High Court relocation is Chief Justice’s call, not state government’s: Assam Advocate General

Amid growing protests and opposition over the proposed foundation stone laying of the Gauhati High Court at Rangmahal, Assam Advocate General Debajit Lon Saikia on Saturday, January 10, dismissed allegations of unilateral government action, asserting that the decision to relocate the High Court is entirely within the constitutional authority of the Chief Justice and not driven by political considerations.

Addressing a press conference, Saikia said the debate surrounding the relocation of the Gauhati High Court has been ongoing for the past three to four years, with divergent views emerging from different sections. While some stakeholders have supported the move, others have continued to oppose it, he noted.

The Advocate General clarified that the relocation process was initiated during the tenure of then Chief Justice Sandeep Mehta. He recalled that in October–November 2022, discussions were limited to shifting the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) Court to Boragaon. A formal decision in this regard was taken on November 25, 2022, and until that point, no proposal existed to relocate the Gauhati High Court itself.

At the time, Saikia said, the Bar Council had expressed concerns only about shifting a single court, warning that such a move would cause inconvenience. However, the Bar Council had made it clear that it would not object if all courts were relocated to a single, consolidated complex.

Highlighting infrastructural constraints, the Advocate General said the strength of judges at the Gauhati High Court has risen from 19 to 30, intensifying concerns over security and accommodation. At present, only seven official quarters are available, forcing judges to reside in private flats, raising serious safety issues.

He also drew attention to the lack of basic amenities, particularly for women. “There are no proper seating or dining facilities. Even the Chief Minister has publicly acknowledged that these deficiencies existed during his years of legal practice, well before 2001,” Saikia said.

Parking remains another critical challenge, he added, pointing out that with nearly 1,000 practicing advocates, the absence of parking facilities has compelled many lawyers to operate their chambers from their vehicles. The canteen infrastructure is inadequate, and there is no auditorium within the existing premises, he said.

Saikia noted that opposition to relocation has remained unchanged among those who initially objected, despite repeated explanations and consultations. He further revealed that the official residence of the Chief Justice has been declared a heritage building by the Assam Government, and in 2023, Chief Justice Sandeep Mehta had formally requested appropriate action in this regard.

Rejecting claims that the Assam Government is dictating the relocation, the Advocate General said such assertions are a “gross misinterpretation of facts.” “The High Court does not function at the will of the state government. On the contrary, it is the institution that points out the government’s mistakes when required,” he asserted.

Issuing a direct message to protesters, Saikia said, “If the protestors wish to approach the court, they are free to do so. I openly invite them.” He accused sections of the opposition of misinterpreting legal provisions, including the Gauhati High Court Rules of 1971.

He clarified that Presidential assent would only be required if, in the future, an outlying bench—such as one in Dibrugarh—were to be established. Allegations that the relocation violates the 1971 rules are misleading, he said, adding that High Court relocations have taken place in several states across the country.

Despite decades of membership, many advocates still lack basic seating facilities, Saikia observed. Reflecting on his personal connection to the issue, he said, “I was born in Uzanbazar. If required, I should have protested earlier.”

The Advocate General categorically ruled out any political gain from shifting the High Court to Rangmahal and addressed concerns over land acquisition, stating that many individuals claiming displacement have already accepted compensation.

He also revealed that during the tenure of former Chief Justice Biplab Kumar Sharma, the Bar Association was invited for discussions on the issue but chose not to participate. Warning against misinformation, Saikia said, “People cannot mislead others with false narratives for long.”

On the legitimacy of opposition within the Bar, he noted that out of nearly 5,000 Bar Association members, only 1,664 participated in the voting process. He concluded by clarifying that approval from the Bar Association is not mandatory for relocation; only the consent of the Governor of Assam is legally required.