The Delhi High Court in the case Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union Of India observed wherein the public interest litigation was filed by the BJP leader Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, wherein seeking directions for the Law Commission of India in order to prepare for comprehensive report on ‘Uniform Judicial Code’ for making the Judicial terms, the abbreviations, the case records and the process of case registration uniform across the High Court.
The court also observed that in an alternative, it has also been seek by the Upadhyay for constitution of an Expert Committee for preparation of the report in consultation with other High Courts.
The petition filed states that the injury of citizens is extremely large because the court fees seek for similar matters and that of similar valuation in different States under the jurisdiction of different high courts are also different. The court in the said case also noted that judicial equality is a matter of constitutional right, the differentiation of it is being based on the jurisdiction of courts wherein violating the Right to Equality enshrined as stated under Article 14 and Article 15 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, it also promotes the regionalism and the same being the clear violation of Article 14 and Article 15 of the Constitution of India.
Further, the respondent in the Public Interest Litigation are the Union of India through the ministries of Law And Justice, the Home Affairs and Finance; Law Commission of India and Registrar General of the High Court.
It has also been submitted in the petition filed that the terminology being used by the different High Courts for different types of cases are not uniform wherein causing inconvenience not just to the general public but also causing inconvenience to the advocates and authorities.
Adding to it, the petition filed stated that not just the terms used by them to refer to the same types of cases are different but also the abbreviations used to refer to these terms are different in case wherein the court used the same term. Thus, the same being inexplicable as to why there being a difference in terminologies, procedure, the court fees etc. within the courts, wherein all the governed by the same laws, have the same jurisdiction in order to deal with the same types of cases. The court highlighted the common terminologies to bring out the drastic difference.
