Part V: The Union

Article 130: Seat of Supreme Court

Overview of Article 130: Seat of Supreme Court

--- Original Article ---

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.

Explanations

Article 130 establishes that the seat of the Supreme Court of India is located in Delhi. However, it also grants the Chief Justice of India, with the President’s approval, the authority to designate other places where the Court may sit. This provides flexibility to meet the needs of the judicial system and ensure access to justice across the country.

Key Provisions

1. Primary Seat in Delhi

By establishing Delhi as the primary seat, the framers of the Constitution aimed to centralize the operations of the Supreme Court, ensuring a clear and accessible location for litigants to approach the Court for justice.

2. Flexibility for Other Locations

Article 130 provides the Chief Justice of India, with the approval of the President, the power to allow the Supreme Court to sit in other locations. This flexibility ensures that the Supreme Court can meet the evolving needs of the nation without needing further constitutional amendments.

Real-Life Examples

  • Although the Supreme Court primarily operates in Delhi, there have been ongoing discussions about the need to establish regional benches of the Supreme Court to make justice more accessible. Proposals have suggested setting up benches in major cities like Mumbai, Kolkata, and Chennai. However, these suggestions have not yet materialized into concrete action, and the Supreme Court continues to sit solely in Delhi.
  • In 2009, a report by the Law Commission of India recommended the establishment of regional benches to address the growing number of cases and reduce the burden on the central bench in Delhi. The report highlighted the need to make justice more accessible to litigants across the country, particularly in remote regions, by setting up benches in other parts of India. Despite these recommendations, no regional benches have been established to date, with some arguing that the centralization of the Court ensures uniformity in judicial interpretation and decisions.
  • The issue of regional benches came to prominence again in 2018 when several legal experts and politicians advocated for the decentralization of the Supreme Court, citing the growing case backlog and delays in the judicial process. These calls were reinforced by litigants from southern and eastern parts of the country, who argued that access to the Supreme Court in Delhi was logistically and financially burdensome. However, the Supreme Court has resisted these calls, emphasizing the importance of maintaining its unified authority from a single seat in the nation's capital.
  • The flexibility provided by Article 130 could theoretically be used in the future to establish temporary or permanent Supreme Court sittings outside Delhi if the Chief Justice and the President deem it necessary. The provision ensures that as India's judicial needs evolve, the Supreme Court has the constitutional backing to adapt and sit in other locations if required. However, the Supreme Court has so far maintained its central presence in Delhi, relying on Article 130 as a fallback option for extraordinary circumstances.

Historical Significance

The inclusion of Article 130 reflects the foresight of the framers of the Constitution, who anticipated the potential need for flexibility in the Court’s location. While Delhi is the central seat, the provision allows the Chief Justice to adapt to the needs of the country without legislative complications.

Judicial Interpretation and Precedents

The power to establish additional benches of the Supreme Court in other parts of the country has been a topic of discussion, but as of now, no regional benches have been established. However, the Court retains the flexibility to do so if the need arises.

Debates and Amendments

During the Constituent Assembly debates, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar proposed to split Article 108 into Article 108-A, which stated: "The Supreme Court shall sit in Delhi or at such other place or places, as the Chief Justice of India may, with the approval of the President, from time to time, appoint."

This provision aimed to establish the primary seat of the Supreme Court in Delhi while allowing flexibility for the Court to sit at other locations if necessary. Dr. Ambedkar explained that specifying Delhi was essential for clarity, ensuring litigants knew where to approach the Court. The additional clause allowing for other locations was included to accommodate any future changes in the capital or other logistical needs without requiring a constitutional amendment.

Shri Jaspat Roy Kapoor raised concerns that the wording could imply the Court could only sit either in Delhi or at other places, potentially excluding simultaneous sittings. He proposed amendments to clarify that the Supreme Court could sit in Delhi and/or other places. However, Dr. Ambedkar and Shri T. T. Krishnamachari assured that the original wording was sufficient and covered all potential scenarios.

The discussion highlighted the need for both a defined primary seat and flexibility for the Supreme Court's operations. Ultimately, Ambedkar's wording for Article 108-A was adopted, establishing Delhi as the primary seat while allowing the Chief Justice, with the President's approval, to designate other locations as needed.

References

  • The Constitution of India, Article 130
  • Constituent Assembly Debates on Article 108
  • The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
  • Judicial Pronouncements on Supreme Court Benches
  • Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer's Commentary on Flexibility in Judiciary
Article 129 Article 131