Keywords; Chief Justice, Criminal Appeal, First Appeal, Full Bench, High Court
STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS
I
Act 5 of 1962.- Consequent upon the abolition of the High Court of the former State of
Mysore by section 50 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, and the establishment of a new
High Court for the new State, sections 52, 54 and 57 of that Act govern the jurisdiction, practice
and procedure and the powers of judges, of the new High Court. Under section 52, the High
Court has, in respect of the different areas of the State such original, appellate or other
jurisdiction, which under the laws in force before 1st November 1956, the High Courts of Bombay,
Hyderabad, Madras and Mysore had in the areas concerned. By virtue of section 54, the
provisions of the Mysore High Court Act, 1884, are applicable in respect of the practice and
procedure in relation to the High Court of the new State, and by virtue of section 57, the
provisions of the said Act are applicable in respect of the powers of the Chief Justice, single
Judges and Division Courts and matters ancillary to the exercise of those powers. Under section
69 of the States Reorganisation Act, the provisions referred to above will have effect subject to
any provision that may be made with respect to the High Court by any Legislature or other
authority having power to make such provision.
The Government of India have suggested the enactment of a law by the State Legislature so
that the State High Court can exercise the same powers and jurisdiction in respect of the whole of
the new State. Accordingly the Bill has been prepared in consultation with the High Court. The
recommendations of the Law Commission have also been considered.
Provision has been made in the Bill specifying the cases to be heard by a Single Judge and by
a Bench of two Judges. In respect of decisions of a Single Judge in the exercise of original
jurisdiction, an appeal to a Bench of two Judges has been provided for. At present all Criminal
Appeals are being heard by a Bench of two Judges, and this has resulted in considerable delay in
2
the disposal of such appeals. Provision has therefore been made in Clause 5, for criminal
appeals from judgments in which no sentence of death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for
a period exceeding seven years, is passed against any accused, being heard by a single Judge.
By virtue of Clause 6 all Second Appeals will be heard by a single Judge. It is considered
necessary to make specific provision relating to disposal of urgent work of the High Court during
vacation. Clause 12 makes provision for this.
(Obtained from File No. LAW 126 LGN 58)
II
Amending Act 20 of 1969.—Section 3 of the Mysore High Court Act, 1961, provides that the
High Court should have a Registrar and as many Deputy Registrars as may be determined by the
Government in consultation with the High Court. The High Court has recommended that provision
may be made for appointment of Additional Registrars, Joint Registrars and Assistant Registrars.
Since these officers have to exercise statutory functions that may be assigned to them by the
Hon’ble the Chief Justice under the High Court Rules, it is necessary to amend the Act suitably.
Hence this Bill.
(Published in the Karnataka Gazette (Extraordinary) Part IV-2A, dated 23rd August 1969 as
No. 414 at page. 3)
III
Amending Act 12 of 1973.—At present all applications under clause (1) of article 226 and
articles 227 and 228 of the Constitution of India are dealt with by a Bench of two Judges. In the
High Courts of Kerala, Madras, Nagpur, Allahabad, Delhi, Calcutta, Andhra Pradesh and
Bombay, such applications are dealt with by a single Judge and a right of appeal is given to the
aggrieved party and such appeals are dealt with by a Bench of two Judges. The Law Ministers’
Conference held in 1957 and 1960 was also of the view that such applications should be dealt
with by a single Judge with a right of appeal to a Bench of two Judges. The Law Commission in
its Fourteenth Report Vol. II while considering the question has stated with particular reference to
Madras that such a procedure has yielded satisfactory results. As the principles governing the
disposal of Writ Petitions and connected matters have been now sufficiently clarified by the
decisions of different High Courts and the Supreme Court, it is considered desirable to empower
a single Judge to deal with applications under clause (1) of article 226 (except where the prayer is
for the issue of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus) and applications under articles 227 and 228
of the Constitution of India with a right of appeal to a Bench of two Judges. It is also considered
that this procedure may result in more expeditious disposal of such applications, and also provide
a right of appeal to the aggrieved party whose right to approach the Supreme Court is very much
restricted in view of the Constitution (Thirtieth) Amendment.
Hence the Bill.
(Published in the Karnataka Gazette (Extraordinary) Part IV-2A dated 2nd May 1973 as
No.432 at page. 4)
IV
Amending Act 13 of 1980.—City Civil Courts are functioning in the Metropolitan Cities of
Bombay, Madras, Calcutta, Hyderabad and Ahmedabad. The High Court is of the opinion that a
City Civil Court on the pattern of the City Civil Courts functioning in the other cities above-named
may be constituted for the City of Bangalore also. When such a City Civil Court is constituted, the
Sessions Judge will deal exclusively with criminal work and the supervision of the work of the.
DISCLAIMER: This document is being furnished to you for your information by Blinkvisa. The contents of this document have been obtained from sources Blinkvisa believes to be reliable. These contents have not been independently verified, and PRS makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy, completeness or correctness. In some cases the Principal Act and/or Amendment Act may not be available. Principal Acts may or may not include subsequent amendments. For authoritative text, please contact the relevant state department concerned or refer to the latest government publication or the gazette notification. Any person using this material should take their own professional and legal advice before acting on any information contained in this document. Blinkvisa or any persons connected with it do not accept any liability arising from the use of this document. Blinkvisa or any persons connected with it shall not be in any way responsible for any loss, damage, or distress to any person on account of any action taken or not taken on the basis of this document.
