A case for decentralising justice

Establishing regional benches of the Supreme Court can cut backlog and make justice more equitable

Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah has reignited the demand for a southern bench of the Supreme Court, bringing the issue of equitable access back into focus. Speaking in the presence of the Chief Justice of India, he argued that such a move would bring justice within the reach of lakhs who are effectively excluded by distance and cost.

The demand is not new and is anchored in the Constitution itself. While Article 130 recognises Delhi as the Court’s permanent seat, it also empowers the Chief Justice, with presidential approval, to designate “such other place or places” for sittings.

The case for reform is strengthened by the Court’s mounting burden. With over 92,000 cases pending as of March 2026, according to the National Judicial Data Grid, the strain is evident.

The 18th Law Commission offered a pragmatic solution: establish four cassation benches in Delhi, Chennai/Hyderabad, Kolkata, and Mumbai to handle routine appellate work, leaving the principal bench in Delhi to focus on constitutional questions. This would rationalise the Court’s functioning without diluting its authority. However, resistance persists, driven by institutional anxiety.

Concerns about conflicting judgments and about preserving the Supreme Court’s character as a singular national pillar have repeatedly stalled progress. These apprehensions, while not entirely unfounded, are overstated. Mechanisms such as larger benches and binding precedents already exist to address inconsistencies.

The greater risk lies in retaining a structure that keeps vast sections of citizens at the margins of the justice system. Appeals against High Court verdicts from the northern region contribute a disproportionately large share, while southern states, despite comparable litigation volumes, account for far fewer. Distance has created a structural barrier: travel costs, repeated hearings, and engaging specialised counsel in Delhi deter litigants. As the Law Commission has observed, for many, justice becomes a mirage.

This inequity has long been flagged by the All India Lawyers' Union. It argues that low appeal rates from southern High Courts do not necessarily indicate acceptance of judgments but rather an inability to challenge them. For instance, if around one lakh cases are disposed of by the Madras High Court, barely 9,000 are challenged. When geography dictates access to the apex court, the promise of equal justice stands compromised.

Siddaramaiah’s demand, then, is not a regional plea but a constitutional reminder. Decentralising the Supreme Court’s appellate function is not about diminishing its majesty; it is about restoring its reach. In a vast and diverse republic, justice must not depend on one’s distance from Delhi.