Supreme Court Not Meant For People Living Near Delhi Only

Name of the Case

Karthik Ranganathan v. Disciplinary Committee-IV, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry and Ors.

Key Takeaways

• A petitioner approached the Supreme Court by way of writ Petition against the decision of State Bar Council as the BCI was not accessible for him.
• The two judge bench of the Court though had contradicting opinions on the question of accessibility to the Supreme Court, they agreed on disposing the petition and directing the petitioner to approach the BCI.
• Justice Kirubakaran was of the opinion that having Courts and Tribunals in Delhi only is denying access to justice to people of faraway places as it becomes expensive to travel to Delhi and the lawyers charge a higher amount.
• The Judge directed the Central Government to find a solution to the problem since there is no express restriction in the Constitution against establishing a Regional Bench of the SC.

Background

• A citizen of India filed a plea before the Court for not being able to approach Bar Council of India which is situated in New Delhi, against an order passed by Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.
• The petitioner submitted that BCI is situated more than 2000kms away and having Court and Tribunals at New Delhi only amounts to denial of justice to people residing far away.
• The State Bar Council submitted that the plea was not maintainable as an alternative remedy was available to approach the BCI under Advocates Act.
• The maintainability of the petition was rejected on the ground that availability of inefficacious alternate remedy does not restrict filing Writ Petition.
• The Court disposed the petition issuing directions to approach the BCI but gave observations on the petition in another judgment.

Justice Kirubakaran’s Observation

• Courts in close proximity to the Supreme Court have been filing cases or appeals before it, and an Indian from afar has been impossible to approach the ‘Great Citadel of Justice’.
• The Supreme Court rendered the Central Government’s initiatives to establish Benches in various parts of the country futile.
• The current number of Supreme Court Judges is insufficient, and more judges must be appointed.
• The Central Government was directed to apply its mind into the situation and come up with a remedy at the earliest along with amendment to the Constitution of India for establishing Regional Benches of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
• There is no constitutional restriction to Benches being set up or established in locations other than New Delhi.
• Due to the difficulties of approaching the Courts of Justice due to distance, the access to justice is hampered. It would be a violation of the citizen's right to a remedy under Article 21, as the presence of a remedy should be reasonably practical, and access, as one of the necessary elements, should be supplied, as otherwise it would be a far-fetched fantasy.

Plight of the Citizens

• Justice Kirubakaran agreed that the location of Courts and Tribunals only in New Delhi, without the presence of Regional Benches, causes injustice to those residing in far-flung areas.
• Due to a lack of resources and access to Appellate Courts, the majority of petitioners are forced to accept unfavourable orders.
• When the Supreme Court is inclined to provide authorization for the establishment of High Court benches, every citizen expects the Supreme Court to make the same decision for Supreme Court benches in the South, North, East, and West.
• The rise in population and litigation should be noted, and the practical obstacles that litigants encounter should be addressed as soon as possible.

Statistics of cases before SC

• 12% from Delhi
• 8.9% from Punjab and Haryana
• 7% from Uttarakhand
• 4.3% from Himachal Pradesh
• 1.1% from Madras
• 2.5% from Kerala and 2.8% from Andhra Pradesh

Justice Pongiappan’s Opinion

• Justice Pongiappan expressed his difference in opinion on the matter from that of Justice Kirubakaran.
• He agreed with disposing the writ petition but stated that the observations made were not sought for by the petitioner.

Do you think that Regional Benches of the Supreme Court and other Tribunals should be established? Tell us in the comments section below!