With Justice JS Khehar taking over as 44th Chief Justice of India, the biggest challenge he faces is to manage the disproportionate jurisdictional burden of some high courts and their benches. Unequal distribution of work not only adds to the already soaring pendency of cases in some high courts but also inconveniences litigants by defeating the focus of successive governments to bring justice to doorsteps.
Former Chief Justice of India R M Lodha said, “The demand of equal distribution of work among the high courts is justified as it is often seen that fewer high courts have no work, whereas others have loads of work which is never ending. Ministry of Law and Justice should bring in a mechanism so that population be seen as the sole criteria of having a regional bench in that state.”
Available data reveal that a single bench of the Allahabad High Court exercises jurisdiction over more than 15 crore people, while the Sikkim High Court covers a little over six lakh people. Similarly, the single-bench Bihar High Court has the jurisdiction over a population of 10,40,99,452 whereas the high courts of Jharkhand, Kerala and Chhattisgarh combined have to cater to a population of 9,92,71,351.
Mumbai and Jabalpur benches of the Bombay and Madhya Pradesh High Courts respectively have jurisdiction over more people than the other two benches in their states (Aurangabad and Nagpur in Maharashtra, and Gwalior and Indore in Madhya Pradesh) combined.
While 5,87,65,326 people are under the Mumbai bench, Aurangabad and Nagpur benches have the jurisdiction over 4,44,20,754 people. Similarly, the Jabalpur bench caters to a population of 5,11,48,303, compared to 2,14,48,762 people under Gwalior and Indore benches.
CJI Khehar has also to meet the demand of a separate high court for Telangana, which witnessed a long agitation by lawyers and judicial officers last year. It was also the first time in independent India’s history that 200 judges went on a mass casual leave in protest. The people of Telangana were demanding the bifurcation of the high court of judicature at Hyderabad (common for Telangana and Andhra Pradesh) and the allocation of subordinate judicial officers between Telangana and Andhra Pradesh.
Ministry of Law and Justice says that the Central government has no responsibility in the bifurcation and the Andhra Pradesh chief minister must provide the necessary infrastructure for the new court, following which the chief justice of the Hyderabad High Court must act on bifurcation.
Of the 24 High Courts, eight—Bombay, Calcutta, Gauhati, Gujarat, Hyderabad, Kerala, Madras, and Punjab and Haryana—have multiple states and Union Territories to adjudicate. These high courts sit in more than one place, with eight of them having multiple regional benches across a state or states. This non-uniformity of the benches creates more inconvenience for litigants and thus many cases get stuck.
The concept of regional benches is very old and these were set up initially to improve access to justice. These benches also reduce travelling expenses of litigants and lawyers to the capital city. On the judicial side, creation of regional benches means faster disposal of cases as fewer adjournments would be sought by litigating parties.
However, according to the statute, there are limits to the number of regional benches a high court can have.Legal experts say that for a functional regional bench of high court, high infrastructural costs are involved such as the building and staff.
Data proves why there is merit in demand for separate benches in Uttar Pradesh, especially in the Western and Eastern regions, given the location of the Allahabad High Court and the large population over which it has jurisdiction. Similarly, a bench in North Bengal might make the Calcutta High Court more accessible to litigants there.
After decades of sharing a high court, perhaps Punjab and Haryana may have a legitimate claim to more regional benches, if not separate high courts altogether.
Even within high courts having multiple benches, there is a case for redistributing districts that are covered by the principal bench so that they are not disproportionately overburdened. Cases in point are the Bombay High Court and Madhya Pradesh High Court.
Former Additional Solicitor General Biswajit Bhattacharya said, “Equal distribution of work at the high court level will automatically lead to less pendency in the apex court. The issue is long pending and it is high time some decision was taken to fulfil the Centre’s motto of bringing justice to doorstep.”
The Supreme Court’s Constitution bench is also dwelling upon a plea which sought separate regional benches of the apex court. While framing questions for the Constitution Bench, the bench headed by then Chief Justice T S Thakur had questioned whether the Supreme Court has been acting as an ordinary court of appeal on facts and law with regard to routine cases and said, “Is there a need for having Courts of Appeal with exclusive jurisdiction to hear and finally decide the vast proportion of the routine cases? If four regional Courts of Appeal are established, in the Northern, Southern, Eastern and Western regions of the country, each manned by, say, 15 judges, elevated or appointed to each Court by the Collegium, would this not satisfy the requirement of ‘access to justice’ to all litigants from every part of the country?”
Senior Supreme Court lawyer Neeraj who is Secretary, Bar Association, says, “The demand of increase in number of regional benches is the need of the hour as it will help litigants and legal fraternity a lot. The old structure of regional benches should now be re-worked keeping in mind the average population of the region and also stress be laid on the existing pendency of cases.”