A Critical Analysis Of The Need For Multiple Seats Of The Supreme Court In India

Prakshal Jain & Sarthak Kulshrestha, Jagran Lakecity University, Bhopal.

ABSTRACT

"Peace is not the absence of war but the accessibility of justice."

- Harrison Ford

From the above quote, we can draw out the importance of accessibility of justice in order to maintain peace in society. A democratic country has its foundation rooted in the smooth and hassle-free administration of justice that could ensure the enforceability of the rights of citizens granted to them by law of the land. In our country, the apex judicial authority is the Supreme Court of India which is responsible to decide the appeals from the subordinate courts and pronounce the final verdict under any jurisdiction exercisable by it. The Supreme Court, being the highest Court of appeal, is obliged to administer justice in a fair and expedient manner. But the fair justice-delivery mechanism of the Supreme Court falls short on the ground of hard accessibility. Since India is a vast country with close to thirty states and several Union Territories, and home to a diversified population of roughly 1.3 billion people, it seems a little beyond the bounds of possibility to facilitate justice for everyone who requires it. The problem of accessibility to justice before the Supreme Court is faced by the people belonging to the southern and other remote areas of the country which are far away from New Delhi, where the only bench of the Supreme Court of India is located. It is very difficult and unlikely for the people from distant areas to come to the Supreme Court for filing appeals and seeking legal remedies. Thus, it necessitates the establishment of multiple benches of the Supreme Court, especially for southern and eastern India. This article critically examines this practical problem and discusses the criticism attracted by the solution proposed in the past by the Law Commission reports and legal experts.