The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently dismissed a writ petition challenging the government’s order to shift the VI Additional District Sessions Court from Machilipatnam to Avanigadda. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati ruled that the move was in the best interests of litigants, prioritizing their convenience over that of advocates.
“Litigants from Avanigadda will no longer have to travel 35 km to Machilipatnam to attend hearings. The justice system is meant to serve litigants first, and their convenience is paramount in such decisions.”
While acknowledging the inconvenience this shift might cause advocates in Machilipatnam, the court emphasized that the legal profession is a noble one, where the primary duty is to serve justice rather than prioritize personal convenience.
Read Also:- Andhra Pradesh High Court: Witness Deposing for Himself and Others with Common Defence Cannot Be Rejected
Background of the Case
The writ petition was filed by the Machilipatnam Bar Association, challenging Government Order G.O. Rt. No.124, issued by the Law (L & LA) (Home-Courts.A) Department. The order mandated the relocation of the VI Additional District Sessions Court to Avanigadda, including all cases within its jurisdiction and the staff attached to it.
The petitioners raised multiple concerns, including:
- The court handled senior citizens' cases, and shifting it would inconvenience them.
- Instead of relocating, the government should have established a new court in Avanigadda.
- Avanigadda is prone to flooding, making it unsuitable for a court.
- The move would negatively impact local advocates in Machilipatnam.
The respondents, including the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the Principal District and Sessions Judge of Krishna District, defended the decision, stating that it was made solely to ease the burden on litigants from Avanigadda and nearby mandals.
Read Also:- Andhra Pradesh HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Sexual Harassment Case, Citing Investigation Needs
After hearing arguments from both sides, the court made the following key observations:
Prioritizing Litigants’ Convenience:
- The decision was taken after considering that litigants from seven mandals—Nagayalanka, Koduru, Avanigadda, Mopidevi, Challapalli, Ghantasala, and Movva—faced difficulties in traveling to Machilipatnam for hearings.
- As of December 2022, nearly 490 cases from these regions were pending, which had increased to 615 by the time of the hearing.
Alternative Arrangements for Senior Citizens:
- The court dismissed concerns about senior citizens, clarifying that such cases would now be handled by the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge’s Court in Machilipatnam.
Flood Risk Not a Major Concern:
- Petitioners argued that Avanigadda's flood-prone nature made it unsuitable.
- The court rejected this claim, citing government records indicating that the last major flood in the region occurred over 45 years ago.
Advocates’ Concerns Are Secondary:
- While acknowledging that Machilipatnam-based advocates would now need to travel to Avanigadda, the court held that the legal profession’s primary role is to ensure justice.
- “Advocacy is a noble profession, where financial interests and personal convenience should take a backseat to the fundamental objective of delivering justice.”
Judge-to-Population Ratio Concerns:
- The court agreed that India faces an issue with a low judge-to-population ratio.
- However, until long-term solutions are implemented, short-term measures—such as shifting courts for efficiency—must be accepted.
