Establishing regional benches of the Supreme Court in India
There is a considerable backlog in the judicial system, with a staggering 80,000 cases awaiting resolution before the 34 judges of the Supreme Court.
This backlog reflects a significant challenge that has prompted a recurrent call for structural reforms within the apex court.
The sheer volume of pending cases not only highlights the strain on the existing judicial infrastructure but also underscores the need for a more efficient and streamlined legal process.
By examining the issue from the eyes of the common man, such benches are the need of the hour.
People are less willing to accept arbitrary or unjust actions of the state and its agencies and are increasingly approaching courts of law.
The outcome of such cases demands further adjudication by the Supreme Court.
It becomes practically impossible for people living in States far away from Delhi to agitate their cause.
It is easy to say that the presence of a litigant is not required in appellate forums but the reality is
Key arguments for regional benches
Last year, the Supreme Court witnessed a 31% increase in the disposal of cases compared to 2022.
However, such a disposal rate is negligible when compared to the total pendency of cases.
A little more than 80,000 cases are currently pending adjudication out of which 60,000 cases are civil.
This cannot be alleviated only through usual methods and is highly dependent upon the efforts and efficiency of the Chief Justice.
The establishment of regional benches will increase the number of judges as well as lawyers resulting in a much-needed boost to our judicial system.
A proposal recommended by the Law Commission of India in its 95th and 229th reports.
A permanent appellate court along with several courts of cassation should be established.
The permanent appellate court, like in the U.S., should include nine of the senior-most judges from the cassation courts.
It should sit en banc and hear only constitutional cases while the cassation courts adjudicate upon appeals arising out of non-constitutional matters.
At present, the Supreme Court is overburdened with matters such as transfer petitions, arbitral appeals, etc.
It has no business hearing.
It would be appropriate that instead, a court of cassation hears such matters.
Key arguments against regional benches
The steps taken by the judiciary since the onset of the pandemic to switch to virtual hearings are laudable.
Further, the Chief Justice has also indicated that all courts should shift to virtual hearings.
However, even today, in many forums such as the Central Administrative Tribunal and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of India, virtual hearing facilities are not used.
Many judges also prefer lawyers to be physically present.
Therefore, I feel that a mechanism should be put in place that allows preliminary and admission hearings to take place virtually, while final hearings are conducted physically.
Hybrid hearings can be an effective alternative to regional benches.
While the use of technology is good for judicial administration, court management, and handling the case flow.
It is not a viable solution for judicial adjudication.
The physical hearing of cases helps to maintain objectivity with regard to the propositions advanced before the court.
Judges are human beings and suffer from several human limitations.
Our open court system plays a vital role in ensuring that a judge maintains the appropriate attitude and demeanour.
The presence of lawyers and litigants in a courtroom also helps a judge to work without any fear or favour.
Therefore, virtual court facilities should be used only in exceptional circumstances.
Irrespective of the pendency rate, India should take inspiration from France and implement a system comprising a separate court of appeal and courts of cassation.
That every litigant wishes to visit his lawyer and witness court proceedings involving his case.
COMMENTS