Guwahati: A major rift has emerged between the Gauhati High Court Bar Association (GHCBA) and the Gauhati High Court administration over the proposed relocation of the High Court and the establishment of a sprawling judicial township.
On Monday, the GHCBA issued a strong rejoinder to a recent clarification released by the High Court on April 3, strongly contesting its assertions and labeling the statement as “factually incorrect” and “misleading.”
Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!
The High Court’s statement earlier in the week had sought to dispel allegations of unilateral decision-making in the relocation proposal.
The court maintained that discussions regarding the development of a consolidated judicial campus had been ongoing since 2022, implying a degree of consultation and deliberation.
However, the Gauhati High Court Bar Association has presented a starkly contrasting narrative.
Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!
A formal statement released by the GHCBA explicitly quoted their November 2022 resolution, emphasizing that it “categorically opposed the temporary shifting of the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court Establishment, Kamrup (M), and emphasised that any decision regarding the shifting of the court, including High Court, must be taken only after consulting the Bar…”
This assertion directly contradicts the High Court’s claim that the Bar Association had initiated the concept of a consolidated campus.
Kamal Nayan Choudhury, president of the GHCBA, raised serious questions about the rationale behind the proposed relocation.
He pointed out the relatively recent inauguration of the current High Court establishment in 2014, implying that the existing infrastructure is still modern and functional.
Choudhury further stated unequivocally that “No one from the Bar has demanded a judicial township,” suggesting that the impetus for this large-scale project originated elsewhere.
Choudhury also voiced the Bar Association’s suspicion regarding the decision-making process. “We believe the decision was taken in consultation with the government, but the Bar has been kept in the dark,” he stated.
He also highlighted a perceived lack of transparency and inclusivity in such a significant matter affecting the legal community.
Furthermore, the timing of the High Court’s press release has also come under scrutiny. GHCBA president Choudhury noted that the statement was issued just as the Bar Association was contemplating legal action to challenge the relocation proposal.
“We were in the process of considering a petition to challenge the proposal. The statement appears to be a response to that possibility,” he suggested, implying that the court’s clarification might be a preemptive measure to counter potential legal challenges.
In its earlier statement, the High Court had provided a timeline and justification for the proposed judicial township.
According to the court, the idea of consolidating judicial infrastructure gained traction following the Bar Association’s purported recommendation.
Subsequently, the Full Court, comprising the Chief Justice and other judges, resolved to explore modern infrastructure solutions to address the increasing number of judges, lawyers, and litigants, as well as to leverage advancements in legal technology.