The Law Commission recommended the setting up of four benches of the Supreme Court in Delhi, Madras or Hyderabad, Calcutta and Bombay. But the attorney-general Goolam E. Vahanvati has advised the UPA government against it, saying that in a federal set-up, the apex court must be in the nation’s capital.
If regional benches of the SC are set up, he says, the selection of judges for these benches too would have to be done on a regional basis “which will destroy the integral character of the SC”. The chief justice of India, K.G. Balakrishnan, has said the setting up of benches could lead to the “disintegration” of the SC’s authority.
The Union law minister Veerappa Moily has concurred with the AG’s advice.
In this sea of consensus, the former SC judge V.R. Krishna Iyer has hurled a small pebble, arguing that “those who say don’t disturb Delhi’s dignity or claim access to the lordly Supreme Court,” are flagrantly flouting the shared vision for a socialist democratic republic.
“Pity that socialism is abhorrent for our law officers. People will deal with them justly and make the Supreme Court for Indians since we are in a democracy which, by definition, is government by and for the people. Solidarity and monopoly of power in Delhi has an imperialist flavour and socialist allergy. Even judges are bound by the socialist Constitution. Whatever touches us all should be decided by all.”
Questions: Should SC benches should be set? Or not? Will it result in “disintegration” or will it decrease the distance? Will the benches become a political football between competing States? Are courts about socialism, or justice? And, to take Justice Krishna Iyer’s judicial socialist theory forward, is any State wrong in not claiming an SC bench on its soil?
Neither “dignity and unity” of court nor “people’s court” even hit upon the real issues facing the Court when setting up more benches.
A study conducted by Nicholas Robinson has shown that a larger percentage of cases are appealed from the Delhi High Court than any other High Court in the country simply because it is convenient for litigants in delhi to approach the Supreme Court to take “one more shot”. This is true for High Courts in Punjab, Haryana, UP, Uttarakhand and other north Indian states.
http://www.frontlineonnet.com/stories/20100212270304600.htm
With the Supreme Court already burdened by a massive backlog of over 50,000 cases setting up more Benches will add to the backlog without solving the problems of access.
The Supreme Court is almost exclusively dominated by three sorts of litigants; the Government, the rich (including corporates) and the middle class. Of these, the bulk of the matters involve the first two, and a smaller, but significant number of the latter.
Unless it is an egregious breach of human rights, which can only be solved by going to the Supreme Court (rights violations by the Government), the poor must not be encouraged to try and litigate their problems away.
Even efforts by the Court to make it easier for the poor to approach it for human rights violations have been taken over by the middle class to air middle class grievances and take up the Court’s time over issues like land zoning in the city and demolition of illegal buildings.
Litigating a matter is an expensive and time consuming affair, and must be the last course of action and not the first.
throw theoretical nonsense in the dustbin and think in real tangible terms like scale. 120 crore people.
somebody should ask the judiciary. given all that we know about it, in real measurable terms like number of pending cases etc. how can they justify status quo?
what nonsense is this about regionalism? if that is such a concern why not make a tamil ineligible for the bench in madras, a bengali in kolkatta a marathi in mumbai and so on?
SC_Lawyer,
Then the solution would be to move Delhi HC to Puducherry.
Here is a shocking figure. A competent “supreme court Lawyer” charges between Rs.10,000 to a few lakhs per appearance in Supreme Court. There is no specialty in becoming a supreme court lawyer – You should have some 5 years of experience and write an exam to be empanneled as an advocate on Record.
All Delhi lawyers have the flexibility to become ‘supreme court lawyers’. But, most South advocates do not – due to sheer distance. This is patently unfair.
By spreading the Supreme court benchs across India, you can increase competition among talented lawyers thus you can bring down lawyer fee. This will also make it convenient and affordable for citizens to appeal.
Purpose of judicial system is to make it easy for Citizens to avail justice, and is not for some judges and lawyers to sit on an ivory tower.
Here is the other reality. In most cases (other than ones with constitutional implication), most of the hardwork is done by the lower court lawyers. Anyone who knows the appeals process knows that a high-court and supreme court lawyers have it easier than lower court lawyers as all the facts of the case would’ve been brought out by them.
It is just their fees that increases in higher tier courts.. This should change.
@tsubba
Access to courts is not the same as access to justice.
What this measure will do is just increase access to courts without improving access to justice.
To improve access to justice, first reduce the backlog, make the high courts more efficient and train lawyers better.
@NAWN
It is not the absolute numbers but the percentage of cases being appealed which is the problem.
Besides Pondicherry is too nice to be over-populated by lawyers. Delhi is vile enough without an overpopulation of lawyers so why spread the evil around? :D
Looks like the CJI sees the supreme court as some kind of heavenly system which dispenses justice at its own pace.
The only thing which matters to most of us is the backlog. When I have to wait for 10 years and jump 1000 hoops for my case to be resolved due to inefficiencies in the justice system, I would prefer any solution even if it means splitting the supreme court to achieve some efficiency.
SC_Lawyer,
The poor will always be screwed. Obviously they lack the resources needed to take up a matter to court, fight their case and then follow up after the decision.
You cant blame the middle class for using whatever system is available to fight for their cause. Similarly with the government or the corporate. Normal people or organizations would want not to be litigious for the sake of it, given the state of our justice system. This has to do with larger issues of excess population, lack of resources (including enough courts, judges and infrastructure) and poverty. They obviously cannot be tackled only by the supreme court.
Any step which reduces the backlog by increasing efficiency or scaling the system is great. But what progress is there in denying justice by discouraging the middle class from seeking redress for their issues?
I cant to bear some more Singhvi , Jaitely types pontificating even in my local news channel as the sole custodians of all matters big and small in India, let it remain in ND ….the smugness , the high handed attitude is so sickening that it makes me puke
I’m a final year law student. We must first look at the nature of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court of India performs several functions
(i) Federal Court – dispute between states
(ii) Court of Appeal – Disputes that have come from lower courts and HCs
(iii) Constitutional Court – Constitutional disputes
Now it is understandable that for the first and third function it is important that the Supreme Court sit in one place as it might have a bearing upon the “intergral nature” (I don’t agree, but a plausible argument can be so made). For the second purpose however, I don’t see any reason it there shouldn’t be different benches. It is also not right to say that all these functions should be performed by one Supreme Court. A lot of countries, prominently France have separate courts for all these purposes.
I think it should be acceptable to both sides if the benches are created but are given only appellate jurisdiction. If someone wants to challenge a central legislation, disputes between states, disputes between state and central government could all go to the main supreme court.
Also the claim of integral nature of the Supreme Court is damaged when you consider that when the Supreme Court was formed, from the Federal Court, there were only 8 judges (7 puisne + 1 CJ) as opposed to 26 now and they used to sit in larger benches (on average) than today and hear a larger percentage of constitutional matters (from a study conducted under the aegis of the aforementioned Nick Robinson, my friends who assisted him tell me). So the court isn’t as “integrated” as it makes itself out to be.
I believe Narendra Modi has substantially reduced the backlog in gujarat by soliciting the judiciary in Gujarat to have evening courts and courts on weekends. This is done volunatarily and NOT UNDER DURESS. Maybe, there is something for the supreme court to learn from this (if they want to) to reduce the backlog.
But then again our secular thugs, would not want to implement any thing that is done by Modi
can we impeach a chief justice for being a dumbass?
It’s not going to matter. Court is still going to remain inaccessible to majority of the people even if they setup benches in every street of India. Reason: faulty and unreliable judicial system.
Federal system, so it should be in Delhi! This Vahanvati has gone cuckoo….. The legal system is infested with such cockroaches. That is why it is stinking.
“Madras or Hyderabad”? Why? what is the yardstick of chosing the proposed venues? And Why Not Bangalore?
Wake up Mr.Moily, don’t just give it Chennai or Hyd on a platter just as your party has done vis-a-vis IIT, IIM, NSG etc
Legal fraternity, the govt, elected representatives of Bangalore and the people must not let go this and fight for its location at Bangalore.
Questions: Should SC benches should be set?
Answer: Why stick on to the benches of British era. Instead use Indian Stools, so that some of them can fall in between them and into it also!
“I believe Narendra Modi has substantially reduced the backlog in gujarat by soliciting the judiciary in Gujarat to have evening courts and courts on weekends.”
I believe he did it with some well planned and executed pogroms.
Vikram Hegde has valid point. I liked the way he described the functions. Why can’t we totally do away with 2nd function, namely court of appeal!!. There should be no further appeal after high court and call all the high court as supreme court. Eastablish benches of these supreme courts(now called high courts) for every geographic area with more than 2.5 crore population.
Kavita:
>But then again our secular thugs, would not want to implement any thing that is done by Modi
I don’t think that’s entirely right. ‘Secular types’ have appreciated some good programs of Modi.. I for one don’t like what modi’s Hindu agenda but I like his single minded focus on development and infrastructure.
The problem with modi is like “Yella Bannavannoo masi nungitu”…
>>The problem with modi is like “Yella Bannavannoo masi nungitu”…>>
That is if you believe the ELM and their reporting….
It is the same way ELM attributes non-existent qualities to prince charming and his mom and people lap it up.
>That is if you believe the ELM
You mean to say Gujarat burned for days without his passive ignorance (if not active connivance)? Are you suggesting (or even stating) its only a media conspiracy that Modi had made so many intolerant statements??
Lets not fool ourselves in to thinking this is all a media conspiracy – If so, why does the same media highlight his other achievements?
Primary attribute we would want a Prime Minister to have is huge dollops of tolerance for alternative view point. Modi has repeatedly shown he isn’t a tolerant man. Sushma Swaraj seems far more patient (Hopefully she’ll rid of the Reddys).
Regarding the ‘prince’ – I agree… He is hyped. He is like scions of business barons, who can afford to take a lot of risks – some of which are bound to click, and they get credit for it..
Harkol,
>>You mean to say Gujarat burned for days without his passive ignorance (if not active connivance)? Are you suggesting (or even stating) its only a media conspiracy that Modi had made so many intolerant statements??>>
You can do better than this.
Modi’s government called in the Army (no less) as soon as they suspected the situation was going out of hand (i believe this is the very next day…). So where is modi’s complacency here. Compare this to the 1984 anti sikh riots in north india when the kaangress goons had a free run for 3 full days…and the ELM does not even consider that a genocide even now. Also, compare what Modi said (every action will have a equal and opposite reaction) to what Prince charmin’s dad said (when a great tree falls, the earth shakes).
The best way to stay out of trouble is not to create trouble yourself. If you are hell bent on doing a Godhra you have to be prepared for the Gujarat riots.
Like the saying goes
“People living in glass houses should change their clothes in the basement”
>Compare this to the 1984 anti sikh
Among all the politically organized riots 1984 was the worst. Within 5 days more than 3000 people were killed, Almost three times of Gujarat 2002. That was our darkest (1975-1990) period when India almost became an autocratic, and then a bankrup failed state.
Rajiv Gandhi was insensitive in his comments, actions and was criminal in his protection and promotion of HKL Bhagat, Tytler and Sajjan kumar. The only saving grace is congress apologized for it, albeit 25 years later.
But, Gujarat 2002 was more horrible for the duration over which so called ‘spontaneous killings’ happened. There was first wave that lasted 5 days accounting for 300 deaths. Army was deployed within 48hrs and mob violence controlled within 5 days.
But, The second wave of killing started after a two week lull and went on for about 60 days and accounted for around 1000 deaths. Army wasn’t actively in the picture then. In this duration, the violence was more pre-planned, with small number of people being killed on daily basis. It is this duration, which is disconcerting. I am not sure if that can be called Genocide (for there were quite high number of Hindu’s killed too), but it certainly wasn’t ‘spontaneous’.
Instead of cooling the tempers, most of Modi’s actions were insensitive, callous in the least and an active act of abetting to reap political dividend at the worst.
>If you are hell bent on doing a Godhra you have to be prepared for the Gujarat riots.
Ah! The classic BJP/VHP defense.
This defense can be extended to 1984 riot as well.. if Sikhs were hell bent on killing a Hindu PM, then be prepared for Sikh massacre! It could also be extended to a future massacre of my family, in case of a mad act by Hindu/Kannada radicals!!
Just step back and think how ridiculous that defense is. More than 99% of about 1300 killed (official figure), wouldn’t have had anything to do with Godhra.
And most importantly why do we have laws in this land, if we can justify any act of mob violence in the name of ‘spontaneous outpouring’ etc??
I may like Modi’s economic policy, but will never trust him with the rein of this country.