Supreme Court Not Meant Only For People Living Near Delhi; Madras HC Judge Justice Kirubakaran Urges Centre To Amend Constitution To Set Up Regional Benches

Statistically, Justice Kirubakaran said, only those Courts having close geographical proximity to the Supreme Court have been filing cases or appeals before it and that an Indian, from a far-flung corner, has been unable to approach that "great Citadel of Justice".

The observation assumes relevance in the backdrop of the long-standing demand for creation of regional Supreme Court Benches, in spirit of the right of access to justice.

Noting that various efforts of the Central Government for setting up Benches in different parts of the Country have been rendered "futile" by the Supreme Court, Justice Kirubakaran said,

"No impression should be given that the Hon'ble Supreme Court is meant only for the people living in and around New Delhi or the States surrounding New Delhi. India is a very vast continent from Jammu and Kashmir in the North to Tamil Nadu in the South and Gujarat in the West to Manipur in the East."

He thus directed the Central Government to apply its mind on a method to remedy this perilous situation at the earliest, including amendment of Constitution for establishment of regional Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court, as recommended by various Law Commissions of India and Parliamentary affairs Committees

"These observations are being made not as a lament in the darkness, or an irrelevant obiter. This Court expects some action from the Central Government in this regard, one way or the other," Justice Kirubakaran said.

He added,

"the Respondents may consider constituting Circuit Benches/Permanent Benches of all Tribunals located in New Delhi including Bar Council of India for each Zone for the benefit of common man, at the earliest."

Justice Kirubakaran was also of the opinion that 34 Supreme Court Judges are not enough and more number of Judges are to be appointed. The observations were made in an order passed on August 19, a day before Justice Kirubakaran's retirement. The order was uploaded today.

Background

The development comes in a plea filed by one Karthik Ranganathan unable to approach the Bar Council of India, situated in Delhi, to appeal against an unfavourable order passed against him by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, Chennai.

The matter was being heard by a Division Bench of Justice N. Kirubakaran and Justice R. Pongiappan.

The State Bar Council contended that the Writ Petition is not maintainable as there is an alternate appellate remedy available under Section 37 of the Advocates Act before the Bar Council of India.

However, the Petitioner highlighted that the BCI is situated 2186 kilometres away. Keeping the Courts and Tribunals only in New Delhi amounts to denial of justice to majority of people living far away, he argued.

The High Court, at the outset, rejected the Council's objection on maintainability and held that availability of alternate remedy which is not efficacious is not a bar for entertaining the Writ Petition.

However, the writ petition was finally disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Bar Council of India.

Justice Kirubakaran's Judgment on Need for Regional Benches

Nevertheless, Justice Kirubakaran in a separate judgment concurred with the grievance expressed by the Petitioner that non-institution of regional benches results in denial of access to justice. He observed,

"This injustice continues right from the year 1950 onwards. With great respect to all the stake holders, this Court is of the opinion that the steps taken to do justice had been nipped in bud by the concerned stake holders. It is very unfortunate that majority of the litigants are compelled to accept unfavorable orders, for lack of resources and access to Appellate Courts."

He continued,

"Many litigants suffer by accepting the orders, which are otherwise not sustainable for lack of proper appreciation of evidence. They are compelled to accept the wrong orders in view of inaccessibility to New Delhi and the exorbitant expenses towards engaging a counsel. This is an extraordinary situation. The road to justice is curtailed due to the difficulty of distance in accessing the Courts of Justice. It would amount to infraction of Article 21 guaranteed to a citizen as existence of remedy should be reasonably practicable and access being one of the essential requirements, ought to be provided, as otherwise it would be a distant dream."

He proceeded to observe,

"It is well known fact that Advocates in Delhi are charging very heavily than the State Counsel. Moreover, the Petitioner has to travel and for that also he has to spend money. Because of that, many litigants, though having a good case, are unable to challenge the same before the Hon'ble Supreme Court or before the Tribunals which are located in New Delhi. Therefore, many litigants accept the order passed by the Tribunals or the Bar Council or High Courts, in spite of the fact that they have a good case or an arguable case on merits."

He highlighted that the highest number of cases filed before the Supreme Court are from Northern States.

He stated that whereas 12% of the cases are from Delhi, 8.9% of the cases are from Punjab and Haryana, 7% of the cases are from Uttarkhand, 4.3% of the cases are from Himachal Pradesh. However, sadly only 1.1% cases are filed against the judgment of the Madras High Court, 2.5% of the cases are from Kerala and 2.8% of the cases are from Andhra Pradesh.

"The above data does not mean that the litigants had accepted the order of High Courts. It is because of the lack of resources and geographical proximity, the cases/Appeals have not been filed," Justice Kirubakaran said.

He noted that in an effort to deliver justice at the door steps, Grama Nyayalayas are sought to be established, efforts are being taken to establish Taluk level Courts in every Taluk and even High Court Benches are being established in different parts of the states with the permission of the Supreme Court.

Thus, he opined that when the Supreme Court is inclined to grant permission to establish Benches of the High Courts, every citizen expects the same decision to establish Benches of the Supreme Courts in the South, North, East and West.

"The litigants from every nook and corner of the country should have accessibility and affordability and it is possible only by having Benches, as recommended by the Law Commission in its 125^th report," Justice Kirubakaran said.

In fact, in view of Article 130 of the Constitution, the Judge said, there is no constitutional bar for setting up or establishing Benches in various parts other than New Delhi.

"India is the second thickly populated country, having population of 136 crores. One cannot expect ordinary litigants to travel from Manipur to New Delhi or from Kerala to New Delhi and resourced persons alone could take up the matters to the Apex Court. When approaching the Supreme Court by a common man remains in dreams only, it would amount to denying justice. No purpose would be achieved by declaring that access to justice is a fundamental right," Justice Kirubakaran said.

He added,

"Time has come to establish Benches of Supreme Court at other places apart from New Delhi. This Court hopes that necessary steps wold be taken by the Union Government in this regard at the earliest.

… The growth of population and litigations are to be taken note of and the practical difficulties faced by the litigant public should be addressed at the earliest."

Justice Pongiappan though approved of the decision in negativing the writ petition, made it clear that he does not subscribe with the views taken by Justice Kirubakaran on establishment of regional benches.

"I have gone through the judgment and I am of the view that the views and observations given in paragraph Nos.3, 4 and 19 to 32 in the judgment are not related to the prayer sought for in the writ petition. Hence, with great respect, I am unable to persuade myself to subscribe views taken by my esteemed Brother. Accordingly, except approving the decision in negativing the writ petition, I am not agreeing with the views and observations made in the above referred paragraphs of this judgment", Justice Pogiappan observed.

Case Title: Karthik Ranganathan v. Disciplinary Committee-IV, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu & Puducherry & Ors.

Click Here To Download Judgment

Read Judgment