The establishment of new courts often faces opposition from lawyers, but as the primary purpose of courts is to serve litigants and ensure access to justice, resistance by lawyers to relocation is unjustified and untenable, observed the bench of Chief Justice of India(CJI) B R Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran.

The court made these observations while dismissing a Special Leave Petition by an advocate who challenged the relocation of VI Additional District and Sessions Court to Andhra Pradesh.

While declining to intervene, the CJI orally observed that there exists a tendency among lawyers to resist the establishment of new courts. He remarked,

“Whenever a new court is established, the lawyers always oppose. Courts are not only for lawyers; they are basically for litigants. We are talking about justice at doorsteps, gram nyayalayas… then all this.”

Facts:

The petition, initially filed before the Andhra Pradesh High Court by the Machilipatnam Bar Association, questioned the administrative decision of shifting the court. The High Court had rejected the plea, prompting the petitioner to escalate the matter before the apex court.

In its earlier order, the Andhra Pradesh High Court acknowledged that while the relocation may inconvenience advocates practicing at Machilipatnam, the broader interest of litigants from Avanigadda would be served. The Court noted that easier access to the court would benefit those who would otherwise have to travel significant distances to attend hearings.

The High Court had held:

“The justice dispensation system exists for the benefit of litigants, whose convenience and concerns weigh with the higher judiciary in taking decisions, including the decision regarding the shifting of the Court.”

Following their refusal to entertain the Special Leave Petition, the petitioner withdrew the plea.

Case Title: Buragadda Ashok Kumar v. The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh