Kolhapur Designated as Additional Place of Sitting of Bombay High Court; Supreme Court Upholds Notification

A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria heard a writ petition under Article 32 challenging an administrative notification (No. P.0108/2025 dated 01.08.2025) issued by the Bombay High Court appointing Kolhapur as a place at which the Judges and Division Courts of the High Court may sit. The petition, filed by Ranjeet Baburao Nimbalkar, questioned the validity of exercise of power under Section 51(3) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 and sought quashing of the notification and restraint on High Court sittings at Kolhapur.

The Court dismissed the petition and upheld the impugned notification, holding that Section 51(3) vests an independent and continuing power in the Chief Justice toappoint additional places of sitting, subject only to the Governor’s approval, and that such appointments do not effect a territorial bifurcation of the High Court. The Court emphasised that judicial review of such administrative choices is limited to whether the action was intra vires, bona fide and free from mala fides or extraneous considerations, and that policy disagreements did not warrant interference. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “25. It is clear upon the terms of Section 51 of the Act that undoubtedly the President has the power under sub-section (1) to appoint the principal seat of the High Court for a new State. Likewise, the power of the President under sub-section (2) thereof, ‘after consultation with the Governor of a new State and the Chief Justice of the High Court for that State, pertains to the establishment of a permanent Bench or Benches of that High Court of a new State at one or more places within the State other than the place where the principal seat of the High Court is located and for any matters connected therewith’ clearly confer power on the President to define the territorial jurisdiction of the permanent Bench in relation to the principal seat as also for the conferment of exclusive jurisdiction to such permanent Bench to hear cases arising in districts falling within its jurisdiction. The creation of a permanent Bench under sub-section (2) of Section 51 of the Act must therefore bring about a territorial bifurcation of the High Court. Under sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of Section 51 of the Act the President has to act on the advice of the Council of Ministers as ordained by Article 74(1) of the Constitution. In both the matters the decision lies with the Central Government. In contrast, the power of the Chief Justice to appoint under sub-section (3) of Section 51 of the Act the sittings of the Judges and Division Courts of the High Court for a new State at places other than the place of the principal seat or the permanent Bench is in the unquestioned domain of the Chief Justice, the only condition being that he must act with the approval of the Governor. It is basically an internal matter pertaining to the High Court. He has full-power, authority and jurisdiction in the matter of allocation of business of the High Court which flows not only from the provision contained in sub-section (3) of Section 51 of the Act but inheres in him in the very nature of things. The opinion of the Chief Justice to appoint the seat of the High Court for a new State at a place other than the principal seat under sub-section (3) of Section 51 of the Act must therefore normally prevail because it is for the more convenient transaction of judicial business. The non obstante clause contained in sub-section (3) of Section 51 gives an overriding effect to the power of the Chief Justice. There is no territorial bifurcation of the Bombay High Court merely because the Chief Justice by the impugned notification issued under sub-section (3) of Section 51 of the Act directed that the Judges and Division Courts shall also sit at Aurangabad. The Judges and Division Courts at Aurangabad are part of the same High Court as those at the principal seat at Bombay and they exercise jurisdiction as Judges of the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad. The Chief Justice acted within the scope of his powers. We see no substance in the charge that the impugned notification issued by the Chief Justice under sub-section (3) of Section 51 of the Act was a colourable exercise of power.”

Background The petition arose after the Bombay High Court, with the Governor’s approval on 30.07.2025, issued Notification No. P.0108/2025 dated 01.08.2025 and made the Kolhapur arrangement operational from 18.08.2025. Petitioner's counsel, Senior Advocate Balbir Singh, argued that Section 51(3) was intended only for temporary exigencies and could not be used to create an effectively permanent sitting, that adequate internal consultation and Full Court deliberation had not taken place, and that choice of Kolhapur over other claimants (Pune, Solapur) offended Articles 14 and 21. He relied on Federation of Bar Associations in Karnataka and past committee reports rejecting additional Benches. Respondents, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, AOR Sandeep Deshmukh and State counsel Shrirang Varma, defended the administrative act, relied on State of Maharashtra v. Narayan Shamrao Puranik and other authorities, and submitted that Section 51(3) is an independent source of continuing power for the Chief Justice to organise sittings “for the more convenient transaction of judicial business.” The Supreme Court examined the statutory text of Section 51, relevant precedents (including Puranik, Federation of Bar Associations, State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand, and Karnataka bench decisions), and held that sub-section (3) does not effect territorial bifurcation, that internal consultation, while desirable, was not a statutory requirement under sub‑section (3), and that administrative reconsideration over time is permissible. The petition was dismissed; the Court recorded that the Union Government’s power under Section 51(2) remained available.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 1460 (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 914 of 2025) Case Title: Ranjeet Baburao Nimbalkar v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Shri Balbir Singh, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Shri Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General of India; Shri Sandeep Deshmukh, Advocate-on-Record (for High Court administration); Shri Shrirang Varma, Advocate (for State of Maharashtra)