- As you are aware, Indian citizens – especially ordinary people like most of us – would look up to the Apex Court as the last resort for seeking relief, justice, and fair hearing on diverse matters of importance. There is a strong belief among us that the Supreme Court will never allow the seriousness of a case to be diluted upholding the basic tenet of fair trial and ruling. Of course, the SC is mandated to not only uphold the sanctity of the Constitution but also ensure the guaranteed rights are not compromised from any quarters. To that extent, the highest court of the country has lived up to its billing in safeguarding the interests of the rights. However, the mounting cases at all levels of the judiciary are not only concerning but also delay the speedy delivery of justice.
PC: TNN
- Did someone mention that justice delayed is justice denied? We all have heard about this adage for umpteen times in our lives but unfortunately, the cases running for decades in not uncommon either. The higher judiciary led by the SC is making efforts to usher in systemic reforms from time to time but going by the pendency of cases, it simply isn’t good enough to provide succour to the aggrieved parties. It is visible to see how the lower levels of the judiciary are not only struggling to dispose of cases in a time-bound manner but also are severely restricted by the humongous shortfall in the adjudicating officials. This glaring anomaly has undermined the efforts of the higher judiciary to come to the aid of the common citizens seeking relief/justice.
- In a welcoming statement, CJI Chandrachud recently mentioned that constitution benches of different strengths shall henceforth be a permanent feature of the Supreme Court. This reform has been long awaited and should be expedited. For instance, Article 145(3) stipulates the hearing by a minimum of five judges for any involving a substantial question of law regarding the interpretation of the Constitution. And there are 306 cases pending decisions by such five-judge benches. Likewise, another 135 awaits nine-judge benches. It means five main and 130 connected cases. This also indicates the substantiveness of large-bench judgments, which have a wide-ranging and long-lasting impact. But why has this reform been so difficult?
PC: Supreme Court
- In comparison, the US Supreme Court has the luxury of hearing only constitutional matters, whereas India’s Apex Court has an extremely diverse pendency of over 80,000 cases. It is a people’s court, after all. So, when a nine-judge bench sits, it takes up 26% of the court’s sanctioned strength of 34 judges. When tenures like that of CJI Ramana see no constitution bench hearings, it is seen as a question of prioritizing people’s matters against fancy constitutional ones. While this distinction is patently false, the point here is that some kind of balance must be found, preferably systemic. The subordinate courts also must step up. However, without more constitutional benches, the ambit of Indians’ fundamental rights will not expand either.
