Recently, it was reported to the Lok Sabha by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice that its suggestion for the creation of Supreme Court regional benches throughout India has been approved by the Law Ministry. However, it pointed out that the apex court has been “consistently” rejecting the idea and that the matter is sub judice.
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS:
Article 130 states that the Supreme Court shall sit in Delhi or in such other place or places, as the Chief Justice of India may, with the approval of the President, from time to time, appoint.
This article provides a constitutional basis for the possibility of establishing regional benches by suggesting that the Supreme Court is not bound to sit only in Delhi.
LAW COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Eighteenth Law Commission of India, in its 229th Report (2009), recommended establishing a Constitution Bench in Delhi to address constitutional matters, alongside four regional Cassation Benches in Delhi, Chennai/Hyderabad, Kolkata, and Mumbai.
These measures aimed to decentralize the appellate process, enhance the Supreme Court's accessibility, and alleviate its caseload by segregating constitutional cases from other appellate work originating from High Court judgments across various regions.
The concept of Cassation Benches draws inspiration from the Courts of Cassation found in many countries, which serve as courts of last resort for non-constitutional disputes and appeals, with the authority to annul or reverse decisions of lower courts.
RECOMMENDATIONS OF STANDING COMMITTEES OF PARLIAMENT:
The Standing Committees of the Indian Parliament, recognizing the challenges of the Supreme Court's centralization in New Delhi, recommended establishing regional Benches across India in 2004, 2005, and 2006 to make the Court more accessible nationwide.
In 2008, they proposed a trial Bench in Chennai to evaluate the effectiveness of a decentralized judicial approach.
ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF REGIONAL BENCHES OF THE SUPREME COURT
Access to justice for all citizens:
Article 39A of the Indian Constitution emphasises the state's responsibility to ensure access to justice for all citizens, irrespective of economic or other disabilities. The proposals for regional benches and the division of the Supreme Court align with this constitutional mandate by seeking to make the legal system more accessible and equitable.
Geographical bias:
A 2011 study by legal scholar Nick Robinson revealed a geographical bias in the Supreme Court's case load, with a majority originating from High Courts near Delhi. Establishing regional benches could mitigate this bias by improving access to justice for people living far from Delhi.
Litigant Burden:
Regional Supreme Court benches would drastically cut down the travel time, expenses, and logistical difficulties for litigants, especially those from remote areas like South or North-East India, making justice more accessible and reducing the overall burden on them.
Example of Federal Systems:
Countries with vast territories like the United States have multiple federal appellate courts spread across the country, ensuring that justice is accessible and not centralized in one location.
Case Backlog Reduction:
With the decentralization provided by regional benches, the Supreme Court could handle cases more efficiently, potentially reducing the backlog that has been a perennial problem.
For instance, as of the beginning of 2023, the Supreme Court of Indiahad over 70,000 cases pending.
Democratization of the Supreme Court Bar:
The establishment of regional Supreme Court benches is argued to democratize the Bar, creating greater opportunities for lawyers from various regions.
For example, the division of the Tis Hazari Court's jurisdiction into distinct district courts (Saket, Rohini, and Karkardooma) enhanced opportunities for young judges and contributed to the development of a vibrant legal community across different regions.
The Supreme Court itself has historically been opposed to these ideas, citing concerns about diluting the Court's prestige and the practical difficulties in implementing such a significant structural change.
The centralization of the Supreme Court in Delhi is seen by some as a unifying factor for the judicial system, ensuring uniformity in legal interpretation and maintaining the Court's status as the apex judicial authority in India.
Dilution of Jurisprudential Consistency:
Regional benches could lead to inconsistencies in legal interpretations, undermining the Supreme Court's role in ensuring uniformity across India's legal system. For instance, different benches might deliver conflicting judgments on similar matters, complicating the legal landscape.
Resource Allocation and Infrastructure:
Establishing regional benches would require significant investment in infrastructure and human resources, potentially diverting attention and resources from other critical areas of the judicial system.
Frivolous Petitions:
There are arguments that establishing regional benches could lead to a surge in frivolous petitions due to increased access to justice.
WAY FORWARD:
Hybrid approach:
It is suggested that the Supreme Court implement a hybrid approach to hearings, conducting preliminary and admission stages virtually while reserving in-person sessions for final hearings, to improve accessibility and efficiency in case processing.
Division of the Supreme Court into Two Divisions:
The Tenth (95th Report,1984) and Eleventh Law(125th Report, 1988) Commissions recommended splitting the Supreme Court into Constitutional and Legal Divisions to focus on constitutional matters and streamline other legal appeals, aiming to enhance the Court's efficiency and tackle its backlog.
Enhancing Judicial Efficiency:
Addressing judicial vacancies promptly, upgrading judicial infrastructure, and streamlining judicial processes are critical steps.
The proposal for an All-India Judicial Service could be revisited as a means to attract talented law graduates, ensuring a high quality of judicial appointments across the board.
Enhancing legal education and awareness among the citizens can also play a pivotal role in ensuring justice is accessible. Educating the public about their rights and the judicial process could lead to more informed litigants and potentially reduce frivolous litigation.
Public Interest Litigations (PILs) and Legal Aid:
Strengthening the framework for PILs and legal aid can ensure that the marginalized and economically disadvantaged sections of society have a voice in the judiciary. This could involve simplifying the process for filing PILs and expanding the scope and reach of legal aid services.
Case Scrutiny Mechanism:
Implementing a robust mechanism for scrutinizing the types of petitions admitted by the Supreme Court could prevent the influx of frivolous litigation. Transfer petitions and arbitral appeals, for instance, could be redirected to the respective High Courts, reserving the Supreme Court's bandwidth for cases of broader legal or constitutional significance.
Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) Mechanism:
To manage the Supreme Court's case load effectively, a stringent admission mechanism for Special Leave Petitions (SLPs), requiring High Court certification to indicate their national importance, could streamline the case load to focus on significant constitutional matters.
Special Leave Petitions (SLPs), under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution, empower the Supreme Court to hear appeals against judgments from any lower court or tribunal, providing a discretionary avenue to review cases.
CONCLUSION:
The debate around establishing regional Supreme Court benches highlights the urgent need to tackle case backlog and enhance judicial efficiency in India. Addressing this requires a thorough evaluation of constitutional, logistical, and financial factors, alongside consensus from the judiciary, government, and legal fraternity. Given the resistance and challenges in creating regional benches, adopting virtual hearings presents a feasible alternative, substantially lowering the barriers for litigants from distant regions and making access to the Supreme Court more equitable.
PRACTICE QUESTION:
Q. There has been a rising debate on the demand for regional benches of the Supreme Court. In this context, discuss the arguments in favour of regional benches of the Supreme Court. Also analyse the concerns and challenges associated with the establishment of regional benches. (15 marks, 250 words)
