V. VASANTHAKUMAR versus H.C. BHATIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2016] 5 S.C.R. 51 · Decided: 13-07-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 5 S.C.R. 51 
V. VASANTHAKUMAR 
v. 
H.C. BHATIA AND ORS. 
(Writ Petition (C) No. 36 of2016) 
JULY 13,2016 
[T.S. THAKUR, CJI, R. BANUMATHI AND UDAY UMESH 
LALIT, JJ.] 
Reference to larger bench: Constitution 'of India - Art.136 -
Special leave petition - Need for restrained approach towards grant 
of special leave petition - Matter relating to establishment of 
National/Regional Courts of Appeal to tackle issue of pending cases 
and long delay in disposal of cases in Supreme Court - Matter 
referred to Co11stitutional Bench for an authoritative pronouncement. 
Referring the matter to a larger Bench, the Court 
HELD: 1. The Supreme Court was never meant to be a 
regular court of appeal. It was meant to exercise its powers under 
Article 136 of the Constitution only in cases which raised 
important questions involving interpretation of the Constitution 
or questions of general public importance or questions of 
constitutionality of State or Central legislations or those raising 
important issues touching Centre-State relationship etc. The 
jurisdiction may also have been available to the Court where it 
found gross miscarriage of justice or an error so outrageous as 
no reasonable person would countenance. The power to interfere 
was not meant to be exercisable just because prolonged argument 
would eventually reveal some error or irregularity or a possible 
alternative view on a subject that did not cause any miscarriage 
of justice of a kind that would shock the conscience of the court 
on the subject. The fact, however remains that the filing of cases 
in the Supreme Court over the past six decades has grown so 
sharply that the Judge strength in the Supreme Court is proving 
inadequate to deal with the same. Statistics show that more than 
3f4'h of the total number of cases filed are dismissed in limine. 
Even so, the dismissal is only after the court has applied its mind 
and heard arguments which consume considerable time of the 
Judges. Dismissal of an overwhelming number of cases has not 
51 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
52 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 5 S.C.R. 
and does not discourage the litigants or the member of the Bar 
from filing cases. That is why the number of cases filed is on the 
rise every year. [Para 20) [65-B-F) 
2. It was contended that the way forward is setting up of 
Regional Courts of Appeal, firstly, because the same would take 
justice closer to the doorsteps of the litigants, especially those 
living at distant places and secondly, because an intermediary 
court would reduce the burden of the Supreme Court without 
denying to the litigants an opportunity to agitate his case before 
a court higher than the High Court. The only difference in that 
situation will be that in place of the Supreme Court the Court of 
Appeal would look into the matter and correct whatever needs 
to be corrected in the judgment impugned before it. It was in 
that backdrop that following questions have arisen arise for 
consideration: With access to justice being a fundamental right, 
would the said right stand denied to litigants, due to the unduly 
long delay in the disposal of cases in the S\lpreme Court; Would 
the mere increase in the number of judges be an answer to the 
problem of undue delay in disposal of cases and to what extent 
would such increase be. feasible; Would the division of the 
Supreme Court into a Constitutional wing and an appellate wing 
be an answer to the problem; Would the fact that the Supreme 
Court oflndia is situate in the far North, in Delhi, rendering travel 
from the Southern states and some other states in India, unduly 
long and expensive, be a deterrent to real access to justice; 
Would the Supreme Court sitting in benches in different parts of 
India be an answer to the last mentioned problem; Has the 
Supreme Court of India been exercising jurisdiction as an 
ordinary court of appeal on facts and law, in regard to routine 
cases of every description; Is the huge pendency of cases in the 
Supreme Court, caused by the Court not restricting its 
consideration, as in the case of the Apex Courts of other 
countries, to Constitutional issues, questions of national 
importance, differences of opinion between different High Courts, 
death sentence cases and matters entrusted to the Supreme 
Court by express provisions of the Constitution; Is there a need 
for having Courts of Appeal, with exclusive jurisdiction to hear 
and finally decide the vast proporti

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.