The Delhi High Court in the case Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union Of India And Others observed and has refused to entertain a plea moved by Lawyer and BJP leader Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, wherein the plea seek directions for the Law Commission of India to prepare a comprehensive report on ‘Uniform Judicial Code’ in order to make judicial terms, abbreviations, case records and the process of case registration uniform across high courts.
The division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Yashwant Varma in the case observed and has asked Upadhyay wherein seeking clarification in respect of an order passed by the Supreme Court, which the court had dismissed in a similar petition moved by Upadhyay as withdrawn.
The Supreme Court in its order stated that the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner prays for the liberty in order to withdraw the plea. Thus, the court dismissed as withdraw.
It has also been stated by the bench headed by Chief Justice Sharma that the Apex Court had dismissed the plea filed by him and he also seek a clarification on the order.
Therefore, it has been attempted by the Upadhyay to persuade the court to hear the petition. Thus, it has also been stated by Chief Justice that this court also understand little English and you seek clarification.
Further, the court in the case withdrawn the PIL moved by Upadhyay, wherein the court granted him liberty to seek clarification of the order of Apex Court.
The petition filed also seek for constitution of an Expert Committee for the preparation of the report in consultation with other High Courts.
However, it has been stated in the plea that the injury to citizens being extremely large because the court fees sought for similar matters and that of the similar valuation in different States under the jurisdiction of different high courts are also different. The said court also noted that the judicial equality being the matter of constitutional right, its differentiation being based on the jurisdiction of courts violating the Right to Equality enshrined as it has been stated under Article 14 and Article 15 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, the court also promotes regionalism, hence it being a clear violation of Article 14 and Article 15 of the Constitution of India.
It has also been stated in the plea that the terminology used by different High Courts for different types of cases are not uniform wherein it causes inconvenience not just to the general public but also to the authorities and the advocates.
The petition filed before the court stated that it being not just the terms which are used by them in order to refer to the same types of cases which being different but even the abbreviations are being used to refer these terms are different in case and the same term is being used. Further, the court observed that the same being inexplicable as to why there is difference in the terminologies, procedure, court fees etc.
