Breaking: SC issues notice in PIL for setting up Court of Appeal; KKV, Khurshid appointed amicus

In a surprising move, the Supreme Court today issued notice to the Central government in a PIL seeking establishment of National Court of Appeal with Benches at Kolkata, Chennai and Mumbai..A three-judge Bench presided by Chief Justice of India TS Thakur and comprising Justices R Banumathi and UU Lalit heard the petitioner, V Vasanthakumar and also appointed Senior Advocates KK Venugopal and Salman Khurshid as Amicus Curiae..Vasanthakumar has sought for establishment of National Court of Appeal at Chennai, Mumbai and Kolkata and a quashing of the government order which had rejected the petitioner’s proposal for the same..Vasanthakumar had moved the Supreme Court in February 2014 with the same prayer. The Court, had disposed of that matter in October 2014 directing the Centre to respond to the petitioner’s suggestion within 6 months..Subsequently, the Centre had responded to Kumar as per the Court’s direction. It had rejected his suggestion on the ground that it would require an amendment to Article 130 of the Constitution of India and the same,.“is impermissible as this would change the Constitution of the Supreme Court completely.” .Vasanthakumar has now approached the Supreme Court again seeking quashing of this decision of the Central government..In his petition, Vasanthakumar has detailed out the reasons for seeking National Court of Appeal. According to the petitioner, the Supreme Court of India due to its vast powers and jurisdiction has grown into an institution with enormous powers in all spheres..“…the Executive and Legislature yielded to the will of this Hon’ble Court in the process of upholding the Constitution and gradually attained a pre-eminent position among the three organs of the State.”.The petitioner has submitted that the vast powers and jurisdiction of the court has resulted in all kinds of petitions being filed in the Supreme Court clogging up the court..“That of late, all kinds of Special Leave Petitions are being filed in this Hon’ble Court against every kind of order. For instance, if in a suit, the trial court allows an amendment application, the matter is often contested right up to this Hon’ble Court. Similarly, if a bail application is dismissed by the Magistrate, the aggrieved person approaches the Higher Courts. If the person is affluent even bail applications is being filed in this Hon’ble Court, that leads to accumulation of cases and mounting of arrears and there are instances, where this Hon’ble Court has allowed those applications: The humble and respectful submission of the petitioner is that High Courts should be the final authority in such matters to uphold the majesty of the State Judiciary.”.Vasanthakumar has relied on the Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Bihar Legal Society v. Chief Justice of India, (1986) 4 SCC 767, in which the Court opined that the Supreme Court was never intended to be a regular court of appeal against orders made by the High Court or the session’s court or the magistrates. He has contended that the Supreme Court was created as an apex court for the purpose of laying down the law for the entire country..“….extraordinary jurisdiction for granting special leave was conferred upon it under Article 136 of the Constitution so that it could interfere whenever it found that the law was not correctly enunciated by the lower courts or tribunals and it was necessary to pronounce the correct law on the subject.…It is not every case where the apex court finds that some injustice has been done that it would grant special leave and interferes. That would be converting the apex court into a regular court of appeal and moreover, by so doing, the apex court would soon be reduced to a position where it will find itself unable to remedy any injustice to all, on account of the tremendous backlog of cases which is bound to accumulate. We must realise that in the vast majority of cases the High Courts must become final.”.Further, Kumar has cited the logistical problem faced by litigants to come to the Supreme Court from distant places to agitate a matter. He has also provided data to buttress his point..“According to an article published in the print media discloses that of all the cases filed in this Hon’ble Court, the highest number are from High Court in the Northern States; 12% from Delhi, 8.9% from Punjab and Haryana, 7% from Uttarkhand, 4.3% from Himachal Pradesh, etc. The lowest figures are from the Southern High Courts: Kerala 2.5%, Andhra Pradesh 2.8%, and 1.1% from Madras High Court.”.Kumar has assailed the order of the government rejecting his proposal, on the ground that the government has misconstrued his suggestion..“the question involved is only the establishment of National Court of Appeal and not the constitution of the Benches of the Supreme Court in other parts of the country as erroneously understood and concluded by the 1st respondent. The National Court of Appeal is suggested to be constituted only for the purpose of dealing with Special Leave Petitions, leaving the questions of constitutional Law and public only to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated and considered by the 1st respondent.”.He has also argued that the argument that amendment of Article 130 is impermissible is wrong..“This finding and conclusion is absolutely erroneous and the impugned order is vitiated by failure to take into account relevant consideration as suggested by this Hon’ble court in its constitutional Bench judgment, which was based on sound reasoning. The constitutional bench, while making the suggestion took into account various facts including the over burden of the Supreme Court, the hardships faced by litigants and such other relevant considerations. All these facts have been ignored by the 1st respondent in considering the representation of the petitioner.”.Based on the above, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the government’s decision and for a direction to be issued to the government to establish National Court of Appeal with its Regional Benches at Chennai, Mumbai and Kolkata..The Bench, after a lengthy deliberation, proceeded to issue notice to the Centre. Since the Central government is not a party in the petition, the court granted the petitioner the liberty to amend the petition to arraign the Central government as a Respondent..Read the petition: