Recently, a Bill was moved in Parliament to change the names of the three Charter High Courts of Bombay, Calcutta and Madras to Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai. The only reason given is that there was a request made by the State governments for this purpose. One would have thought that with so many problems facing the judiciary, the issue of least concern would be the names of these high courts.
The futility of name change Professor Northcote Parkinson famously wrote that the time spent on a particular problem is inversely proportional to its importance. When numerous issues require urgent amendments to various statutes, it is indeed surprising that a Bill to change the name of the high courts should be a matter of priority. A common feature of all governments is the obsession with changing the names of cities to their original vernacular name. It is incomprehensible as to why the name of Bangalore should be changed to Bengaluru when the entire world and, indeed, the Indian nation has known this city by its earlier name. What has been achieved by this and other similar changes made in other cities and towns? Has it resulted in the slightest improvement of living standards in these cities? There is no justification for this except short-sighted jingoism.
Arvind P. Datar, N. L. Rajah Ironically, it appears that even the change of name from Madras to Chennai may not be justified. Was the earlier name of Madras ‘Chennaipattinam’ or ‘Medraspattam’? There is enough prima facie historical record to establish that the area where Francis Day and Andrew Cogan originally landed was called “Medraspattam”. In terms of sequence of events, there first existed a Medraspattam, then came Fort St. George and, thereafter, Chennaipattinam. This theory gains greater acceptance when we examine the firman (a written permission granted by an appropriate authority) by Damarla Venkatapathy Nayak, the local chieftain, to Francis Day, a translation of which states, “… Wee, out of our spetiall love and favour to the English, doe grant unto the said Captain, or whomsoever shall bee deputed to idgitate the affairs of that Company by vertue of their (this) Firman, power to direct and order the building of a fort and castle in or about Medraspatam.” Three original and contemporaneous copies of the grant itself are preserved at the India Office in London. One does not know what similar research into the origins of Calcutta and Bombay would reveal.
A defective Bill at the outset Apart from the fact that the change of name is unnecessary, the proposed Bill is also defective because it fails to amend the Letters Patent by which these three Charter High Courts were created in 1861 and later in 1865. A full Bench of the Bombay High Court has held that the Letters Patent represent “existing law” under Article 366(10) of the Constitution and have as much statutory force as any other Act of Parliament. The present Bill merely seeks to change the names of these three high courts without any attempt to amend the Letters Patent.
Apart from this serious defect, it is also not proper to rename the Madras High Court as Chennai High Court. Earlier, the Madras High Court was the high court which had jurisdiction over Madras Presidency, as did the Bombay and Calcutta High Courts over their respective presidencies. Today, the Madras High Court has jurisdiction over Tamil Nadu and Puducherry (another name change!). Therefore, if this unnecessary and unproductive proposal to change the name has to be implemented, the name must be changed so that it indicates that the jurisdiction extends not only to the State of Tamil Nadu but also to the Union Territory of Puducherry. Similarly, the Bombay High Court has jurisdiction over Goa and must called the High Court of Maharashtra and Goa. Another difficulty is that the Bombay High Court has Benches at Nagpur and Aurangabad and calling it merely Mumbai High Court would be wholly inappropriate. The Madras High Court also has a Bench at Madurai.
Enquiries by the authors at the Madras High Court registry have revealed that in recent times no resolution has been passed at any Madras High Court full court meeting accepting the name change proposal of the Union Government.
The names of the three high courts are known across the world and several of their earlier judgments have been read with admiration. Changing their name is bound to create confusion amongst judges, lawyers and legal scholars throughout the world. The authorities have sensibly decided not to change the name of the University of Madras; Madras Medical College; Madras Institute of Technology; and Indian Institute of Technology, Madras. This is because these great institutions are known throughout the world and changing their name is bound to be unproductive. Apart from resulting in a waste of money and administrative effort, what is shocking is the utter un-necessity of such a change.
It is sincerely hoped that, at the very least, this Bill is referred to a Select Committee of Parliament. It is not merely sufficient to get the views of the State government; they must also have adequate feedback from the respective high court associations. Recently, the judges of the Calcutta High Court turned down the proposal to change the name to Kolkata High Court. Indeed, it is best that the old names, which have existed for over 150 years, continue.
Arvind P. Datar and N.L. Rajah are Senior Advocates at the Madras High Court.
