Regional benches of Supreme Court: Need of the hour

The Chief Justice of India and the Supreme Court judges say, time and again that doors of the Supreme Court are open to the common man. But unfortunately this proves to be a mere lip sympathy. In reality, going to Supreme Court is nightmarish. The reason is that the victim goes to the Supreme Court only after he has spent time, money and energy in subordinate courts and the High Court. A citizen therefore prefers to endure injustice in silence

The judicial process involves procedural wrangles involved in filing a petition in the Supreme Court, complicated and technical hearing process, frequent adjournments and the consequent inevitability of appointing a lawyer with his hefty fee. This is a travesty of the concept of rule of law and welfare state, and that too after seventy-five years of independence.

There has therefore been a demand for years for establishment of at least four benches of the Supreme Court in the country. The demand is however not yet met. The Circuit Bench of the Bombay High Court was recently set up in Kolhapur to make it easier for the citizen to get access to justice. So, for this very reason, should the benches of the Supreme Court be also not set up in other parts of the country?

Stance of government and SC

But there are no signs of this demand being met in the near future. The reason is that on 5/12/2025, in reply to a question in the Lok Sabha, the Minister of Law and Justice of the Government of India stated that article 130 of the Constitution provides that the Supreme Court shall sit at Delhi or at such other place as the Chief Justice of India may from time to time appoint with the approval of the President. Representations have been received from various quarters for the establishment of such benches.

The Eleventh Law Commission, in its 125th Report submitted in 1988, reiterated the recommendation made by the Tenth Law Commission in its 95th Report. It recommended that the Supreme Court should be divided into two parts: a Constitutional Court at Delhi (which would hear petitions relating to constitutional matters) and a Court of Appeal with benches to be located in North, South, East, West and Central India. The eighteenth Law Commission in 2009 had also made similar recommendation. The Minister also informed that the matter was referred to the Chief Justice of India, who informed that the full court in a meeting on 18th February 2010 did not find any justifiable reason for setting up benches outside Delhi. The Chief Justice of India had earlier expressed a similar view in August 2007 also. While deciding Writ Petition No. 36/2016 on the issue of establishment of National Appellate Court in July 2016, the Supreme Court had said that it would be appropriate to refer the matter to the Constitution Bench for an authoritative opinion. The matter is still pending before the Supreme Court. 

The Standing Committees of Parliament had also recommended the establishment of such benches in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2008. In 2021, a delegation of senior officials of the Bar Councils of five southern states had met the then Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana and the then Vice President of India M. Venkaiah Naidu and submitted a memorandum for the creation of a benches. 

Rajya Sabha member and senior advocate P Wilson had written to Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad in December 2020, requesting the government to introduce a bill to amend the Constitution for establishment of regional benches. Mr. Prasad had then replied that due to constitutional obstacles and the pending petitions related to the National Appellate Court in the Supreme Court, regional benches of the Supreme Court cannot be established. The Attorney General of India had also been consulted from time to time and he was also opposed to this idea.

Private member bill

Mr. Wilson had then introduced a private bill in July 2021 for the purpose but the fate of the bill also found its way to cold storage. It was stated in support of the bill that under Article 39 (directive principles of state policy) it is a fundamental duty of the state to strive to ensure that no citizen is denied access to justice by reason of economic or other disabilities. The harsh reality is that the access to the Supreme Court under Article 32 for the enforcement of fundamental rights is currently limited only to those geographically close to the Supreme Court or to citizens of Delhi and those who are financially well-off. A person with meagre means is left without an appeal remedy. The benches are therefore necessary to ensure that justice reaches every corner of the country and the faith of the people in judiciary is strengthened. 

Nationwide debate

Technology has developed so much today that even without keeping constitutional matters confined to Delhi four benches in four major parts of the country that will hear all types of petitions may be set up. Remote working has now become a regular feature. There will be some expenditure involved in this but as this would be in the long term interest of the country there should no objection to it. A very modest dose of taxation for a limited period of time and the defrayal of the revenue collected under Supreme Court supervision may also be considered, if felt absolutely necessary.

The pending petition in the Supreme Court should also be decided soon. The general public will then, at least, know what the objections of the Supreme Court are. The court has given its opinion in 2010 and it is quite sometime now. The Supreme Court which always expects transparency from legislature and executive should make its objections known transparently. At the same time, civil society and political parties should initiate a nationwide debate and request Chief Justice of India to take a decision or request the government to initiate the process of amendment to constitution. It is true that this will not eliminate all the problems of the litigants it will, at least, reduce the difficulties in approaching the Supreme Court to a little extent. 

END OF ARTICLE