Is it time to establish SC's regional benches or court of appeals?

It is argued that as the apex court is situated in Delhi, people from far-flung areas are not able to travel to Delhi to seek justice

In July this year, a group of Bar leaders from Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu met Chief Justice of India N V Ramana, demanding setting up a regional bench in south India. An RTI query with the CJI's office, a month later, failed to elicit any information on action taken by the head of the judiciary to fulfil the long-pending demand to ensure access to justice.

It has been argued that setting up regional benches would reduce the backlog of cases. Currently, the poor and the weaker sections of society find it difficult to travel long distances to pursue their legal remedies. Besides, exorbitant fees of lawyers and language barriers also come as major impediments.

Indian Supreme Court was established on January 28, 1950. Earlier, it was called as Federal Court of India, established by the Government of India Act, 1935. It was the highest court that used to hear appeals from the high courts. During the British Rule, the Supreme Court functioned from Madras, Calcutta and Bombay. Subsequently, with the enactment of the Indian High Courts Act, 1861, these courts were declared as high courts.

Also Read | SC stays criminal proceedings against retired Chief Engineer in disproportionate assets case

The Supreme Court initially started with the Chief Justice and seven other judges. However, with time, owing to the increasing number of cases, the strength of judges was periodically raised by Parliament. At present, the SC has a sanctioned strength of 34 judges, including the Chief Justice. Apart from taking up Constitutional issues, including the validity of laws, it also decides cases related to criminal matters, property disputes and dismissal of temporary employees etc.

As a result, as many as 69,922 cases are pending as of October 1, 2021. Of these, 37 five-judge Constitution bench, seven seven-judge and five nine-judge cases are awaiting final adjudication with the SC devoting most of its time to other matters by assigning them to regular two or three judges bench.

According to Article 130 of the Constitution, the Chief Justice can decide in consultation with the President, that is the Union government, on setting up regional benches. However, thus far, no Chief Justice has taken a call on the issue.

It is due to this, DMK MP and senior advocate P Wilson decided to introduce a private member Bill.

Also Read | Accident claim tribunal not bound to go by FIR in deciding compensation: SC

"It is a long-pending demand as the SC is far away situated in Delhi, litigants, particularly of economically weaker sections and oppressed class, are deprived of getting justice from the last court. Article 130 has not been invoked by any Chief Justice. So I am asking for an amendment to the Article by the Parliament to set up permanent benches at Delhi, Calcutta, Mumbai and Chennai, and the existing SC can function as a Constitutional court," he said.

Former Additional Solicitor General Sidharth Luthra says as time progresses, the SC will not be able to tackle an increasing number of litigations. Two options are setting up an intermediate court of appeals between the high courts and the SC or establish regional benches.

In the past, 95th Law Commission in its report on March 1, 1984, recommended for division of the SC into constitutional and legal parts. In 1988 too, it favoured splitting the apex court. Again in 2009, the panel in its 229th report suggested setting up four SC benches, in Delhi, Kolkata, Chennai and Mumbai. It said the constitutional issues and routine matters can be decided at the Delhi bench, while other regular matters can be handled at regional benches. It also cited the system prevalent in other countries like Italy, Egypt, Portugal, Ireland, the United States and Denmark.

Also Read | Lawyers can't disrupt court proceedings, put clients interest in jeopardy: SC

Numerous Parliament Standing Committee reports, the latest one of March 16, 2021, also favoured for setting up regional benches as people from far-flung and remote areas are not able to travel to the national capital seeking justice due to various reasons.

In 2019, Vice President M Venkaiah Naidu also suggested the same.

Article 39A of the Constitution also enjoins the state to promote justice, based on an equal opportunity, and to ensure that it is not denied because of economic or other disabilities.

However, no serious effort was made at the political level, though Congress made a pitch for it in its manifesto in the last Lok Sabha polls. The Union government has said the matter should be decided by the Supreme Court, which had on July 13, 2016, referred a PIL by V Vasanthkumar, for adjudication before a Constitution bench.

Also Read | Schools can recover fees from defaulting parents: SC

However, senior advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani feels regional benches will dilute the prestige and importance of the top court and the word 'Supreme' will lose its significance.

"Besides huge cost on infrastructure and manpower, multiple benches will result in a cacophony of voices with no consensus or binding principles," she claims.

"Access to technology, not regional benches, is the answer," she maintains, citing transformation brought in through virtual hearings due to the pandemic.

Watch the latest DH Videos here: