To strengthen the Supreme Court, divide it

The Supreme Court of India was envisioned primarily as a Constitutional Court under Article 132 and Article 145(3) (which mandates a minimum of five judges for substantial questions of constitutional law). However, its broad appellate jurisdiction under Article 136 (Special Leave Petition) has transformed it into a regular court of appeal. This overwhelming influx of routine cases dilutes its core function of constitutional interpretation. The proposal to split the court echoes previous recommendations by the Law Commission of India (such as its 229th Report), which suggested setting up a Constitution Bench in Delhi and Cassation Benches in four regions. This structural reform requires careful constitutional navigation, as Article 130 states the Supreme Court shall sit in Delhi or other places as the Chief Justice may decide with the President's approval. UPSC often asks about the balance between ensuring access to justice and maintaining the apex court's constitutional focus.

The backlog of over 92,000 cases highlights a severe crisis in judicial governance, affecting the fundamental right to speedy trial implicit in Article 21. The current system, where constitutional questions and routine appeals wait in the same queue, leads to significant delays in resolving matters of national importance. Implementing regional Courts of Appeal would decentralize the judicial process, making the highest appellate tier more accessible and cost-effective for litigants across India. This aligns with the principle of access to justice, a key component of the rule of law. However, creating regional benches also raises concerns about potentially creating conflicting judgments across different regions, thereby undermining the uniformity of law established by the apex court. Evaluating the feasibility of such institutional reform is crucial for improving judicial efficiency.

The immense geographical distance and financial cost associated with approaching the Supreme Court of India in Delhi create a significant barrier to justice for citizens from remote regions. This dynamic disproportionately affects marginalized and low-income populations, reinforcing systemic inequalities. The establishment of regional Courts of Appeal would mitigate these barriers, fulfilling the mandate of Article 39A (Equal justice and free legal aid). By bringing the appellate process closer to the people, the justice system becomes more inclusive and equitable. The debate on splitting the Supreme Court is not just an administrative issue but a profound question of social justice and the democratization of legal access.