New Delhi: Filing of cases before the Supreme Court has risen so sharply over the past decades that the strength of judges was proving inadequate to deal with the backlog, the Supreme Court said on Wednesday.
The apex court, while referring to the constitution bench a plea seeking setting up of National Court of Appeal with regional benches in major cities, said there was a need to examine the issue of pendency of cases through a larger bench of five judges.
"In view of cases pending in the Supreme Court of India on average for about 5 years, in the High Courts again for about 8 years, and anywhere between 5-10 years in Trial
Courts...”
"Would it not be part of the responsibility and duty of the Supreme Court of India to examine through a Constitution Bench, the issue of divesting the Supreme Court of about 80 per cent of the pendency of cases of a routine nature, to recommend to Government, its opinion on the proposal for establishing four Courts of Appeal... may regain its true status as a Constitutional Court," a bench headed by Chief Justice T S Thakur said.
The apex court, which framed various questions for the constitution bench to ponder over, said statistics showed that over three-fourth of the total cases filed were dismissed at the admission stage.
"Keeping in view the importance of the questions and the need for reforms which have been long felt, we deem it proper to refer the same to a Constitutional Bench for an authoritative pronouncement," the court said while leaving it for the constitution bench to decide whether the Supreme Court sitting in benches in different parts of India would be an answer to the problem or not.
It also left it to the appropriate bench to decide whether the right to justice, which is a fundamental right, would "stand denied to litigants due to the unduly long delay in the disposal of cases in the Supreme Court? Would the mere increase in the number of judges be an answer to the problem of undue delay in disposal of cases and to what extent would such increase be feasible?”
"Would the division of the Supreme Court into a constitutional wing and an appellate wing be an answer to the problem? Would the fact that the Supreme Court of India is situated in the far North, in Delhi, rendering travel from the southern states and some other states in India, unduly long and expensive, be a deterrent to real access to justice," a bench also comprising Justices R Banumathi and U U Lalit said.
The apex court expressed concern over the huge pendency of cases and said it was never meant to be a regular court of appeal but to exercise its powers under Article 136 of the Constitution only in cases raising important questions of law.
"It is common knowledge that the huge backlog of cases in the Supreme Court not only attracts criticism from the litigant public but also from independent observers of the judicial systems. To add to the woes of the Court, there are a number of new legislations which provide for a first appeal to the Supreme Court, a role which the Supreme Court was never intended to play in the constitutional scheme.
"Suffice it to say that the pronouncement of this Court sounding notes of caution against liberal grant of special leave to appeal or exercise of restraint in the matter of entertaining cases have lead to no meaningful improvement in the situation," it said.
Questioning whether the Supreme Court has been acting as an ordinary court of appeal on facts and law with regard to routine cases, it asked "is there a need for having Courts of Appeal with exclusive jurisdiction to hear and finally decide the vast proportion of the routine cases...”
"If four regional Courts of Appeal are established, in the Northern, Southern, Eastern and Western regions of the country, each manned by, say, 15 judges, elevated or appointed to each Court by the Collegium, would this not satisfy the requirement of 'access to justice' to all litigants from every part of the country?”
"As any such proposal would need an amendment to the Constitution, would the theory of 'basic structure' of the Constitution be violated, if in fact, such division of exclusive jurisdiction between the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeal, enhances the efficacy of the justice delivery system without affecting the independence of the judicial wing of the State," the court said.
