The Supreme Court of India, functioning under the Indian Constitution, has always had a significant role in the country’s democratic framework. Recently, the 49th Chief Justice of India (CJI), Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, promised to have at least one Constitution Bench operational throughout the year. This move is expected to bring about certain improvements in the functioning of the judiciary, particularly in terms of case backlog and speed of hearing.
Understanding the Constitutional Bench
Firstly, it is essential to understand what Constitution Bench is. It refers to a bench of the Supreme Court with five or more judges. Contrastingly, a large number of cases before the Supreme Court are dealt by a bench of two or three judges, known as a Division Bench. The Constitution Benches, unlike the Division Benches, are not a common occurrence.
The Need for a Constitutional Bench
The existence of a Constitutional Bench is determined by the following factors:
1. Article 145(3) states that the minimum number of Judges who should sit for deciding cases involving a substantial question of law or for hearing any reference under Article 143 should be five.
2. Article 143 comes into play when the President seeks the Supreme Court’s opinion on any law. Although the court’s advice isn’t binding on the President, it does provide legal perspective.
3. In instances where there is a conflict of judgement among two or more three-judge benches, a Constitution Bench is assembled to provide a definitive verdict.
It’s important to note that Constitution Benches are formed ad hoc, only when the need arises based on the conditions aforementioned.
The Argument for a Permanent Constitutional Bench
At present, these Constitutional Benches are formed solely for particular purposes on an ad hoc basis. The idea behind establishing a permanent Constitutional Bench is to enable the judges to identify and adjudicate on cases requiring urgent attention, without unnecessary procedural delays.
The proposed move is also relevant as the Supreme Court’s pending case list has heightened from over 55,000 in 2017 to more than 71,000 currently. This increase happened despite raising the sanctioned judicial strength of the court to 34 judges in August 2019.
Possible Outcomes and Future Directions
However, for the establishment of a permanent Constitutional Bench to bear long-term benefits, it is necessary that its decisions set clear precedents. Moreover, a significant number of cases should be dismissed through written orders without requiring a hearing by the Supreme Court.
Furthermore, the UPSC Civil Services Examination has in the past years questioned the functionality and sovereignty of the parliamentary democracy and legislative capacities of India, particularly in comparison with the British model. Interestingly, one of the distinct areas where India stands apart from Britain is the function of the Constitution Bench and its power to review acts of Parliament. This striking difference brings us back to the significance of a Constitution Bench and its implications for Indian judiciary.
Lastly, a critical examination of the system further brings us to question the Supreme Court’s judgement on the ‘National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014’ concerning the appointment of judges in higher judiciary in India. This issue continues to be a point of discussion in legal circles, further underlining the need for constant review and improvement in the functioning of the judiciary system.