In Brief
A practicing advocate filed a public interest petition seeking establishment of Regional or National Courts of Appeal to address the Supreme Court's mounting case backlog and access-to-justice concerns. The Supreme Court, recognizing that its caseload has grown from 1,215 cases in 1950 to over 81,000 by 2014, acknowledged it has strayed from its constitutional role as a forum for constitutional questions into a routine appellate court. While holding that the right to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 136 is a basic constitutional feature that cannot be removed, the Court found the questions of judicial structural reform too important and complex for immediate resolution and referred them to a Constitution Bench for authoritative examination.", "summary_100">V. Vasanthakumar, a practicing advocate, filed a public interest petition seeking establishment of Regional or National Courts of Appeal to address the Supreme Court's escalating caseload and access-to-justice issues. The Court acknowledged that case filings have exponentially increased from 1,215 in 1950 to over 81,000 by 2014, causing the Supreme Court to function as a routine appellate court rather than a constitutional court. While recognizing that Article 136's appellate jurisdiction is an inalienable right protected by the basic structure doctrine, the Court found the proposals for structural reform to be constitutionally significant questions requiring detailed examination and referred the matter to a Constitution Bench."}}
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.