The Hindu : Opinion / Editorials : SUPREME COURT AND REGIONALISATION

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Tuesday, Oct 26, 2004

Opinion

Opinion - Editorials

SUPREME COURT AND REGIONALISATION

THE SUPREME COURT'S decision to shoot down the suggestion that three benches of the apex body be constituted in the southern, western, and north-eastern parts of the country comes as no surprise. The recommendation made recently by the Law Ministry's parliamentary standing committee has met the fate of similar proposals placed before the Supreme Court in 1999 and 2001. On the face of it, the Court's objection to multiple benches — which is based on its belief that such an arrangement would affect the apex body's unitary character, its integrity and stability — may seem much too formal or theoretical. But behind these legal abstractions lie concrete, matter-of-fact apprehensions about `regionalisation' that the Supreme Court evidently prefers to allude to rather than spell out. The apprehension seems to be that fragmenting the Supreme Court could bring different benches of the apex body within the influence of the region where it is located. Ideally, courts should function wholly within the realm of the legal and be unaffected, directly or indirectly, by factors such as the State Government, the political complexion of the ruling party, or the public sentiment prevailing in an area. That courts might not be immune to such extraneous influences is a possibility visualised by the legal framework, which allows the Supreme Court to transfer cases from one High Court to another in the interest of securing justice (the relocation of the Gujarat genocidal violence cases is only one such instance).

The argument that regionalisation will undermine the Supreme Court's "unitary" character is a euphemistic way of expressing the apprehension that it could lead to the emergence of independent judicial power centres. It is vital for the success of the justice delivery system in India that nothing is done to impair the image of the Supreme Court as a cohesive and unified body. It is true that the Constitution envisages the possibility of setting up regional benches. Article 130 reads: "The Supreme Court shall sit in Delhi or in such other place or places [emphasis added], as the Chief Justice of India may, with the approval of the President, from time to time, appoint." But any meaningful debate on the wisdom of setting up regional benches should focus on the practical risks they could pose rather than merely address the legalistic arguments on either side.

Without an increase in the number of Supreme Court judges, something that will require an amendment to Article 124 (1) of the Constitution, regionalisation by itself does not make for a speedier disposal of cases. Moreover, the Supreme Court is the least responsible for the country's enormous judicial backlog. The 85th report titled "Law Delays: Arrears in Court" prepared by the Standing Committee on Home Affairs calculated that out of a total of about 2.4 crore cases pending on October 31, 2001, there were over 2 crore pending in district and subordinate courts, more than 35 lakh in High Courts, and only 21,995 in the Supreme Court. On the flip side, it must be admitted that the central argument in favour of regional benches — that they will give people in far-flung areas easier access to the Supreme Court — is not without merit. As the Law Commission pointed out in its 125th report, "those coming from distant places... have to spend a huge amount on travel to reach the Supreme Court." Retaining lawyers who handled the matter in High Courts adds to the cost and adjournments, "a recurrent phenomenon", become prohibitively expensive. However, any sober, level-headed assessment would show that under specific Indian conditions regionalisation of the highest judicial institution of the land would involve risks that clearly outweigh the benefits offered.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News Update

Stories in this Section

INDIA-SRI LANKA DEFENCE AGREEMENT

SUPREME COURT AND REGIONALISATION

The case for employment guarantee

Chaos, murder and mayhem in Iraq

Maharashtra elections