Rename High Courts after their Jurisdictional States

The PIL lawyer and my friend Asok Pande (this is how he writes his name) from Lucknow has been campaigning for the change of name Allahabad High Court and redetermination of the territorial jurisdiction of Allahabad and Lucknow Bench of the High Court. His demands are absolutely logical, and the Parliament must take up this issue in all seriousness, not only with regard to the Allahabad High court but also about other High Courts to change their names so as to bring about consistency and uniformity.   There are three High Courts- Calcutta, Bombay and Madras, which are the chartered High Courts. In all only six High Courts, which are named after the cities and not after the states over which they have territorial jurisdictions. Allahabad, Patna, and Guwahati are the other three among the six.  Other 19High Courts are named after the states they exercise their territorial jurisdiction. Goa is, of course, an exception, which has a bench in Panjim but that

comes under the Bombay High Court. Punjab and Haryana High Court has its seat in Chandigarh, which is a Union territory. Why the names of the High Courts are not changed even after nearly 75 years of independence defies all logic. Why should the name of Allahabad High Court be not changed to Uttar Pradesh High Court shows the insensitivity of the politicians, who have ruled the state at various points of time, legal fraternity in particular and people in general. The name of Allahabad has rightly been changed to Prayagraj signifying the confluence of Ganga, Yamuna and invisible Saraswati. The name of AllahabadHigh Court was given in 1919 by the King of England. Earlier from 1866 to 1919, it was known as the High Court of North-Western Provinces. High Court of Oudhhaving its seat in Lucknow was merged in 1948 after the state of   Uttar Pradesh was created. Way back in1964 when Kesav Singh’s case was referred to the Supreme Court by the President of India under Article 143 of the Constitution to delineate the powers of the assembly and the High Court, theSupreme Court had used the ‘High Court of UttarPradesh’ at least eleven times in its judgment. Our intent here is not to discuss KesavSingh’s case but why should it not be called the High Court of Uttar Pradesh is certainly very ridiculous? In paragraph after paragraph, the High Court of Uttar Pradesh has found its echo. It reverberates in paragraph 14 (1) (2) and (4). Similarly, in paragraphs, 134 (1), (2), (3) and 4,209, 211 and 218, the High Court of UttarPradesh has been mentioned. However, to be fair, the Supreme Court has also mentioned at many places the Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court. Therefore, while at the time of removing the anomaly of the skewed jurisdiction of Allahabad and Lucknow, the Parliament must carry out the changes in the names of the High Courts so as to have no anachronism. Judges and lawyers can also, do it on their own as the High Court of Uttar Pradesh has got judicial sanctity from the Supreme Court of India.