Should Supreme Court be restructured?
Establishing circuit benches can help reduce the burden ………SOMNATH CHATTERJEE | FORMER SPEAKER, LOK SABHA
IT IS NOT JUST A QUESTION OF THE SUPREME Court (SC) needing to shed some of its works. It is a question about how the functioning the entire legal system can be improved to make it serve the real purpose of a judiciary in the country, particularly to deliver speedy justice to the ordinary people at an affordable cost.
So far as the SC is concerned, we need to introspect whether ordinary citizens are really able to approach the apex court, given the geographical distance from different corners of the country, the problem of finding accommodation and the arduous process of engaging a good lawyer in Delhi. Ordinary citizens cannot dream of approaching the SC.
So, the inevitable question: is this the situation that was contemplated by the founding fathers of our Constitution? Every person concerned with judiciary should give a serious thought to this problem.
Recently, the prime minister said speedy justice should be provided to ordinary citizens at an affordable cost. But the situation today is such that only the rich, corporate or some people with sponsors can approach the apex court.
I have the highest respect for the SC. But, to my mind, to provide real justice to ordinary people at the apex court, it is essential to set up circuit benches in different parts of the country. The usual argument against it was that it will bifurcate/trifurcate the SC itself and diminish its authority and status. Such an argument must be rejected.
Question can never be of all learned judges sitting at the same place but, dispersing justice to the litigants, including ordinary citizens, in an appropriate manner.
I was asked whether it was necessary to curtail the SCs jurisdiction to only very important issues and not burden it with ordinary litigation, including appeals. I feel 2-3 SC judges could constitute the circuit benches and dispose of the appeals at different centres in their capacity as SC judges, making their judgements final.
The Chief Justice of India will remain in Delhi with other learned judges who would decide on issues of constitutional importance or of great national importance those cases that may be so designated by the bench in Delhi or other circuit benches.
I am not suggesting this is the only method that can be applied. But at least serious thought be given and action taken to ensure speedy and efficient justice for common man at reasonable cost. Also, identifying maladies and then expecting changes will happen on their own will not do. I had the privilege of seeing the first bench of SC functioning at Parliament building. They had the most difficult judicial work to do in the formative years after Independence and the constitution of the SC. Yet, they have delivered judgements that have endured forever.
The problems that have cropped up today are not due to the increase in the number of litigation with population growth. But one needs to examine what types of litigation before the SC that have multiplied and what innovation has been introduced. Also, we need to consider whether enlargement of the scope of litigation in different high courts and Supreme Court have caused proliferation of litigation.
(As told to C L Manoj)
Split the court into two: one each for appeals and constitutional matters ………..RAJEEV DHAVAN | SENIOR ADVOCATE, SUPREME COURT
DESIGNED AS A SUPREME COURT(SC), IT HAS now become like a high court (HC). Its jurisdiction is too wide, its jurisprudence too unwieldy. Drowned with arrears of cases, its pivotal constitutional work suffers. Its 50,000 cumulative pendency may be nothing compared to 38 lakh arrears in the HCs and 3.6 crore in the lower courts.
Our justice system has become something of a lottery. The SC contributes to the lottery. Judges working at breathless speed cannot deliver an even-handed and consistent justice. It does not matter how hard the SC judges work. They are drowned by it. Desperate measures have not made a dent. Today, some benches notably Justice Katjus bench dispense quick justice when the judges think they have understood the file without fully reading it. Quick intuitive justice is no justice.
Despite this, the SC surpasses itself. Constantly in the news, it decides issues of national significance. Its work is often likened to T20 cricket. If test cricket is played, it is always in a hurry. Under the circumstances, the judges have done well. But for how long, with what loss of quality?
The present strategy of increasing judges and hacking down pending cases is not the answer. The court needs to split into two: a separate court of appeal and a constitutional court. Between the HCs and the SC, there should be a court of appeal for all civil, criminal, tax, reference and other cases. This court could have 12 benches of three judges each of whose decision would be final.
The SC should become a constitutional court with nine judges sitting together en bancand a new procedure whereby it would select what it wants to hear. At present, this selection takes 50% of the SCs time. Its jurisdiction would be limited to (a) fundamental rights cases, (b) federal disputes between states, and (c) matters relating to the interpretation of law and governance under the Constitution broadly covering the writ jurisdiction of most of the high courts. If it works for the HCs, it should work for the SC.
In this regard, the federal jurisdiction would be exclusive. Fundamental rights cases could come directly or by appeal, as would other constitutional and administrative law issues. The advisory jurisdiction would remain. The judges sitting together would make the courts work more cohesive.
The SCs pronouncements on governance are spectacular, but it has become an overburdened goods train with a broken down Shatabdi express engine. The new solution would require a better selection of judges through wider collegiates, not the present inwardlooking SC cabal.
The ages of all high court, appeals court and SC judges should be 65 years. This will take the edge off competitive rivalries and selection. A better registry and management will save time. Judges will have time to consider and think issues through.
If politicians are custodians of the political texts of the Constitution, judges are custodians of the justice texts, and, indeed, the Constitution itself. Improving unit-cost efficiency in disposing cases will not achieve justice or good governance. Structural changes are needed. Things can go wrong. They have.