Govt mulls over appeals courts to cut Supreme Court load

The Centre is contemplating the creation of at least four “courts of appeal” between the high courts and the Supreme Court to take on the burden of disposing of appeals that have no constitutional issues to adjudicate on.

The courts of appeal would restore the status of the Supreme Court to that of a constitutional court, reducing its burden.

Law minister M Veerappa Moily told DNA that the proposal was under “serious consideration” by the government.

Moily said the proposed courts of appeal would comprise judges drawn from the high courts and their verdicts would be final, unless the rulings raised constitutional aspects and issues.

There is also a move to enhance the retirement age of high court judges from 62 to 65 years, thus bringing parity between the two sets of constitutional judges.

Moily said benches of the courts of appeal would be set up in at least four regions so that litigants having disputes over rent, matrimonial matters, custody of children, partition of property, and such other issues did not have to rush all the way to Delhi for finality.

Senior constitutional lawyer PP Rao, however, has strong reservations on Moily’s plans. “The increase in retirement age and creation of the courts of appeal would require a constitutional amendment,” Rao said. “What’s needed is better quality of judges at every forum and speedy justice, which alone could restore people’s faith in the dispensation.”

But Rao’s concerns don’t find favour with the Supreme Court, which, in a ruling on March 20, said: “If special leave petitions are entertained against all and sundry orders passed by any court or tribunal, then this court after some time will collapse under its own burden.”

The order was passed by a bench of Justice Markandey Katju and Justice RM Lodha.

Under the constitutional scheme, the last court in the country in ordinary cases was meant to be the high court. The Supreme Court, as the apex court, was meant to deal only with important issues like constitutional questions, questions of law of general importance, or where grave injustice had been done, the bench said.

The ruling came amid intense debate on the need to divide the apex court, with the then chief justice of India, KG Balakrishnan, stoutly defending its status, saying: “I will not allow the court to split.”

A strong votary of the courts of appeal, noted constitutional lawyer KK Venugopal said the Constitution could be amended by adding an article, 136A, whereby the courts would exercise some of the powers of the Supreme Court.

This means that the courts of appeal would finally decide all cases arising from the HCs relating to 140 subcategories, without any further appeals lying with the SC.

Former Lok Sabha speaker and eminent jurist Somnath Chatterjee has said that two or three judges from the Supreme Court could constitute the circuit benches and dispose of appeals at different centres in their capacity as Supreme Court judges, making the judgments final.

The chief justice of India would remain in New Delhi with other judges who would decide on issues of constitutional or national importance, cases that may be so designated by the bench in Delhi or other circuit benches, said Chatterjee, who had seen the first bench of the Supreme Court functioning at Parliament House.

Bar Association of India general secretary Lalit Bhasin supports the carving out of courts of appeals, but emphasises that the retirement age of judges should be increased to 68 years.