The Karnataka High Court has issued notice to the State government in response to a public interest litigation filed by the Udupi Bar Association challenging a proposal to relocate a First Additional Civil and Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Court from Udupi to Brahmavar. The petition, lodged by the Bar Association through its president, contends that the decision to shift the court is not only arbitrary but runs counter to a previously approved plan to construct a separate court complex in Brahmavar, and would deprive residents and legal practitioners in Udupi of essential access to justice.
The petitioner points out that in 2022, the State’s Law Department approved the establishment of a new, independent court complex at Brahmavar to relieve the burden on courts in Udupi. However, instead of implementing that plan, authorities decided to relocate the existing JMFC Court from Udupi to Brahmavar. According to the Bar Association, this move defies the original intention of providing additional court infrastructure in Brahmavar while preserving the Udupi courts, and would lead to significant hardship for litigants and lawyers dependent on the Udupi venue for civil and criminal adjudication.
During the hearing, a Division Bench comprised of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha considered the preliminary submissions and directed that the State, along with the Registrar General of the High Court, the Law Department, and the Finance Department, file a response. The bench expressed the view that relocation of a court must be undertaken with careful regard to access, equity, and the expectations of affected stakeholders. The Court fixed the next hearing for January 9, 2026.
By seeking the State’s stand on the matter, the High Court aims to scrutinize whether the shift is backed by valid reasons, whether the relocation undermines judicial accessibility in Udupi, and whether it is consistent with the government's prior commitments. The petition raises concerns about the potential disruption to existing cases, increased inconvenience in travel and costs to litigants, and the possibility of over-burdening the relocated court or diluting services.
The notice reflects the judiciary's recognition that infrastructure decisions impacting courts must balance administrative plans with the principle of access to justice. It underscores that decisions to reallocate courts cannot be unilateral or opaque, but must withstand judicial scrutiny when challenged. The forthcoming response from the State and subsequent judicial examination will determine whether the proposed shift will proceed, or whether the Udupi court’s status will be preserved.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.