The hand of history often hangs heavy on certain institutions. The High Court of Calcutta is one such institution. Its origins give to the Calcutta High Court twin responsibilities. It is, of course, as its name indicates, a court of appeal. It also functions as a lower court for cases pertaining to certain parts of the city of Calcutta. This is called its “original’’ side. The name itself suggests that at the time of its origin, it served both as an appellate court and a lower court (within a given jurisdiction). The latter responsibility has not been taken away from the Calcutta High Court and also from the high courts of Bombay and Madras. This means that the judges of the Calcutta High Court (as well as those in the other two cities) have to listen to cases that have come up on appeal from the lower courts as well as to cases that have come up for the first hearing. The judges thus have to carry out two very different kinds of responsibility. This twin responsibility increases the workload of the judges and delays the process of justice. This is a situation that is crying out to be remedied.

The problem does not appear to be as complicated as it is sometimes made out to be. The Calcutta High Court should only be a court of appeal. This can be done by taking away from it what is called its “original’’ side. The only reason for retaining the “original’’ side is that historically it has been part of the Calcutta High Court. History is not logic and neither is it always convenient. It is possible for all the cases that are now heard in the “original’’ side to be heard in the lower courts that already exist in Calcutta. Or, if need be, a separate court can be set up to listen to the cases that now fall within the jurisdiction of the “original’’ side of the Calcutta High Court. This should not be an outlandish suggestion since already cases below a certain value are no longer heard in the “original’’ side, even though they were at one time. One of the persistent — and many would say justified — criticisms of the Indian legal system is about the time taken to have a case disposed of. The wheels of justice turn but they do so in their own time and the latter, often, has no relationship to real time. By taking away the “original’’ side, matters in the appellate side will be speeded up as judges will have more time to hear them. The “original’’ side belongs to history. Let it remain there.