Jaldi-Vidhi

V. Vasanthakumar v. H.C. Bhatia

Case details and hearing information from the Constitution Bench Pendency Portal.

548

Message: show

V. Vasanthakumar v. H.C. Bhatia

2024-12-23T10:40:34.253055+05:30

This case seeks the formation of regional benches of the Supreme court in order to reduce the burden of the court and increase access to the apex court.

Petitioners Arguments: The Supreme Court has strayed from its original character as a Constitutional court and gradually converted itself into a Court of Appeal to correct every error in the decisions of the High Court and tribunals subordinate to it. There is an urgent need for a comprehensive reappraisal of the role of the Supreme Court and the need for structural reforms to address the backlog of cases in the apex court. On account of the distance at which the Supreme Court is located from other parts of the country, access to justice has been adversely affected as litigants from far off places are unable to reach the Supreme Court. The setting up of Regional courts of Appeal would take justice closer to the doorsteps of the litigants and would reduce the burden of the Supreme Court without denying to the litigant an opportunity to agitate his case before a court higher than the High Court. The only difference would be that in place of the Supreme Court , the Court of Appeal would look into the matter and correct whatever needs to be corrected in the judgement impugned before it.
Responders Arguments: The proposed National Courts of Appeal or Regional Courts of appeal are neither Constitutionally permissible nor feasible . Article 136 of the Constitution gives to the citizens of this country an inalienable right to invoke the appellate power of this court which is a basic feature of the Constitution and it cannot be taken away or conferred upon another court or forum. What is required to resolve the pendency of cases was self restraint by this court in the matter of entertaining Special Leave petitions as it was not necessary for the apex court to correct every error committed by the High Court or the statutory tribunals.
Last Listed On: 2022-08-30
Start Date: 2016-07-13
Card Stage Date: 2016-07-13
Review Petition No: W.P.(C) No. 36/2016
Case Status: Pending
Bench Status: To be reconstituted
Subject Matter: Constitution
Pendency: 9 years, 11 months, 17 days

5 Judge Bench

2024-01-04T12:23:31.606715+05:30

Awaiting bench reconstitution

2025-02-07T14:57:20.465998+05:30

Consider As Stage Of Pendency: true

Date of institution of case

2024-02-07T08:07:40.886454+05:30

Date of reference to larger Bench

2024-07-02T08:07:04.919008+05:30

2024-12-23T11:04:12.949718+05:30

The Law Commission of India, in its 95th report and 229th report , recommended the restructuring of the Supreme Court to improve access to justice and reduce the huge pendency of cases. The suggestions involved setting up of a constitutional division within the Supreme Court and Cessation benches in four regions namely Delhi, Chennai/Hyderabad, Kolkata and Mumbai. The Supreme Court has itself highlighted in a number of cases such as Bihar Legal Support Society v. Chief Justice and Others and Mathai Joby v. George that the intention behind Article 136 was to allow appeals only in instances of grave miscarriage of justice. It was also noted that Special Leave Petitions were being filed by the litigants against almost every kind of order resulting in piling up of huge arrears and converting the court into an ordinary appellate court It is against this backdrop that the present petition was filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider establishing a National/ Regional court of Appeal in the country.

2024-12-23T11:04:41.698195+05:30

With access to justice being a fundamental right, would the said right 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 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? Would the Supreme Court sitting in benches in different parts of India be an answer to the last mentioned problem? 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?

Article 130 of the Constitution

2024-12-23T10:53:30.735350+05:30

Article 136 of the Constitution

2024-12-23T10:53:30.737936+05:30

2024-12-23T11:05:10.033309+05:30

The court reasoned that there was a need for reforms in the higher judiciary which has long been felt and in lieu of this it deemed it proper to refer the matter to a Constitution Bench for an authoritative pronouncement.