Dmk mp p willson letter to law minister regarding sc bench at chennai and other places

To, Dated:16.12.2020
Thiru . Ravi Shankar Prasad
Hon’ble Minister for Law & Justice
Government of India, New Delhi.

Vanakkam,

Subject: Establishment of Permanent Regional Benches of the Supreme Court – Regarding

Ref: 1. My Zero Hour mention dated 27.11.2019 on the floor of the Rajya Sabha
2. Your letter dated 12.02.2020

******
1. You are well aware that I raised the issue relating to setting up of Regional Benches of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India at Delhi, Chennai, Mumbai and Kolkata for the North, South, West and East Zones, apart from a Constitution Bench at Delhi in the Parliament on 27.11.2019 and I am in receipt of your letter dated 12.2.2020 in this regard. In your reply, the full court decision of Hon’ble supreme court taken in the year 2010 is cited as a reason for not going ahead with the decision of establishment of Regional benches of Supreme Court in New Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai and Kolkotta.

2. I write to you to impress upon you the urgent need to introduce a bill to amend the constitution for establishment of Permanent Regional Benches of Supreme Court and I would like to substantiate the same with the following facts.

3. As you are well aware, access to justice is a fundamental right enshrined under our Constitution. The framers of our Constitution considered this right to be so sacrosanct that they enacted Article 32 – a direct access to the highest Court of the land to enforce fundamental rights. More so, the fundamental duty of the State is to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities.

4. Baba Sahib Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the Chief Architect of our Constitution, in one of the Constituent Assembly debates has remarked that Article 32 is the heart and soul of the Constitution whereby the Supreme Court can be directly approached upon violation of personal Fundamental Rights.

5. However this recourse to Article 32 is now available only to (i) citizens who are geographically close to the Supreme Court and (ii) the financially privileged class to whom costs of litigation and travel does not matter. Article 32 cannot be deprived to any citizens due to economic factors and will fall foul of constitutional mandate under Art 39 of recourse to justice at the level of supreme court. Considering the fact that the Supreme Court is located at New Delhi (which is not equidistant to all parts of the country) and is far away from many States, particularly the Southern, South Western & Eastern States, the citizens in these States are virtually deprived of their right to approach the Court not only due to distance but also due to the cost factor. Therefore Article 32 is practically unavailable to these citizens due to distance and cost.

6. With time, the Supreme Court of India has expanded its jurisdiction under Article 32 to public interest litigations. Apart from these cases, the Court regularly hears civil and criminal appeals, special leave petitions (SLPs), disputes between governments and petitions pertaining to international commercial arbitration matters. Several other Legislations empowers Supreme Court as final court of appeal. This ever-expanding docket of the Court has transformed it from a body that hears constitutional matters to a final appellate Court. Practically, almost all litigation in the country ends up at the Supreme Court. This adds to the pendency of cases, given the judge to population ratio of the Supreme Court. At present, there are 34 seats on the Supreme Court, for a population of about 133 crore, a ratio of 1:3,91,17,647. There are roughly about 63,000 cases pending before the Supreme Court of India as per the statistics pertaining to pendency of cases on the website of the Supreme Court of India.

7. The Standing Committees of Parliament recommended the setting up of Regional Benches of the Supreme Court in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2008. Various Law Commission have also enunciated establishment of Regional Benches. In fact in the 229th Report, the Law commission submitted a report to the Central Government on the Need for Division of the Supreme Court into a Constitution Bench at Delhi and Cassation Benches in Four regions at Delhi, Chennai, Kolkata and Mumbai discussed in detail the possibility of setting up regional benches of the Supreme Court in India.

8. In fact the Hon’ble Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, the Hon’ble Vice President of India Mr Venkaiah Naidu has strongly recommended setting up of regional Benches in a speech delivered at Chennai in September, 2019.

9. The advantages of setting up Regional Benches are many fold: Presently, access to the Supreme Court is restricted to only those with the economic means to travel to Delhi and afford a lawyer in Delhi. This effectively rules out a large percentage of the population who do not have the economic means, and therefore can litigate only up to the High Court. In some cases, such as some categories of Writ Petitions, the case is heard at the first instance itself by a Division Bench of the High Court, and appeal against the same is only to the Supreme Court. Therefore, a person who cannot afford to go to Delhi, or afford the fees of the lawyers at Delhi, which is invariably higher due to demand, is left without an appellate remedy.

10. Further, setting up of regional Benches of the Supreme Court would also increase the strength of the Bench of the Supreme Court. Presently, the ratio of number of Supreme Court Judges to the population of the country and the docket of the Court is miniscule.

11. Data from Nick Robinson’s ‘A Quantitative Analysis of the Indian Supreme Court’s Workload (2011)’ suggests that 34.1% of the cases represent only 7.2% of the total population of India. Further the same report states that While averaging 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2011, the Delhi High Court had the most elevated recurrence of cases disposed off by it and matters appealed to the Supreme Court were to the extent of 9.3% only. The High Courts of Uttarakhand and Punjab are close to Delhi and have had an appeal rate to the Supreme Court of more than 5%. All other High Courts, other than Himachal Pradesh (3.2%) and Bombay (3.0%), had an appeal rate of under 3%. Madras had an appeal rate of only 1.1% and Orissa less than 1%. The four high courts with the most astounding appeal rates are likewise the four nearest to the Supreme Court in 2011.These high courts generated 34.1% of the appeals to the Supreme Court, yet catered to just 7.2% of the aggregate populace. Thus, it can be easily interpreted that there is a substantial decrease in the percentage of appeal with growing distance from Delhi. Therefore, the entire concept of wide access to justice is only to cater to the needs of the limited few restricted to people close to Delhi. This is due to the reason that the greater the distance from Delhi, the more the cost of litigation, and due to this reason many potential litigants cannot afford that cost owing to weak financial condition. Orissa, for example, in the data analysis is shown to have the lowest appeal rate, at less than 1 per cent, seemingly the result of a combination of the State‟s low-income levels and distance from the national capital. Thus, from the above given data it is perfectly clear that the door of the Supreme Court is accessible only to people close to Delhi and there is very limited accessibility to the people in the southern states as well as those in the north-eastern region. For justice to reach to every nook and corner of the country and for establishing the faith of every individual to the judiciary, it is essential to establish the benches of the Supreme Court.

12. One of the regular reasons for adjournment at the Supreme Court is that the counsels travel from various parts of the country for hearing and cannot make it to the hearing for various reasons. Having Regional Benches and splitting up of the cases with more judges to hear them will certainly make it easy for the lawyers and the litigants.

13. The framers of the Constitution themselves understood that a time may come when the Supreme Court must sit at other places apart from Delhi. That is why Art. 130 is framed by them as “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.” The use of the term “place or places” shows that the framers of the Constitution contemplated that the Court can sit in more than once place – obviously to ensure ease of access to citizens. There cannot be a higher purpose.

14. Undoubtedly, therefore, it is expedient that in the interest of administration of justice, and access to justice, which is a fundamental right, the Ministry of Law and Justice must take forward this constitutional mandate. In 2010, the then Law Minister did attempt to persuade the then Chief Justice of India to set up regional Benches of the Supreme Court but the same was rejected by the Full Court of the Supreme Court stating that it would affect the “country’s unitary character”. However, all the Parliamentary Committees that have considered the matter are unanimously of the view that setting up Benches outside Delhi “would neither impair unity and integrity nor undermine the importance of the Supreme Court.”

15. As elected representatives, it is our duty to ensure that the convenience of the people we serve is put at the forefront. The will of the people cannot be found in the decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court but only in the decision of Parliament, which is the voice of the people. The final say in this issue cannot be left to the decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court because administration of justice is still a subject over which the Parliament has legislative competence. In any case, the independence of the Judiciary will not be affected if Permanent Regional Benches are established.

16. The Bill for establishment of Permanent Regional Benches shall enable the Supreme court to have a constitutional bench to hear matters of grave importance at New Delhi and have the regional benches at New Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai and Kolkotta to hear all other matters including writ petitions filed under Art 32 other than the constitutional matters of grave importance. If that being so, the Judges will still be selected as per the Memorandum of Procedure, which involves the collegium of the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice of India will continue to be master of roster and will presumably have full control to allocate Judges to these Permanent Benches. Hence, the apprehension that the establishment of Permanent Regional Benches of Supreme Court will affect the unitary character of the Supreme Court is unfounded.

17. Further, the establishment of Permanent Regional Benches of Supreme Court is also in the interest of the Judges themselves. At present there is intense competition among the Judges of the High Court to be elevated to the 34 seats on the Supreme Court, apart from the lawyers aiming for elevation directly from the Bar. Setting up of Permanent Regional Benches of Supreme Court will increase the strength of the supreme court and seats on the Supreme Court Region wise thereby paving the way for more meritorious and diverse Judges to be appointed to the Supreme Court.
18. It is time for Parliament to hear the voice of the people, and answer their fervent cries to open the doors of justice to all sections of society. The Ministry of Law and Justice should not be struck with the decision of the full court of supreme court taken in the year 2010. Therefore, as a Hon’ble Minister of Law and Justice, a constitutional duty and responsibility is cast upon your good self to give effect to the intention of the constitutional makers and the mandate of Art 39.

19. Access to Justice is not the preserve of the rich, but the right of every person in this great nation.

20. Though the people of India have waited for 70 long years, the power under Art 130 has been rendered obsolete and redundant. The Supreme Court is meant for the common people and any intermediate Court between the Supreme Court and High Court is not going to alleviate the problems of the litigants or aid in the dispensation of justice. When finality of decisions can be reached only in the Supreme Court, introduction of an intermediate Court between the High Court and Supreme Court would only hamper and delay the finalization of justice. Any infraction or diversion would negate the right flowing under Article 21 besides recourse to Art 32 of Constitution of India which has been easy to invoke all along only for the rich, depriving the economically weaker sections of society. Article 32 as Dr. Ambedkar put it as the soul of the Constitution and thus recourse to it should be easy and cannot remain a distant dream for the poor.
21. At this juncture I would like to inform you that I have already introduced a Bill in the Rajya Sabha as a private member’s Bill to amend Article 130 of the Constitution and substituting with Permanent Regional Benches of the Supreme Court to be established in New Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai and Kolkotta.

22. It is high time to amend Article 130 of the Constitution, since despite 70 years having passed since the coming into force of the Constitution, the fervent pleas of the people of the South, West and East and the members of the Bar in these States to establish Permanent Regional Benches of the Supreme Court is not heard and considered. When such is the case, as elected representatives of the people, we cannot plead helplessness. The prerogative to amend the Constitution is solely with the Parliament, subject only to the test of basic structure doctrine. I am sure you will agree that the Supreme Court sitting in Delhi alone, resulting in denial of access to the far reaches of this country cannot be termed as part of the ‘basic fabric’ of the Constitution.

23. Therefore, I urge your good self to bring in a Government Bill to amend Article 130 and establish Permanent Regional Benches of Supreme Court at New Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai and Kolkotta and open the doors of the Supreme Court to all sections of Indians, so that Article 32 may be easily accessible and available to all and oblige.

With kind Regards,

Yours faithfully,

(P. WILSON)