Common High Court for Andhra Pradesh and Telangana?

Fresh oath not must as HC is common

Tamada Gopalakrishna

In my opinion, the existing judges of the Hyderabad High Court have a definite jurisdiction over the Andhra Pradesh and Telangana states since it has been notified as the common High Court for both the states on June 2.

Article 231 of the Constitution of India empowers Parliament to establish a common HC for two or more states or for two or more states and a Union Territory by law. After a plain reading of provisions related to establishment of a common High Court for both the states in the AP Reorganisation Act 2014, my understanding is that the date which was referred in Section 30 (1) and Section 40 (1) is the date on which a separate High Court for the residuary state of Andhra Pradesh will be notified.

Section 30 (1) of the Act specifies that “on and from the Appointed Day, the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad shall be the common HC  for the Telangana and the Andhra Pradesh till a separate High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh is constituted under Article 214 of the Constitution read with Section 31 of this Act. The judges of the High Court at Hyderabad for the existing State of Andhra Pradesh holding office immediately before the Appointed Day shall become on that day the judges of the common High Court”.

Similarly, Section 40 (1) of the Act specifies that “except as hereinafter provided, the High Court at Hyderabad shall, as from the date referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 30, have no jurisdiction in respect of the State of Andhra Pradesh”

According to my knowledge June 2, 2014 is the Appointed Day for the bifurcation of AP  into two states, not for the separation of the HC. In fact, it is also the notified date for the constitution of the common HC.

Once a separate HC is notified for AP, the jurisdiction of the judges of the Hyderabad  HC at will cease over AP. Till such a notification, the existing judges are to be treated as judges of the common High Court for both the states.

Section 31 (1) of the Acts states: “Subject to the provisions of section 30, there shall be a separate High Court for AP and the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad shall become the High Court for Telangana.”
The question of taking separate oaths to perform duties in a common HC does not arise as the existing High Court was notified as the common HC for all practical purposes till the notification to set up a separate High Court for AP.

A judge takes oath normally while taking charge and also when he is transferred from one court to another. In this case, the question of taking oath arises only after the constitution of a separate High Court and after reallocation of existing judges for both the courts. Once judges are allocated for both states, they can take oath at their respective HCs. After allocation of the judges for the Hyderabad High Court as well as the Andhra Pradesh High Court, they will have to take their oath at their respective High Courts.

Unconstitutional to not have new oaths

S Satyam Reddy

Judges in the Hyderabad High Court will not have jurisdiction to perform their duties unless until they take fresh oaths. Prior to 1956 there were separate High Courts for the Andhra Pradesh and Hyderabad states. When the AP High Court merged with the Hyderabad High Court and its nomenclature was changed to High Court Judicature at Hyderabad for Andhra Pradesh, all judges were administered oaths. Why shouldn’t the same principle be followed now?

As judges of “High Court of Andhra Pradesh”, are now functioning in the “High Court” with a different nomenclature without taking fresh oaths, it would tantamount to be unconstitutional . As the term of the Legislative Assembly of AP ended in June 2014, we had hoped that the central government would take steps to constitute separate HCs for both the states in accordance with Article 214 of the Constitution, but unfortunately it was not done.

As per my knowledge the date referred in the AP Reorganisation Act has to be treated as the notified date not only for the bifurcation of AP, but also the date for bifurcation of the High Court. Section 40 of the Act categorically states that from the date mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 40, the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad shall have “no jurisdiction” in respect of the State of Andhra Pradesh. Section 30 (1) of the Act states “on and from the Appointed Day”, which was notified by the Centre as June 2, 2014.

In the provisions under Chapter IV of the Act, which deals with the HC, there is no mention that the date of notification of a separate High Court will be the date when the jurisdiction of judges of the Hyderabad High Court will cease over AP. I am sure that the ambiguity which is prevailing now with regards to the date will lead to different interpretations and it was the duty of the Union of India to clarify the factual positions.

Even though Parliament has the power under Article 231 of the Constitution to establish a common HC for two or more states or for two or more states and a Union territory, the power has to be used cautiously. It was difficult to understand the policy of the rulers that when the Legislature and Executive wings were divided, why not the Judiciary? What was it necessity to continue as a common court?

I am of the opinion that it was either lack of ground realty or ulterior motives to keep the Judiciary under their control. Article 214 of the Constitution mandates that there shall be a High Court for each state and when the state of Telangana itself is being formed because of “suppression of Seemandhra people”, there was no justification whatsoever to have a common High Court for Telangana and the residuary state of Andhra Pradesh.