Chief Justice’s Power Under Section 51(3) Is Independent and Continuing: Supreme Court Upholds Kolhapur Bench Notification

“There Is No Territorial Bifurcation Merely Because High Court Sits at Multiple Places” – In a landmark decision delivered on December 18, 2025, the Supreme Court emphatically upheld the constitutional and statutory validity of the Bombay High Court’s administrative notification dated 01.08.2025 designating Kolhapur as an additional place of sitting under Section 51(3) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, rejecting the petitioner’s contention that such a step amounts to indirectly establishing a permanent Bench without a Presidential Order.

The Constitution Bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria dismissed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 914 of 2025, filed under Article 32 by Ranjeet Baburao Nimbalkar, who had challenged the legality of the High Court’s decision, alleging that the impugned notification was a colourable exercise of power and suffered from legal infirmities. The Court, however, held:

“Section 51(3) confers an independent and continuing power on the Chief Justice to appoint additional places of sitting, subject only to the approval of the Governor. It does not amount to territorial bifurcation, nor does it require approval of the President under Section 51(2).”

“Judicial Administration Is Not Static, It Must Respond to Evolving Needs of Access to Justice” – Court Stresses Functional Nature of Power Under Section 51(3)

Addressing the core legal issue, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that the power under Section 51(3) is merely temporary or supplementary. The Court observed that:

“Section 51(3) opens with a non obstante clause and authorises the Chief Justice to appoint such other places for High Court sittings as may be necessary. The statute does not restrict its duration or nature. The emphasis is on convenience, not permanence.”

Reaffirming its precedent in State of Maharashtra v. Narayan Shamrao Puranik, the Bench clarified that a High Court sitting under Section 51(3) continues to function as part of the same unified High Court and does not require territorial bifurcation, which is a requirement under Section 51(2) only when a permanent Bench with exclusive territorial jurisdiction is contemplated.

Chief Justice’s Administrative Authority Reaffirmed: “Primacy in Matters of Court Sittings Lies with Chief Justice”

No Requirement for Full Court Approval Under Section 51(3), Internal Deliberations Are Desirable But Not Mandatory

Rejecting the petitioner’s contention that the Chief Justice could not act unilaterally without consulting the Full Court, the Supreme Court held:

“Section 51(3) does not mandate consultation with the Full Court. The Chief Justice is the constitutional head of the High Court, and such decisions fall within his exclusive administrative domain.”

The Court relied on settled principles laid down in State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand and Federation of Bar Associations in Karnataka, observing that:

“The Chief Justice’s administrative decision, once backed by the Governor’s approval, cannot be challenged unless it is vitiated by mala fides, extraneous considerations, or manifest illegality.”

While acknowledging that consultative processes enhance institutional wisdom, the Court made it clear that:

“Sound institutional practice does not acquire the force of legal compulsion unless the statute so provides.”

Past Administrative Denials Do Not Create Estoppel: “Every Chief Justice Exercises Administrative Authority Based on Contemporary Realities”

The petitioner had argued that earlier decisions taken in 1996, 1997, 2006, and 2018 by various committees had rejected the demand for a Kolhapur bench, and hence the 2025 decision was arbitrary and inconsistent. The Court dismissed this argument as legally untenable, stating:

“Administrative decisions are contextual. They do not have binding finality and may evolve over time. Change in circumstances, public demand, litigation volume, and infrastructural feasibility can all justify revisiting earlier positions.”

The Court further stated:

“There is no estoppel against a statutory power unless the exercise is shown to be mala fide or in breach of legal mandate.”

Judicial Review of Chief Justice’s Administrative Powers Is Limited: “Court Will Not Sit in Appeal Over Institutional Decisions”

The Court reiterated the limited scope of judicial review in administrative matters relating to judicial administration. Referring to the long-settled principle that courts should not substitute their wisdom for that of the administrative head of a court, the Bench noted:

“Judicial review is confined to the decision-making process, not the merits. Courts will interfere only if the action is ultra vires, mala fide, irrational or arbitrary. Mere policy disagreement does not invite judicial intervention.”

No such infirmity was shown in the present case.

No Violation of Article 14 or Article 21: “Kolhapur Sitting Enhances Access to Justice, Rationally Chosen Based on Regional Needs”

On the constitutional challenge under Article 14, alleging that selection of Kolhapur was arbitrary and discriminatory, the Court responded:

“Equality under Article 14 does not mean identical treatment in every case. Decisions like these are based on objective factors such as volume of litigation, distance from the principal seat, and feasibility. All regions need not be considered simultaneously.”

Further, on the Article 21 challenge, the petitioner argued that diverting judicial resources from district courts to High Court benches harms access to justice. The Court firmly rejected this, observing:

“Access to justice under Article 21 includes physical accessibility. Holding High Court sittings closer to litigants, especially in distant districts like Kolhapur, advances rather than impairs that right.”

Citing Anita Kushwaha v. Pushap Sudan, the Court reaffirmed that justice must be not only available but also realistically accessible.

Notification Valid, Challenge Dismissed, Clarification on Section 51(3) Issued

Concluding the judgment, the Court summarized:

“The power under Section 51(3) is distinct, continuing and independent. It does not require Presidential sanction. The Union Government remains free to exercise its powers under Section 51(2), but its inaction or silence does not affect the Chief Justice’s statutory authority.”

Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that:

“The impugned notification dated 01.08.2025 satisfies all legal parameters. It is not vitiated by illegality or unconstitutionality.”

Date of Decision: December 18, 2025