Context: Recently, the Union Territory of Puducherry aspires to have a separate high court for itself. 
Background of demand of separate high court

• In 1962, when Puducherry was merged with India, the jurisdiction of the Madras High Court was extended to it. 
• In April 2017, the Pondicherry Bar Association had also passed a resolution seeking the establishment of the High Court.
• In 2017, the legislature of Puducherry unanimously resolved to have its own High Court, and the Madras High Court was also informed regarding this.
• In 2019, Chief Minister of Puducherry had said that “a Bench of the Madras High Court at Puducherry on the lines of the one set up in Madurai” was a felt need and sought the support of judges of the Supreme Court.

Reasons for need of such establishment
Exorbitant sums of money paid for the expenses of the larger court

• The Puducherry government currently spends exorbitant sums of money towards expenses of the larger Madras High Court. 
• With not much of a population, this amount can be reduced to less than a quarter of the amount spent with a much smaller High Court for Puducherry.

Breaching of constitutional provisions

• Administrative expenses: According to the Constitution, when a common HC is established for more than one State, this has to be paid only from the consolidated fund of the ‘State’ in which the principal seat of the High Court is situated.
• But Puducherry shares the disproportionately exorbitant expenses with Tamil Nadu.
• Also, administrative expenses of a High Court at the UT shall be drawn from the ‘Consolidated fund of India’ under the Constitution.

For quick action on pendencey

• A Puducherry HC with four to five judges can ensure quick action on pendency of matters of the HC matters, at least at Puducherry.
• All India Judges Association And Others vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors: The Supreme Court observed that the time has now come for protecting one of the pillars of the Constitution, namely, the judicial system, by directing increase, in the first instance, in the Judge strength from the existing ratio of 10.5 or 13 per 10 lakhs people to 50 Judges for 10 lakh people.
• It was also discussed in the Law Commission of India Report titled‘Arrears and Backlog: Creating Additional Judicial (wo)manpower’, in 2014.

Increasing ratio of judges

• As of 2016, the ratio is only 12 judges for one million population.
• It can be increased if a separate High Court with four to five judges is established.

A data comparison
Size of population and territory is irrelevant

• The number of cases filed and disposed of at Puducherry in 2010 is four times higher than the numbers at Sikkim, Manipur and Goa (with High Courts) put together.
• Bigger States have more judges and staff whereas smaller States have lesser numbers of these.
• Therefore, the size of the population and territory is irrelevant for Puducherry.

Hardships of travel

• The exercise of safeguarding fundamental rights involves travel, time and expenses.
• Several people often cite that litigants from western districts travel the long distance to Chennai.

No solution by creating a regional bench

• Even a Bench of the Madras High Court as against a separate High Court at Puducherry is unfavorable. This is because, 

1. Puducherry will still have to share the expenses of such a large High Court; 
2. Judges also might not prefer shuttling between Benches at Chennai, Puducherry, and Madurai frequently.

Constitutional provisions

• The Constitution permits Puducherry to have its own High Court under Article 241.
• The presence of the Constitutional Court in the capital city will also act as a check on the executive and legislature.

Article 241: High Courts for Union territories

• Parliament may by law constitute a High Court for a Union territory or declare any court in any such territory to be a High Court for all or any of the purposes of this Constitution.

Aiding Statehood demand

• Constitutional provision: It enabled establishment of a legislature and Council of Ministers for certain Union Territories with the intent of providing them Statehood gradually.

Under Article 293A

• Out of the seven UT originally placed all except Puducherry were granted Statehood by 1989.
• Most UT under 239A at least had Benches of High Courts when they attained Statehood.
• Tripura, Manipur, Meghalaya had Benches of the Gauhati High Court before they got their own High Courts.
• Interestingly, the Delhi High Court was established in 1966 before Delhi got its legislature in 1993.

Road Ahead

• In March 2016, the Government of India had suggested that the establishment of a High Court will be taken up if the Puducherry government proposes the idea. However, the decision of the Puducherry legislature has still not been conveyed to the Central government.
• The Puducherry government should now form a committee to prepare a comprehensive report and a draft Bill backing its proposal and forward it to the Central government.
• In this the nominated Lieutenant Governor and the elected Chief Minister must work in tandem.