LI Network
Published on: February 8, 2024 at 14:00 IST
The government has acknowledged the suggestion put forth by a parliamentary committee advocating the establishment of regional benches for the Supreme Court.
However, it clarified that the apex court has consistently rejected this proposal, emphasizing that the matter is currently sub-judice, according to the committee’s statement.
The Standing Committee on Law and Personnel presented its action taken report on “Judicial Processes and Their Reforms,” confirming the government’s acceptance of the committee’s recommendation.
The report, presented in the Lok Sabha on Wednesday, highlighted the committee’s earlier recommendation regarding the feasibility of regional Supreme Court benches.
The committee emphasized that the demand for regional benches is rooted in the fundamental right of ‘access to justice’ under the Constitution, catering to the longstanding request to bring justice closer to the common citizen.
The committee expressed the view that regional benches could address the overwhelming caseload of the judiciary and reduce litigation costs for the general public.
Despite the government’s acceptance of the recommendation, the Department of Justice in the law ministry, in its response, cited Article 130 of the Constitution.
It stated that the Supreme Court is designated to sit in Delhi or other locations appointed by the Chief Justice of India with the President’s approval.
The Department of Justice informed the committee that the matter of regional benches had been referred to the Attorney General’s opinion on two occasions.
Former Attorney General G E Vahanvati had deemed the proposal impermissible, citing constitutional constraints. Similarly, Mukul Rohatgi, a former Attorney General, expressed concerns in March 2016, highlighting potential conflicts, jurisdiction issues, and the impact on the Supreme Court’s unity and integrity.
The government reiterated the Supreme Court’s consistent rejection of the proposal, citing a writ petition on the establishment of a National Court of Appeal in July 2016. The Supreme Court, deeming it appropriate, referred the matter to a Constitutional Bench for a decisive pronouncement, and it remains sub-judice.