Mp p willson letter -4th September, 2021 To, Thiru. Kiren Rijiju avargal Hon’ble Union Minister for Law & Justice Government of India, Dear Thiru Kiren Rijiju Avargal, Vanakkam. Subject:​Request for (1) Establishment of Permanent Regional Benches of the Supreme Court of India; (2) Increasing the retirement age of High Court Judges; and (3) Maintaining social diversity and adequate representation of States amongst the Judges of the High Court and Supreme Court–Regarding

4th September, 2021
To,
Thiru. Kiren Rijiju avargal
Hon’ble Union Minister for Law & Justice
Government of India,

Dear Thiru Kiren Rijiju Avargal,
Vanakkam.
Subject:​Request for (1) Establishment of Permanent Regional Benches of the Supreme Court of India; (2) Increasing the retirement age of High Court Judges; and (3) Maintaining social diversity and adequate representation of States amongst the Judges of the High Court and Supreme Court–Regarding

******
At the outset, I wish to offer my heartiest congratulations to you on your assumption of the office of Minister for Law & Justice, Government of India. In your capacity as Law Minister, I wish to draw your kind attention to the following matters of utmost significance in the Union Judiciary:

I. Establishment of Permanent Regional Benches of the Supreme Court

1. There is also an urgent need for the setting up of Permanent 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. 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.
2. 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.
3. The recourse to Article 32 cannot be deprived due to economic factors, and such a situation is antithetical to the constitutional mandate under Art 39. 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.
4. 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. 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.
5. The Standing Committees of Parliament recommended the setting up of Regional Benches of the Supreme Court in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2008. The 107th Report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice which was tabled before both the houses on 16.3.2021, has also recommended for the Regional Benches of the Supreme Court. Various Law Commission have also enunciated establishment of Regional Benches. In fact in the 229th Report, the Law Commission submitted a report to the Union 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.
6. I have raised this issue many times on the floor of the Parliament and I have also brought a Bill in the Rajya Sabha as a Private Member’s Bill to amend Article 130 of the Constitution to provide for the establishment of Permanent Regional Benches of the Supreme Court to be established in New Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai and Kolkota.
7. Therefore, I hereby request the Union Government through your good self to support the passage of the said Constitution Amendment Bill to establish Permanent Regional Benches of the Supreme Court at New Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai and Kolkota and uphold the litigant-public’s right to access to justice.

II. Increasing retirement age of High Court Judges from 62 to 65

8. The persistent problem of backlog of cases in the higher judiciary — the High Courts and Supreme Court is a matter of grave public concern. As per recent statistics, there are 58,669 cases pending before the Supreme Court and about 45 lakh cases pending before the High Courts. It is a well-known adage that justice delayed is justice denied. There are several factors which contribute to the inability of our higher judiciary to effectively tackle the backlog of cases. One of the chief causes of delay in disposing cases is the large number of vacancies in High Courts across the country. This situation is further worsened by the fact that when judges retire, appointment of new judges in their places is not immediate. The Memorandum of Procedure for appointment of Judges states that the process of filling up of vacancies must commence six months prior to the expected date of retirement of High Court Judges, so that the vacancy is immediately filled upon retirement of a judge. However, due to various reasons, this process is not completed on time leading to large number of vacancies as stated above.
9. One of the ways in which this situation can be ameliorated is by increasing the age of retirement of High Court Judges from 62 to 65 years. When the Constitution was originally enacted, article 217 (1) fixed the age of retirement of High Court Judges as 60 years. Subsequently, within 13 years, it was realized that the human body and mind does not become so incapacitated at the age of 60 that Judge must retire at that age. Hence, by virtue of the Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act, 1963, the age of retirement was increased to 62 years. From 1963 onwards, the age of retirement has remained at 62. Over the past five decades, advancement in science and technology, medicine, better infrastructure and lifestyle has allowed Indians in other walks of life to be efficient, functional and work well up to the age of about 75 years. In fact, in the year 2018, 25 retired Chief Justices and Judges of various High Courts were designated as Senior Advocates by the Supreme Court and in the year 2016, 26 such retired Chief Justices and Judges of the High Court were designated as Senior Advocates by the Supreme Court. This shows that the Judges upon retirement are keen on continuing to work in the legal field in one capacity or the other. This is due to two reasons:
(i) The mind of an intellectual who has worked tirelessly as a Judge of the High Court cannot remain idle at the age of 62 when much energy, enthusiasm and zeal is still left to contribute.
(ii) Judges need to continue to work in order to maintain a good standard of living, since their pensions are not entirely sufficient to maintain themselves and their families in urban cities.

10. The 107th Report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice which was tabled before the both the houses on 16.3.2021 has also given its recommendation to increase the retirement age of Judges of the High Court from 62 to 65 years.
11. I have introduced a Constitution Amendment Bill as Private Member’s Bill in the Rajya Sabha in the last session to amend the Constitution and to increase the retirement age of Judges in the High Courts to 65 years.
12. I hereby request the Union Government, through your good self to support the passage of the Bill in the next session of Parliament and thereby increase the age of retirement of Judges of the High Court from 62 to 65 years.

III. Maintaining Social Diversity and representation of all States on the Bench of the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts

13. For the past few years, we have been witnessing declining representation from all the sections of the society in the Apex Court. Many feel there is a ‘diversity deficit’ in our Supreme Court and the High Courts is not reflective of the wonderfully diverse and pluralistic society of India. Judicial diversity is fundamental to the quality of judging. Many social groups including women are poorly represented in the higher Judiciary. This may mean their rights are not being properly safeguarded, and may eventually lead to the infringement and violation of such rights. People of this country are afraid that a very narrow, homogeneous group of Judges belonging to certain class alone cannot necessarily reflect the views and values of society as a whole, particularly on issues involving diverse, linguistic, cultural and generational matters because they would require more perspectives, as Judges would interpret and enforce law based on their own backgrounds. A more diverse judiciary is desirable because without one, the chances are greatly increased for a violation of the rights on those under represented classes and could indirectly imply discrimination. The present trend shows representation of socially-marginalised groups remains dismal on the seats of the Supreme Court and High Courts. In my State of Tamil Nadu for example we have a population of more than 80% belonging to Backward Classes. The percentage of women judges in these Courts is also low. Significant over-representation of certain sections in High Courts and Supreme Court benches calls into question the objectivity of the current system and its inability to recruit from different social groups. There is much to gain from having a judiciary that reflects society in all its diversity.
14. I was extremely glad to see that in the recent appointment of nine Judges to the Supreme Court, three women Judges were included. This trend should continue in future appointments as well. Similarly, other social groups should be duly represented in the benches of the Supreme Court. It is extremely important to support and protect diversity because by valuing individuals and groups in a manner free from prejudice, and by fostering a climate where equity and mutual respect are intrinsic, we create a fair society, which is needed for a country to run smoothly.
15. Diversity in judiciary can be achieved while still maintaining the requirements of merit like knowledge in law, wisdom, qualitative personality, impeccable integrity etc. for determining eligibility and suitability in judicial appointments in the Supreme Court.
16. At this juncture, I wish to highlight that the Law Ministry particularly the Justice Department plays an important role in the process of appointment of Judges of Supreme Court and High Courts including advising the Union and especially the Hon’ble President of India. Under these circumstances, the Union should impress upon the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and all the Hon’ble Chief Justices of various High Courts in this country to ensure social diversity for a representative judiciary.
17. Therefore, I request your good self to delve on to this most pressing issue, and to take steps to incorporate the same in the Memorandum of Procedure and make it mandatory for diversity in the appointments to the benches of Supreme Court as well as all High Courts while keeping intact the other requirements of merit, integrity etc.
18. The other facet of representation is that High Courts of many States are not getting adequate representation on the Bench of the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court and High Courts form one single integrated judiciary since the High Courts are judicially sub-ordinate to the Supreme Court. The highest judicial organ in the country is as much federal as the other organs in the sense that it belongs equally to all States.
19. The Supreme Court should necessarily have on its Bench adequate representation from all the States, in proportion to the sanctioned strength of the State’s High Court. As the final arbiter of disputes, the Court decides not only rights in personem but also rights in rem. Important disputes like disputes between two States, decisions that impact culture, customs, languages, etc. are decided by the Court and therefore representation from each State is of significant importance. The growing size of the Supreme Court’s Bench has only bettered the cause of regional representation. There is no reason as to why all the States should not be adequately represented in the highest Court of the Country.
20. Therefore, I also request your good self to kindly take steps to ensure equal representation of all the States proportionate to the size of their High Courts on the Bench of the Supreme Court.

Thanking You

P. WILSON