The demands of Stalin — creation of SC regional benches , and making Tamil an official language of Madras High Court — have drawn mixed reactions.
Published Sep 07, 2022 | 5:03 PM ⚊ Updated Dec 31, 2022 | 6:33 PM
Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin with Madras High Court CJ MN Bhandari, Supreme Court judges Justices Indira Banerjee and Sanjay Kishan Kaul, and others (Supplied)
On 4 September, while taking part in an event to lay the foundation stone for two new buildings within the premises of the Madras High Court in Chennai to house subordinate courts, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin used the opportunity to reiterate his three key judiciary-related demands.
One was the setting up of regional branches of the Supreme Court. The second was making Tamil the official language of the high court. The third was for more diversity in what he called the “higher judiciary”.
Madras High Court Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari, the state law minister S Regupathy, and Supreme Court Justices Indira Banerjee and Sanjay Kishan Kaul were present at the event.
It is important to note that Stalin has raised the same demand on multiple occasions.
For example, he wrote a letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi and then Chief Justice of India NV Ramana in May urging them to take appropriate steps to set up permanent regional branches of the Supreme Court in New Delhi, Chennai, Kolkata, and Mumbai, apart from a constitution bench in Delhi so that “citizens of this vast country (may) have equal access to the apex court”.
Pointing out that Hindi has been made the official language in addition to English in the high courts of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, and Bihar, the chief minister in his letter also asked what the impediment was in making the language of other states the official language of the respective high courts, in addition to English.
Batting for Tamil as the official language of the Madras High Court and its bench in Madurai, Stalin said that “making law and justice comprehensible for the common man in its proceedings is essential in the justice delivery system”.
The Tamil Nadu chief minister, in his letter to the prime minister, also said that judicial diversity was fundamental to the quality of verdicts.
He wrote: “For the past few years, we have been witnessing declining representation from all the sections of the society in the higher judiciary, leading to a ‘diversity deficit’.”
Stalin added: “A broad-based, heterogeneous group of judges representing various sections of the society as a whole alone can reflect the views and values of society as a whole, particularly on issues involving historical, traditional, linguistic and cultural matters.”
But it is not just Stalin. The demand to set up regional benches of the Supreme Court has been a longstanding one, and several leaders from political parties like the TRS, and even former vice-president Venkaiah Naidu and bar associations from South India have made similar requests.
Moreover, various standing committees of Parliament have recommended the creation of regional benches of the apex court, and the 18th Law Commission suggested as much in 2009.
One of the primary arguments raised in favour of setting up regional benches of the Supreme Court is the tyranny of distance.
With the apex court located in New Delhi, people from different corners of the country might find it difficult to knock on the doors of the Supreme Court for justice.
Senior advocate and DMK Rajya Sabha P Wilson with Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin (Twitter/@PWilsonDMK)
Elaborating on this point, senior lawyer and DMK Member of Parliament P Wilson — someone who has also introduced a private member’s Bill in the Rajya Sabha seeking regional benches of the Supreme Court — said that for a person from the Northeast or from Kanniyakumari, access to the Supreme Court was not easy in terms of the distance or cost.
“A litigant who is not from Delhi needs to arrange a lawyer, find accommodation in the city, and make many such arrangements. Now imagine if the case gets adjourned, and it could happen multiple times,” he told South First.
“The cost incurred by the litigant only goes up. This prevents poor litigants from accessing the temple of justice,” explained Wilson.
Wilson also noted that BR Ambedkar considered Article 32 of the Constitution — the right to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights — as its heart and soul.
“The heart and soul cannot only function from Delhi. It should be brought to the regional benches,” he added.
Similar views have been expressed by a few retired judges as well.
For instance, retired Madras High Court judge Justice N Kirubakaran said in his farewell address that having the Supreme Court only in Delhi was an “injustice” to most citizens of the country.
Another important factor for demanding regional benches was the huge pendency of cases before the Supreme Court.
Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju told the Rajya Sabha during the previous session of Parliament that as on 2 August, the total number of cases pending in the top court was 71,411 — of which 56,365 are civil matters and 15,076 are criminal cases.
Out of this, more than 10,491 cases had been awaiting disposal for over a decade, and 18,134 cases had been pending 5-10 years.
“Imagine this: We have just 34 seats of judges in the Supreme Court for a population of 133 crore. In no stretch of imagination can they cater to the entire population,” Wilson pointed out while speaking about the pendency of cases.
Importantly, Article 130 of the Constitution, reads, “The Supreme Court shall sit in Delhi or in such other place or places, as the Chief Justice of India may, with the approval of the President, from time to time appoint.” This is also cited by those advocating for regional benches of the top court.
“This provision has not been invoked till now. The Supreme Court rejected the proposal to set up regional benches. If not to execute it, why have this provision? The court should give effect to Article 130,” Wilson opined.
The Law Commission in 2009 had taken a liberal interpretation of Article 130 so that no constitutional amendment was required for the purpose of setting up cassation benches in four regions and a constitution bench in Delhi.
An alternative remedy is that of a National Court of Appeal. The NCA, with regional branches in Chennai, Mumbai, and Kolkata, could act as a final court of justice in dealing with appeals from high courts and tribunals within their region over civil, criminal, labour, and revenue matters.
In such a scenario, the Supreme Court in Delhi would hear only matters of constitutional law and public law. However, the idea has drawn mixed reactions from within the legal community.
Supreme Court of India (Supreme Court website)
Though there have been demands from time to time to set up regional benches of the Supreme Court, the apex court has consistently not agreed to that recommendation.
The court on various occasions held that it “found no justification” for regional benches.
The main reason several legal luminaries, including Chief Justices, reject the idea of regional benches is that they believe it would affect the “unitary character” of the top court.
Retired Madras High Court Justice Chandru told South First that he opposed the idea of creating regional benches of the Supreme Court as it would “lead to fragmentation of powers” in addition to the fact that there was a lack of proper infrastructure.
“The Supreme Court should be strong. It cannot be fragmented. Conformity of the court might not be there if there are different benches,” he explained.
He also claimed that the demand for setting up regional benches might not end with just the creation of courts in four regions of the country.
“Take for example the southern region. One may want the regional bench in Hyderabad. The other may want it in Chennai. Another person may want it in Bengaluru. So there won’t be any end to it,” he added.
While agreeing that access to the Supreme Court could get difficult for people from different parts of the country, Chandru argued that technology could be used to bridge this gap.
“We had virtual hearings during Covid-19. We adapted to the time. Even this problem can be solved by putting technology to good use,” the retired judge said.
Justice Chandru also raised concerns about how judges would be appointed to the regional benches.
He said: “The Chief Justice of India could play a game of chess. The Master of Roll game could also be utilised by the government. Now, the allotment of cases is looked after by the Chief Justice. If regional benches are appointed, the appointment of judges may also come under him/her.”
Another main demand raised by the DMK government in Tamil Nadu is to make Tamil the official language of the Madras High Court in addition to English.
During an event at the Madras High Court in April this year, the CJI had said: “Judicial proceedings cannot be like chanting of mantras in a wedding that nobody understands.”
Quoting these remarks by the CJI, Stalin said that “unfortunately it has come true in today’s high courts” and pressed for Tamil to be made the official language of the Madras High Court so that judicial proceedings could be understood by the common man.
“As a language that is both classical and a vibrant modern language, Tamil would be perfectly suitable to be used in the High Court,” Stalin’s letter to Modi and the CJI read.
Shared the dais with Hon’ble CJI during the foundation stone laying ceremony of a 9-storey Ad Block for Madras HC and appealed to him to
i) ensure Social Justice in judiciary,
ii) allow the use of Tamil in Madras HC &
iii) set up a regional bench for SC at Chennai. pic.twitter.com/2iIHkz5JUH— M.K.Stalin (@mkstalin) April 23, 2022
However, there are several difficulties in implementing this demand, too.
According to Justice Chandru, this is more of an “emotional demand” than a practical one.
“The demand is mired in practical difficulties. Do we have the necessary infrastructure to implement it? Do we have Tamil short-hand writers etc? We don’t even have the official translation of the Indian Constitution in Tamil! There are no standardised legal words in Tamil. Former chief minister M Karunanidhi said that required infrastructure would be created to implement this demand in 2007. In 15 years, what has happened?” he said.
Justice Chandru further added: “There is a lot of gap between the cup and the lip.”
It may be noted that Stalin, in his letter to Modi and the CJI, said that the state government had taken several initiatives to bring out standard books on law in Tamil.
But it is not just that. One of the key reasons this idea is not entertained by the judiciary is that judges from across the country are transferred to different high courts. This may create a communication gap. But according to the Tamil Nadu government, with “improvement in modern technology, the difficulties over translation can easily be bridged”.
As for the case of Hindi as an official language in certain high courts in North India, its use in proceedings in the High Court of Rajasthan was authorised under Article 348(2) of the Constitution in 1950. After the Cabinet Committee’s decision dated 21, May 1965, the use of Hindi was authorised in the High Courts of Uttar Pradesh (1969), Madhya Pradesh (1971), and Bihar (1972) in consultation with the Chief Justice of India.
