Syllabus
GS Paper 2 – Structure, organization and functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary.
Applications where to apply?
When asked about
– Judicial Reforms
– Collegium System
– Regional Benches
Context
The 75th anniversary served as a reminder of the Supreme Court’s crucial role in safeguarding the Constitution, upholding fundamental rights, and shaping the nation’s social and legal fabric. The article delves into necessity of regional benches of Supreme Court in India.
Source
The Hindu | Editorial dated 23rd February 2024
75 years of Supreme Court
January 28, 2024, marked the 75th anniversary of the Supreme Court of India, a momentous occasion coinciding with the 75th anniversary of the Indian Constitution.
History of the Supreme Court of India: A Legacy of Justice
- Regulating Act 1773– Supreme Court was established at Calcutta (1774) comprising one chief justice and three other judges.
- 1800: Supreme Courts established in Madras and Bombay by the British East India Company.
- Act of 1823– The newly established Supreme Courts at Madras and Bombay would have the power to administer, carry out duties, and hold powers of the same magnitude as the Supreme Court at Fort William in Calcutta.
- 1861: India High Courts Act creates High Courts in major provinces, replacing the Supreme Courts.
- 1935: Government of India Act establishes the Federal Court to settle disputes between provinces and hear appeals from High Courts.
- January 28, 1950: Inauguration of the Court with eight judges, led by Chief Justice H.J. Kania.
- Initial Seat: Chamber of Princes in the Parliament building, later moved to the present building in 1958.
Collegium System
The collegium system, for selection of Judges, though not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, has been the subject of much debate.
Evolution of Collegium
- 1950s-70s: Judicial appointments were made by the President on the advice of the Chief Justice of India (CJI), with the CJI’s opinion having “primacy” but not being binding.
Key Case Laws
- First Judges Case (1982): The court held that consultation does not mean concurrence and it only implies exchange of views.
- Second Judges Case (1993):The court reversed its earlier ruling changed the meaning of the word consultation to concurrence. Hence, it ruled that the advice tendered by the CJI is binding on the President in matters of appointment of SC judges. But any such advice would be tendered after CJI consults with two of his most senior-judges. It was also decided in the case that President should appoint the senior-most judge in the SC as the CJI.
- Third Judges Case (1998): The consultation process to be employed should be based on plurality of judges. He should consult a collegium of four senior-most judges before making a recommendation to the President and even if two judges give an adverse opinion, he should not send the recommendation to the President.
- The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was proposed in 2014 to introduce more transparency and objectivity, but was struck down by the Supreme Court in Fourth Judges Case (2004) .
- Fourth Judges Case (2004): Upheld the collegium system as a part of the basic structure of the Constitution, but emphasized its need to be transparent and objective.
The debate on reforming the collegium system continues, with proposals like including eminent non-judicial members and setting objective criteria for appointments.
Issues plaguing Supreme Court’s Function
While the Supreme Court of India plays a vital role in upholding the Constitution and ensuring justice, it faces several critical issues that impact its effectiveness and public perception.
- Pendency of Cases:
- Backlog of cases exceeding 60,000, plagues the court, leading to delays in delivering justice, sometimes spanning years or even decades.
- This backlog erodes public trust and creates a sense of helplessness for those seeking justice.
- Lack of Transparency and Accountability:
- The collegium system, responsible for judicial appointments, lacks transparency, raising concerns about nepotism and favouritism. The absence of clear criteria for selection further fuels these concerns.
- Judicial Vacancies:
- The court operates with a significant number of vacant positions, further contributing to the backlog and hindering its efficient functioning.
- Accessibility and Inclusivity:
- Unequal access to legal resources and representation creates barriers for marginalized communities in accessing justice through the Supreme Court
- Supreme Court’s seat at Delhi creates geographical bias toward those who reside away from Delhi.
- Limited Resources and Infrastructure:
- Inadequate infrastructure and resources hamper the court’s efficiency and ability to handle the increasing workload.
Can regional benches solve these issues? Let’s examine.
Regional Benches of Supreme Court
Recently, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice informed the Lok Sabha that the Law Ministry has accepted its recommendation to establish regional benches of the Supreme Court across India.
For Regional Benches of the Supreme Court
- Access to Justice: Establishing regional benches can significantly improve access to justice for individuals residing far from Delhi. It can reduce the burden on litigants to travel long distances for legal proceedings, making the justice system more inclusive.
- Reducing Geographical Bias: Regional benches can help mitigate the geographical bias observed in the current system, where a majority of cases originate from High Courts near Delhi. This decentralization can distribute the caseload more evenly across the country’s legal infrastructure.
- Enhanced Efficiency: With more benches distributed regionally, the Supreme Court can handle a higher volume of cases, leading to quicker resolution and reduced backlog. It can also facilitate more specialized adjudication, addressing the diverse legal issues across different regions effectively.
- Empowerment of Regional Legal Communities: Regional benches can foster the development of strong legal communities outside Delhi, providing local lawyers and judges with increased opportunities for professional growth and engagement with the judicial process.
Against Regional Benches of the Supreme Court
- Risk of Conflicting Precedents: Establishing regional benches may lead to divergent interpretations of law and conflicting precedents across different regions, potentially increasing legal uncertainty and litigation.
- Potential for Frivolous Petitions: Easier access to regional benches might encourage the filing of frivolous petitions, further burdening the judicial system and impeding the efficient resolution of legitimate cases.
- Impact on Supreme Court’s Role: Critics argue that the establishment of regional benches could dilute the Supreme Court’s authority and central role in interpreting the constitution, potentially undermining the coherence and consistency of national jurisprudence.
- Alternative Solutions: Instead of creating regional benches, alternative solutions such as leveraging technology for virtual hearings or implementing reforms within High Courts to streamline case management and reduce pendency could address the underlying issues more effectively.
Way Forward
- Comprehensive Reform: The focus should be on implementing comprehensive judicial reforms aimed at enhancing the efficiency and accessibility of the entire legal system, including both the Supreme Court and High Courts.
- Hybrid Approach: A hybrid approach combining elements of regional benches, virtual hearings, and reforms within existing judicial structures could offer a balanced solution. This approach should prioritize the interests of litigants while ensuring the integrity and effectiveness of the judiciary.
- Stakeholder Consultation: Any decision regarding the establishment of regional benches should involve extensive consultation with stakeholders, including legal experts, judges, lawyers, and the public, to assess the potential benefits and drawbacks comprehensively.
- Pilot Programs: Consideration could be given to implementing pilot programs to test the feasibility and effectiveness of regional benches in selected locations before nationwide implementation, allowing for iterative improvements based on real-world experience.
Conclusion
Ultimately, the goal should be to ensure that any reforms undertaken enhance access to justice, improve judicial efficiency, and uphold the rule of law while addressing the unique challenges and complexities of India’s legal landscape.
Related Topics
E-Courts Mission Mode Project
The eCourts Project was conceptualized on the basis of the “National Policy and Action Plan for Implementation of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in the Indian Judiciary – 2005” submitted by eCommittee, Supreme Court of India with a vision to transform the Indian Judiciary by ICT enablement of Courts.
The eCourts Mission Mode Project, is a Pan-India Project, monitored and funded by Department of Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India for the District Courts across the country.
Aims
- To provide efficient & time-bound citizen centric services delivery as detailed in eCourt Project Litigant’s Charter.
- To develop, install & implement decision support systems in courts.
- To automate the processes to provide transparency in accessibility of information to its stakeholders.
- To enhance judicial productivity, both qualitatively & quantitatively, to make the justice delivery system affordable, accessible, cost effective, predictable, reliable and transparent.
Major Initiatives
- E-filing: Electronic filing of cases and documents, reducing paperwork and delays.
- E-payment: Secure online payment of court fees, simplifying transactions.
- Virtual hearings: Conduct hearings remotely, improving convenience and accessibility for litigants and lawyers.
- SUPACE (Supreme Court Portal for Assistance in Court Efficiency): AI-powered portal designed to assist judges in legal research and case analysis.
- SUVAS (Supreme Court Vidhik Anuvaad Software): is a machine translation tool that can translate legal documents and judgments from English to Indian languages
- FASTER (Fast and Secured Transmission of Electronic Records): focuses on secure and rapid transmission of crucial documents from the judicial system.
References
Practice Question
Discuss the evolution of Supreme Court of India. Will Regional Benches be able to address issues faced by the judicial system? Comment. [250 words]