The Supreme Court on 13th July 2015 refused to hear a PIL for establishment of a circuit bench of the Supreme Court at Chennai. As a result, it declared that the Supreme Court would be seated at no place other than Delhi.
It was argued before the bench, comprising Chief Justice H L Dattu, Justice Arun Kumar Mishra and Justice Amitava Roy, that a separate bench of the Supreme Court must be established in Chennai, for convenience of the people of the southern states of India. The petition was argued by Senior Advocate Mr. M N Krishnamani representing the petitioner Mr. A M Krishna, who is also an Advocate himself.
It was prayed that the Centre be directed by the Court “to initiate immediate steps in setting up a Supreme Court bench at Chennai”, citing that escalating travelling and lodging expenses was making it difficult for the people from distant parts of the country to approach the Supreme Court.
It was submitted that Article 130 of the Constitution of India empowers the Chief Justice of India to appoint any place other than Delhi to be the seat for the Supreme Court. Another ground taken by the petitioner was that Article 39A contained in the Directive Principles in the Constitution of India highlights the importance of access of justice to all people of the country. Further the petition also made references to various Law Commission Reports and a Parliamentary Committee Report which suggested that Supreme Court be opened at three different metropolitan cities namely Mumbai, Chennai and Kolkata, so that justice at the highest level, is made more accessible for the other three regions comprising of western, southern and north-eastern parts of India.
Article 130 of the Constitution of India reads as follows:
“130. Seat of Supreme Court —The Supreme Court shall sit in Delhi or in such other place or places, as the Chief Justice of India may, with the approval of the President, from time to time, appoint.”
Article 39A of Constitution of India reads as follows:
“39A. Equal justice and free legal aid.—The State shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice, on a basis of equal opportunity, and shall, in particular, provide free legal aid, by suitable legislation or schemes or in any other way, to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities.”
As reported by Times of India, Chief Justice Dattu said “Circuit benches were sought earlier and the court had rejected such requests on the judicial side. There is already a precedent. No one can seek a mandamus for setting up of circuit benches of the Supreme Court. That will be like the CJI issuing notice to him. Article 130 can be used some other time. Not now.”
There have been demands, in the past, by the lawyers of Mumbai for a separate bench of the Supreme Court at Mumbai, stating that Mumbai is the commercial capital of the country, which contributes about 15% to the GDP of India and that about 20% of the cases filed in the Supreme Court are from Mumbai.
While the formation of benches of Supreme Court in different places in India has been a highly debated topic, recently the Rajya Sabha saw the introduction of a private member’s Bill, the Supreme Court (Establishment of a Permanent Bench at Kolkata) Bill, 2015, which bill provides for the permanent bench of the Supreme Court at Kolkata for easy accessibility of litigants belonging to central, eastern, south-eastern and especially north-eastern States of India.
(Links to the relevant Law Commission reports which have discussed about the functioning of the Supreme Court are Tenth Law Commission in its 95th Report, Eleventh Law Commission in its 125th Report and 18th Law Commission in its 229th Report.)
