Need for the Multiple Supreme Courts
Context | 79,813 cases pending in supreme court.
CJI D.Y. Chandrachud announced his intent to create Constitution Benches of varied strengths as a permanent feature of the Court. |
||||||||||||||||
Source |
https://epaper.thehindu.com/reader
|
||||||||||||||||
UPSC Syllabus Relevance | Prelims: Indian Polity
Mains: GS 2: Indian Polity Structure, Organization and Functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary |
||||||||||||||||
Historical background of the supreme court |
a. Calcutta – 1774 b. Madras – 1800 c. Bombay – 1823
|
||||||||||||||||
Constitutional provisions |
|
||||||||||||||||
Number of judges in the supreme court:
The number may be increased by the parliament by law. |
è The number of judges will be increased based on the work burden. |
||||||||||||||||
Roster system in the supreme court | Roster system = method of allocating the cases among the judges
The present roster system came into force in 2018. The Roster master is the chief justice |
||||||||||||||||
Case allocation method in the New Roster system:
Note: Constitutional benches are constituted with judges in odd numbers from 5 – 7 – 9 – 11 – 13 etc.
|
Largest bench so far was a 13 judge bench constated in 1973 Keshava Anad Bharati case. |
||||||||||||||||
Days for case listing |
|
||||||||||||||||
Benches of the Chief Justice | Every constitutional bench must be headed by the CJI.
Other cases to be headed by the CJI include –
|
||||||||||||||||
Jurisdiction of the supreme court |
|
||||||||||||||||
Present work burden | The supreme court is taking up the following cases on a daily basis –
The list is only indicative but not exhaustive. Court is approached for every aspect of life and governance. |
||||||||||||||||
Number of Judgements given by the supreme court | In 2022:
Total judgements given : 1,263 Constitutional bench judgements: 4 è This is too low compared to number of pending cases. è Average number of judgements in the constitutional cases: 8 to 10. |
||||||||||||||||
Need for Division benches | First proposal:
10th law commission in March 1984 proposed that the Supreme Court be split into two divisions:
This idea was also supported by the Eleventh Law Commission (1988) |
||||||||||||||||
Need for National court of appeal:
|
The supreme court in Bihar Legal Support Society v. Chief Justice of India (1986)
It was “desirable” to establish a National Court of Appeal, that would be able to entertain special leave petitions. This would allow the Supreme Court to entertain only
|
||||||||||||||||
Need for Four Benches:
There will be total 5 Supreme courts – Court of appeal – 4 Constitutional court – 1 |
The 229th Law Commission Report (2009) recommended four regional benches to be located in
They would be the courts of appeal. They hear non – constitutional issues i.e. civil cases and criminal cases. They also act as the court of appeal. Six judges from each region at four regional benches take up appellate responsibility. Note: The existing supreme court in Delhi will be a constitutional court which deals with –
|
||||||||||||||||
Regional proximity is the basis of cases in the supreme court | In the present set up the supreme court is not approached by the people from all places in the country.
Most of the cases are from the states which have more proximity to Delhi.
Courts far away from the apex court had fewer appeals filed, due to both difficulties in accessibility and costs. |
||||||||||||||||
Advantages of establishing multiple supreme courts |
|
||||||||||||||||
Issues in establishing benches | The 2009 proposal of the national law commission was rejected by the supreme court on following grounds –
|
||||||||||||||||
Way forward |
|
||||||||||||||||
Conclusion | A Constitution Bench (V. Vasanth kumar v. H.C. Bhatia) is analysing these issues and contemplating measures to protect a citizen’s basic right to access the Supreme Court. Under the guidance of the CJI, there is an opportunity to address this structural gap in the Supreme Court by designating several of the court’s appeal benches as regional benches. | ||||||||||||||||
Mains Model Question |
|
||||||||||||||||
Model answer directions | Introduction:
Refer about the increasing pendency of the cases in supreme court. Main body:
Mention about the Law commission recommendations to revamp by constituting the benches of supreme court You may also refer about the proposal of CJI Chandra Chud Conclusion: Refer the V. Vasanth kumar v. H.C. Bhatia case |
||||||||||||||||
Model MCQ | Consider the following statements –
How many above statements are correct?
|
||||||||||||||||
Explanatory answer – | Answer – C
Statement 1 is correct:
Calcutta – 1774 Madras – 1800 Bombay – 1823 Statement 2 correct:
Statement 3 correct because:
|