Skip to main content

Lucknow Bench - Historical Necessity

This is the third post of the series 'LegalTrek'. The last post was about, how Allahabad High Court was established and this post is about why there is a bench of the Allahabad High Court at Lucknow.
Lucknow Bech Allahabad High Court - courtesy Allahabad High Court official website

How I Became A Lawyer।। Allahabad High Court Is Born।। Lucknow Bench - Historical Necessity।।

Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court
At present,  a Bench of the Allahabad High Court also sits at Lucknow. There are historical reasons for the same.

Oudh came under British suzerainty in 1856. At that time, regulations could be made for the three presidency towns but there was no power to frame regulations for the newly acquired territories. The Governor General in Council, with his seat in Calcutta, started governing them in his executive capacity. They came to be known as ‘Non-Regulation territory’. Oudh also became one such territory.

A judicial commissioner's court was established in Oudh in 1856. It was its highest court. In 1902, Oudh and the North-Western Provinces were merged in one Province, known as the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh, but the judicial administration remained separate. The Commissioner's court continued to be the highest court in Oudh.

The status of the Commissioner's court was raised to Oudh Chief Court by the Oudh Court Act of 1925.  It always sat at Lucknow. It was merged with the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on July 26, 1948 by United Provinces High Court (Amalgamation) Order, 1948. At that time it was thought proper that it should continue to sit at Lucknow. This is the reason for the Bench at Lucknow.

MC Setalvad was the first Attorney General and the first Chairman of the Law Commission. He has given his opinion about benches of the High Courts in his fourth and fourteenth reports. He has also talked about Lucknow bench in his autobiography 'My Life: Law and Other Things'. In the next few posts, we will talk about his view on the Lucknow bench, my views on the benches of the courts and some good auto/biographies from the legal world.

#AllahabadHighCourt #LucknowBench
Allahabad High Court


Popular posts from this blog


Two areas are close to my heart, namely uniform civil code and population control. I had drafted bills in late 1990's before I was  offered judgeship. The bills were distributed in the Parliament at that time but before they could be introduced (whether as a bill from the public or as a private member bill) the Parliament was dissolved. 
The Central government has asked the Law Commission to examine the issue of implementing the  Uniform Civil Code in detail and submit a report. I thought of publishing the bill relating to Uniform Civil Code that I had drafted.


Sometime ago, there were headlines in the newspaper 'Night Drama that did not succeed'. Here is the story of a night drama that succeeded. 
Kalyan Singh was the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh and Romesh Bhandari was the Governor. He,  illegally dismissed the Kalyan Singh Government on 21st February, 1998.  A writ petition was filed the smae night and he was reinstated. This is the only time that the a deposed head of a State was pput back in saddle by the court. Here is the account of the same. 
The writ petition at the Allahabad High Court was filed by Dr. NKS Gaur, an MLA from Allahabad North and Minister of Higher Education in UP, but for the sake of convenience, the case is referred as 'the Kalyan-Singh case'.  
During my tenure as a judge, it has been matter of speculation/ complaint how I became Additional Advocate General and why was this case entrusted to me. This is explained in Appendix-I to this article. In order to complete the picture, Romesh Bhandari's …


Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees right to the life and liberty. Right to move to the court to enforce Article 21 was suspended under Article 359 of the Constitution during internal emergency (1975-77). Soon a question arose if, in such a situation, a writ of Habeas Corpus is maintainable? ADM Jabalpur Vs Shiv Kant Shukla AIR 1976 SC 1207 : (1976)2 scc 521: 1976 UJ (SC) 610: 1976 Cr LR (SC) 303: 1976 CrL J 1945 (SC) (the Habeas Corpus case) dealt with this question. This article, written 20 years after the aforesaid case was decided, narrates about the incidents, lawyers and judges connected with that case and what has happened to them.
‘The time has come’ The Walrus said ‘To talk of many things:
Of shoes and ships and sealing wax-
Of cabbages - and kings-
And why the sea is boiling hot-
And whether pigs have wings’ Through the Looking Glass; Lewis Carroll