers in total awe Gilding it all in tint golden And overwhelming eyes that behold…..”
Initially, that high court had jurisdiction only over the Presidency Town of Madras (what is currently Chennai). Later, when the British extended their territory almost throughout South India -- except in the princely states of Hyderabad, Mysore, Cochin and Travancore -- its jurisdiction was extended.
After a bombshell from the German Warship Emdon fell near the high court premises, the people of Madras city fled to distant places. The high court was no exception. One part of it was shifted to Coimbatore and another part went to function from Cuddapah. Even with time, the fear of war did not allow it to go to premises at George Town. It was housed in two buildings in Pondy Bazaar (T.Nagar). Surprisingly, one building, chosen to house the high court, was the present Holy Angels Convent. Since the P.W.D Engineers were apprehensive about the building not being able to hold the heavy wooden structures to make court halls, after some time, it was shifted back to the original abode.
The Telugu speaking people of Rayalaseema and Coastal Andhra areas were demanding a separate state. In view of this, the Madras High Court was bifurcated and the newly formed Andhra Pradesh High Court was initially located at Guntur (1953). Later, when the Hyderabad princely state got merged with Andhra Pradesh, the court that was established at Hyderabad came to be known as the High Court of Andhra Pradesh (1956). Unfortunately, the United Telugu areas were once again split into two states i.e. Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. By a constitutional amendment, the high court was renamed as the High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. Until the capital of Andhra Pradesh was established, both states were to have a common high court. However, the advocates and the judicial employees are now on a warpath, demanding the immediate establishment of a separate Telangana High Court.
After the States reorganization on a linguistic basis, many parts of the Madras Presidency went away to form Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Kerala. The Malayalam speaking areas were merged to form Kerala State which had its headquarters at Tiruvananthapuram. But the Travancore and Cochin High Court at Ernakulam was renamed as the Kerala High Court. When Karnataka state was formed, comprising of the areas in which the Kannada speaking people are living, and came to be named Karnataka State, its high court in Bangalore was called the Karnataka High Court. Mysore state earlier had the Mysore High Court.
Even while the Madras High Court was having jurisdiction over the territories held by then British India, the territories under the control of the other foreign powers, such as Pondicherry (now Puducherry), had different types of courts, adopting the French System of judicial administration. In 1962 the French-held Pondicherry territory was ceded to the Indian union and a Union Territory of Pondicherry was created. The Madras High Court was also given the jurisdiction over the union territory of Pondicherry (now Puducherry). Even after this newly conferred jurisdiction, certain power given under the charter is not applicable to those territories even today. For example, under the Guardian and Wards Act, no original petition can be filed on the original side of the high court by people who are living in the union territory of Puducherry whereas it can be done by people living in the Tamil Nadu area.
While the states of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Kerala have high courts in the name of their states right from 1956, ironically, Madras State was renamed as Tamil Nadu State only with effect from January 14, 1969. Thereafter too, the high court came to be called Madras High Court: it is only the seat of power and represented neither the territory nor its people.
Several demands have been made both by the people and by lawyers to rename the high court, but they were not acceptable to the judges of the Madras High Court. A section of the bar was also opposed to it. The then Law Minister informed the legislative assembly that the state lacked the jurisdiction to rename the high court and it had to be done through a constitutional amendment. The view expressed may not be correct. The Tamil Nadu Assembly has jurisdiction to amend the Letters Patent, under which the High Court was created, by the Queens Charter. It was amended by the Assembly several times.
In 1996, the name of the city of Madras was changed into Chennai by an Act passed by the Tamil Nadu Assembly. The Act mandated that wherever the term ‘Madras City’ was referred to it shall automatically stand renamed and called as Chennai City. Unfortunately, the Madras High Court continued to be called by its old name. There were other institutions like Madras Medical College and University of Madras which are till date continued to be called by their old names. The argument was that they are all known by the original name all over the world and it will be difficult for people in other countries to recognize them by the new name. This argument is only specious and does not stand to reason. The day when Madras became Chennai, all the international airlines started issuing tickets only in the name of Chennai. There were cases of passengers who were turned away from ticket counters when they sought a ticket to Madras since their computers did not register any city in the name of Madras.
The issue became more comical when a Madurai Bench was established in 2004. The Madurai Bench came to be called as “Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court”.
When there was pressure to rename the Bombay High Court since the city of Bombay was already rechristened as Mumbai, along with that request, now the Madras High Court is also expecting a name change through a constitutional amendment.
The amendment proposed by the Centre had received the nod of the President. Very soon we will have Chennai High Court in the place of Madras High Court. Though this new nomenclature is long overdue, still it does not satisfy the real requirement; that is, that the court should have been renamed “Tamil Nadu and Puducherry High Court”. That would have been the proper name to be given to the high court. It will indicate not only the name of the state and its people but also the geographical territory over which it has jurisdiction. It will also make sense since a Madurai Bench has been established, covering 13 southern districts in and around Madurai. Then legitimately, that Bench could be called as the Madurai Bench of the Tamil Nadu and Puducherry High Court and the High Court bench at Chennai can be called as the Principal Bench of the Tamil Nadu and Puducherry High Court. Is anyone listening?
— The writer is a Retd. Judge of the Madras High Court
Visit news.dtnext.in to explore our interactive epaper!
Download the DT Next app for more exciting features!
Click here for iOS
Click here for Android