High Court Bench demand in Rajasthan has long been a flashpoint for regional rivalries, with advocates from Udaipur, Jodhpur, and Bikaner locked in a long battle that continues to disrupt judicial proceedings and expose deep-seated inequities in access to justice.
Jaipur- The ongoing divisions among advocates in Rajasthan over the establishment of a new circuit bench for the Rajasthan High Court have once again brought judicial activities to a grinding halt in several key regions, highlighting deep-seated regional rivalries and long-standing demands for better access to justice. The Rajasthan High Court, with its principal seat in Jodhpur and a permanent bench in Jaipur, has been the focal point of these protests, as lawyers from different districts vie for the location of any new circuit or virtual bench. Recent speculations about the bench potentially being allocated to Bikaner have ignited fresh waves of discontent, particularly among advocates in Udaipur and Jodhpur, who have resorted to boycotts, strikes, and public demonstrations to voice their opposition. This issue is not new; it stems from a complex interplay of historical grievances, geographical challenges, and professional interests that have fractured the legal community in the state for decades.
At the heart of the controversy is the Udaipur Bar Association‘s persistent demand for a High Court bench in their region, a call that has echoed for the last four decades. Local media reports indicate that this agitation began intensifying around the early 1980s, rooted in the historical context of Rajasthan’s formation. Prior to India’s independence, the princely state of Mewar, with Udaipur as its capital, had its own High Court, which was merged into the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur post-1950. This merger left the tribal-dominated Mewar-Vagad belt, encompassing districts like Udaipur, Dungarpur, Banswara, Pratapgarh, Chittorgarh, Rajsamand, Bhilwara, and Bundi, without local judicial infrastructure, forcing litigants to travel hundreds of kilometers to Jodhpur.
The demand gained formal momentum in 1982 when the Mewar-Wagad High Court Bench Establishment Sangarsh Samiti organized a divisional conference of bar associations to push for a bench in Udaipur, citing the need for equitable access to justice in a region plagued by poor connectivity, inadequate transportation, and socio-economic backwardness. Over the years, this has evolved into a sustained movement, with lawyers arguing that the absence of a local bench exacerbates delays in civil and criminal cases, particularly affecting tribal communities such as the Bheel, Meena, Garasia, and Gameti, who face barriers in education, employment, and legal awareness. The justification is further bolstered by comparisons to other states: Karnataka, which is 56% the size of Rajasthan, has two High Court benches, while Maharashtra, at 90% of Rajasthan’s area, has three, underscoring the need for an additional bench in India’s largest state by area to serve its southern tribal belt.
The reasons why advocates in Rajasthan, particularly in Udaipur, are so vehemently protesting stem from a sense of historical injustice and practical hardships. Litigants from remote areas like Banswara or Dungarpur often endure arduous journeys to Jodhpur, with no direct train links since gauge conversions disrupted connectivity, leading to increased costs, time losses, and sometimes abandonment of cases altogether. This demand was revived prominently in 2013 when a group of lawyers approached the President of India and the Chief Justice of Rajasthan with a detailed memorandum, emphasizing that more than six decades had passed since the Udaipur High Court ceased functioning, and reviving it would address the backlog of cases in the region. By 2018, the agitation had escalated, with Udaipur lawyers threatening hunger strikes if their demands were ignored, even as political parties across the spectrum—Congress, BJP, and others—paid lip service without action. In August 2024, the issue reached the Rajya Sabha when Rajasthan MP Chunni Lal Garasiya raised the demand for a High Court bench in Udaipur, highlighting the ongoing neglect of the tribal areas. These protests are driven by a belief that a local bench would not only decongest the Jodhpur court but also foster regional development, reduce migration for livelihoods, and ensure speedy justice for vulnerable populations.
However, the divisions become stark when proposals for benches in other locations surface. In May 2018, when the state government formed a committee to explore a circuit bench in Udaipur, Jodhpur lawyers erupted in protest, viewing it as a threat to the principal seat’s authority. The Rajasthan High Court Advocates’ Association and the Rajasthan High Court Lawyers’ Association announced a one-day boycott of court work, with no advocates appearing in court, and submitted memorandums to high officials including the President, Prime Minister, and Chief Minister, demanding the committee’s dissolution. Their opposition was rooted in a long history of resistance; for instance, they have boycotted courts monthly since the Jaipur bench was established about 40 years ago, arguing that further fragmentation dilutes the High Court’s efficiency and prestige. A joint delegation even met Union ministers to press their case against the Udaipur proposal. This intra-community rift illustrates why advocates in Rajasthan are divided: while peripheral regions like Udaipur seek decentralization for accessibility, the Jodhpur bar prioritizes centralization to maintain workload and influence.
The tensions peaked again in 2023 and 2024 with announcements related to a virtual circuit bench in Bikaner. In August 2023, Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal’s declaration of a virtual-only bench in Bikaner was met with jubilation there but fierce opposition from Udaipur and Jodhpur. The District Bar Association in Udaipur called for abstention from work on August 21, 2023, and organized a procession to protest, arguing that the decision ignored their four-decade-long demand and the high caseload in the Mewar-Vagad region. Similarly, Jodhpur’s associations wrote to the Chief Justice of India and the Law Minister, urging a review, and also abstained from work. By March 2024, the discontent boiled over in Udaipur with a pen-down strike that halted judicial proceedings, as lawyers gathered at court premises to decry the Bikaner allocation. The then Bar Association President Bharat Joshi labeled it a “betrayal,” noting prior assurances from the Law Minister during Delhi meetings that the bench would come to Udaipur, only to be redirected elsewhere. He warned of continued strikes and renewed dialogues if demands weren’t met, emphasizing the region’s overwhelming civil and criminal case volumes that necessitate a local virtual bench.
These protests underscore broader reasons for unrest among Rajasthan’s advocates: the state’s vast geography creates unequal access to justice, with northern and western districts like Bikaner and Jodhpur better connected, while southern tribal areas lag. For Udaipur lawyers, the Bikaner speculation revives fears of perpetual marginalization, as their 40-year campaign, marked by conferences, memorandums, and strikes—has yielded no results despite political promises. Jodhpur advocates, meanwhile, protest to preserve the High Court’s unity, fearing that new benches could shift cases and reduce their prominence, a stance they’ve held since the Jaipur bench’s inception. Local media, have extensively covered these boycotts, noting how they disrupt court functioning and delay justice for thousands. In Jaipur, similar sentiments echoed in 2018, with lawyers boycotting work in solidarity against Udaipur’s demand, further exposing the statewide fractures.
The Law Minister’s announcements have only fueled the divide, as Udaipur sees it as a snub to their historical claims, while Jodhpur views any expansion as a threat. This impasse raises questions about federal intervention, as lawyers across Rajasthan continue to abstain from work, holding processions and threatening escalation, all in pursuit of a balanced judicial system that addresses regional disparities without eroding the High Court’s core structure. The ongoing saga reflects not just professional rivalries but the broader challenge of delivering justice in a diverse, expansive state like Rajasthan, where geography and history continue to shape legal battles off the courtroom floor.