VMC2 - Petitioners

MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER: VMC2
Team Code: VMC2
M.K.E.S COLLEGE OF LAW
VIDHIGYAAN – 2022
7th NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
Before
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDICA
FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDICA
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL)
ADVOCATES ASSOCIATION………………………...APPELLANT
Vs
UNION OF INDICA………………………………. RESPONDENT
MEMORIAL for the Appellant/ Petitioner
Page 0 of 31
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................... 3
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................... 5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ........................................................ 6
STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................ 7
ISSUES FRAMED .................................................................................... 8
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ................................................................ 9
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED: ................................................................. 11
I. THAT SETTING UP OF SUCH PERMANENT REGIONAL

BENCHES OF SUPREME COURT IS CONSTITUTIONAL:......... 11
A. LIBERAL INTERPRETATION ...................................................................... 11
B. PURPOSIVE INTERPRETATION............................................................... 13
II. THAT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SUCH REGIONAL

BENCHES OF HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDICA WILL
MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. ...................................................... 14
A. THE CURRENT MODEL IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14,

ARTICLE 21 AND ARTICLE 39A OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION
......................................................................................................................................... 15
B. MODEL PRESENTED BY THE 225th LAW COMMISION

REPORT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FUNDAMENTAL ASPECTS
OF JUSTICE .............................................................................................................. 22
III. THAT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SUCH REGIONAL

BENCHES WOULD NOT CAUSE PREJUDICE TO ITS
Page 1 of 31
SUBORDINATE COURTS OR ANY OTHER AREAS OF

JUDICIARY:......................................................................................... 26
A. THE FRAMEWORK OF THE REGIONAL BENCHES OF THE

HIGH COURTS CAN BE APPLIED TO THE SUPREME COURTS . 26
B. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE CO-EXISTENCE OF THE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND CASSATION SYSTEMS IN IRELAND AND
GERMANY ................................................................................................................. 27
PRAYER ................................................................................................... 31
Page 2 of 31
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
1. Anita Kushwaha v Pushap Sudan (2016) 8 SCC 509 ............. 16, 19, 25
2. Karthik Ranganathan v Disciplinary Committee-IV WP No 13796 of
2021 ..................................................................................................... 20
3. Manmohan Das vs Bishan Das AIR 1967 SC 643.............................. 11
4. Mathai v George (2010) 4 SCC 358 ................................................... 18
5. Minister of Home Affairs v Fisher 1980 AC 319 ................................ 13
6. Navinchandra Mafatlal v CIT AIR 1955 SC 58 ................................. 12
7. Sheela Barsa vs Union of India (1988) 4 SCC 226 ............................ 15
8. Sheela Barse v Union of India (1988) 4 SCC 226 ........................ 16, 20
9. State (NCT of Delhi) v Union of India (2018) 8 SCC 501 .................. 13
10.State of Kerala v Mathai Verghese and Ors (1986) 4 SCC 746 ......... 12
11.Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn v Union of India (1993) 4
SCC 441 ............................................................................................... 13
12.V Vasanthakumar vs HC Bhatia and Ors MANU/SC/0774/2016 ...... 16
STATUTES AND ARTICLES
1. Constitution of India 1950, art 130 ..................................................... 11

2. Constitution of India 1950, art 14 ....................................................... 15
3. Constitution of India 1950, art 21 ....................................................... 16
4. Constitution of India 1950, art 39A..................................................... 18
5. SCR 1996 Ord 7, r 2 ............................................................................ 25
OTHER AUTHORITIES
1. Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel,

Public Grievances, Law, and Justice, 28th Report on the Supreme
Page 3 of 31
Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill 2008 (2008, Rajya Sabha,

Parliament of India) ............................................................................. 16
2. Law Commission, Constitutional Division within the Supreme Court –
A recommendation (Law Com No 10, 1984). ..................................... 22
3. Law Commission, Need for division of the Supreme Court into a
Constitution Bench at Delhi and Cassation Benches in four regions at
Delhi, Chennai/Hyderabad, Kolkata and Mumbai (Law Com No 18,
2006). ................................................................................................... 13
4. Law Commission, The Supreme Court- A Fresh Look (Law Com No
11, 1988). ............................................................................................. 23
5. Parliamentary Standing Committee on Law and Justice, 15th report for
demands for grants (2006-2007) of the Ministry of Law and Justice
(2006-07, Rajya Sabha, Parliament of India) paras 8.33-8.34 ............ 21
(2007-08, Rajya Sabha, Parliament of India) ...................................... 21
8. Parliamentary Standing Committee on Law and Justice, 2nd report for
(2004-05, Rajya Sabha, Parliament of India) paras 111-113 .............. 21
9. Parliamentary Standing Committee on Law and Justice, 2nd report for
10.Parliamentary Standing Committee on Law and Justice, 6th report for
(2005-06, Rajya Sabha, Parliament of India) paras 8.31- 8.34 ........... 21
Page 4 of 31
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVIATIONS EXPANSIONS
¶ Paragraph
SC Supreme Court
HC High Court
CJI Chief Justice of India
Art. Article
AIR All India Reporter
SCC Supreme Court Cases
Comm. Commission
v./ vs versus
Ors Others
Govt. Government
Const. Constitution
Cr. Crore
PIL Public Interest Litigation
Page 5 of 31
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
Advocate Association, the Petitioner in the Public Interest Litigation filed

under Article 32 of the Constitution of Indica, concerning the case of
Advocate Association v. Union of Indica, humbly submits to the
jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.
The present memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions, and

arguments in the present case.
Page 6 of 31
STATEMENT OF FACTS
THE COUNTRY OF INDICA- A BACKGROUND:

A megadiverse country admeasuring area 3.287 million sq. kms, the
Republic of Indica has about 138 Cr. citizens. Governed through the largest
written constitution on record, it is a federal State and has a single and
unified judicial system with a three-tier structure, i.e., SC, HC and
Subordinate Courts. The SC of Indica is the highest judicial court situated
at the capital of the Republic of Indica, New Deli. Its decisions are binding
on all other Courts, Forums, Tribunals, Bodies and applicable Authorities.
The CJI is the head and Chief Judge of the SC, which consists of a
maximum of 34 judges and has extensive powers in the form of original,
appellate and advisory jurisdictions.
STATE OF THE PROBLEM:
Every aggrieved citizen of the country is empowered to approach the SC

for the enforcement of their fundamental rights as per the process laid down
by law. Since the SC is the sole court of final appeal in the country, there
is a serious pendency of cases that severely affects justice delivery to every
rightful citizen. According to the National Judicial Data Grid and the SC,
presently, there are more than 69,000 cases pending before the Apex Court,
which also affects the livelihood of practising advocates. Hence, to address
this issue, a PIL was filed by Advocates Association in the light of Article
39A before the Hon'ble Court praying for the passing of directions and
necessary orders against the Respondents for setting up permanent regional
benches of Supreme Court in Mumbhai, Calicutta, and Chinnai and such
other locations.
Page 7 of 31
ISSUES FRAMED
The following issues have been placed before the Hon’ble Supreme court
to adjudicate upon:
A. Whether setting up of such permanent regional benches of Supreme
Court Constitutional?
B. Will establishment of such regional benches of Hon’ble Supreme
Court of Indica meet the ends of justice?

C. Whether establishment of such regional benches causes prejudice
to its subordinate courts or any other areas of judiciary?
Page 8 of 31
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

BENCHES OF SUPREME COURT IS CONSTITUTIONAL:
Article 130 of the Indian Constitution gives the power to the Supreme
Court of India to decide its seat of residence, in Delhi or any other place or
places, as per the decision of the Chief Justice of India with the approval
of the President. The article puts the onus on the Chief Justice of India to
decide such place or places. Thus, the setting up of such permanent regional
benches of the Supreme Court of Indica is constitutional in nature and
should be promoted to enhance greater access to justice for people across
the nation.

BENCHES OF HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDICA
WILL MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE:
As per the current situation, the Supreme Court of Indica has the capital of
Indica- New Deli, as its only and permanent seat of residence. This has
affected the administration of justice to the masses and the livelihoods of
the practicing advocates as well, as they have to travel all the way down to
New Deli for the hearings of their respective cases. It also adds to the cost
of the parties who aren’t financially strong. At the same time, it has led to
pendency of several cases as only a single court is responsible for the
decisions in a densely populated country. As per the data of the supreme
court itself, along with that of National Judicial Data Grid, more than
69,000 cases are pending before the Apex Court. It must be noted that
establishment of regional benches will help to share the burden of the court
Page 9 of 31
and the fast administration of justice to the masses, and people will have
the option to travel to their nearest branch of the Supreme Court instead of
travelling all the way up to New Deli.

JUDICIARY:
The petitioner is demanding the regional benches of Supreme Court across

the country, which shall function as the court of final appeal in that
respective area. However, this won’t cause prejudice or reduce the stature
of its subordinate courts like the District Courts, the High Courts or the
Tribunals. The sole function of these regional benches would be to share
the burden of pending cases in the current permanent bench of Supreme
Court of Indica in New Deli, and facilitate speedy administration of justice
to the masses. The High Court, the District Courts along with the Tribunals
will continue to function as per their jurisdictions and power.
Page 10 of 31
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED:

BENCHES OF SUPREME COURT IS CONSTITUTIONAL:
[¶1] It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the
setting up of the permanent regional benches of the supreme court is
constitutional. Article 130 1 of the Indian Constitution clearly establishes
that the Supreme Court is empowered to decide its seat of residence, in
Delhi or any other place or places, as per the decision of the Chief Justice
of India with the approval of the President of India.
A. LIBERAL INTERPRETATION
[¶2] It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that Article
130 of the Constitution of India must be interpreted in accordance with the
liberal or grammatical rule, which states that the words used in the text
must be interpreted in their ordinary meaning. If after the interpretation,
this meaning, remains unambiguous, then it shall be given to a provision
of a statute regardless of what may be the consequences. The basic idea
behind this is that whatever intention the legislature had while making the
provision, has been expressed through the words and thus, should be
interpreted accordingly.
[¶3] The effect of such interpretation has been apparent in the case
2
of Manmohan Das vs Bishan Das , which was regarding the
interpretation of section 3(1)(c) of U.P Control of Rent and Eviction Act,
1
Constitution of India 1950, art 130.
2
Manmohan Das vs Bishan Das AIR 1967 SC 643.
Page 11 of 31
1947, it was held that as per the rule of literal interpretation, the word ‘or’
should be given the meaning that a prudent man understands the grounds
of the event are alternative and not combined. Furthermore, in the case
of State of Kerala v. Mathai Verghese and Ors3, the court followed the
same line of reasoning to give verdict regarding a case of counterfeit
currency, where the related sections were interpreted in accordance with
the grammatical rule.
[¶4] In another case of Navinchandra Mafatlal v. CIT 4, the court threw

light upon the issue of the cardinal rule of interpretation, which says that
words should be read in their ordinary, natural and grammatical meaning.
The court highlighted that in construing words in a constitutional
enactment granting legislative power, the most liberal construction should
be put upon the words so as to have effect in their widest amplitude.
[¶5] In the current case, the definition of Article 130 of the Constitution of
India is, “The Supreme Court shall sit in Delhi or in such other place or
places, as the Chief Justice of India may, with the approval of the President,
from time to time, appoint.” Hence, it can be inferred that the Supreme
Court may set up regional permanent branches in specific places, to
facilitate the access of justice to our citizens.
[¶6] It must be mentioned that the same issue was up for debate in the
constituent assembly. During the debate on the draft of Article 129, the
issue of making Delhi the seat of the Supreme Court was argued as it was
improper and gave the city undue importance. In response, the Chairman
of the Drafting Committee proposed the insertion of Article 130 to deal
with this issue. Consequently, the amendment proposed by the Chairman
3
State of Kerala v Mathai Verghese and Ors (1986) 4 SCC 746.
4
Navinchandra Mafatlal v CIT AIR 1955 SC 58.
Page 12 of 31
of the Drafting Committee was accepted by the Assembly, and the

amended Draft Article was adopted on 27th May 1949.
B. PURPOSIVE INTERPRETATION
[¶7] It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that Article
130 of the Constitution of India must be interpreted in a purposive
meaning. Purposive interpretation can be understood by the comment of
the Hon'ble supreme court in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Union of
India5, which cited the book Purposive Interpretation in Law by Aharon
Barak, which states that judges should interpret a constitution as per its
purpose which includes the objectives, values and principles that the
constitutional text is devised to actualise. The book stated:
“… the ultimate purpose of the text is to achieve the intent of its authors.
There is also, however, the objective purpose of the text — the goals,
values and principles that the constitutional text is designed to achieve in a
modern democracy at the time of interpretation. Purposive interpretation
translates this purpose into the presumption that the ultimate purpose of
the Constitution is its objective purpose.”
[¶8] Furthermore, in the case of Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record
Assn. v. Union of India 6, the Court, acknowledged the sui generis nature
of the Constitution, and observed that the constitutional provisions cannot
be cut down by technical construction. They must be given liberal and
meaningful interpretation. The court highlighted that the ordinary rules and
presumptions, brought in support to interpret the statutes, cannot be made
applicable while interpreting constitutional provisions. Furthermore, the
court cited the case of Minister of Home Affairs v. Fisher 7, which dealt
5
State (NCT of Delhi) v Union of India (2018) 8 SCC 501.
6
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn v Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 441.
7
Minister of Home Affairs v Fisher 1980 AC 319.
Page 13 of 31
with Bermudian Constitution. In this case, Lord Wilberforce had reiterated

that a constitution is a document “sui generis, calling for principles of
interpretation of its own, suitable to its character.” In the current case,
Article 130 thus, should be interpreted in a Purposive manner, to facilitate
speedy and accessible justice to all.
[¶9] It must be noted that the same was recommended by the Law
commission in its 229th report 8. The Law Commission suggested Article
130 to be liberally interpreted so that no constitutional amendment is
required for the purpose of setting up cassation benches in four regions and
a Constitution Bench at Delhi. The Report also recommended that if the
liberal approach is not possible, alternatively a policy decision must be
taken.

BENCHES OF HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDICA
WILL MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.
establishment of such regional benches of hon’ble Supreme Court of Indica
will meet the ends of justice. Fast and speedy trial are the core elements of
justice, and the establishment of such regional benches will help attaining
that. Thus, the spirit of the constitution would be uplifted and citizens
would also be able to exercise their right to justice more efficiently. The
current model discriminates among citizens in several manners.
8
Law Commission, Need for division of the Supreme Court into a Constitution Bench at Delhi and
Cassation Benches in four regions at Delhi, Chennai/Hyderabad, Kolkata and Mumbai (Law Com No
18, 2006).
Page 14 of 31
A. THE CURRENT MODEL IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14,

ARTICLE 21 AND ARTICLE 39A OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION
current model of justice administration discriminates among the citizens as
9
it violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Article 14 of the
Constitution of India says: “The State shall not deny to any person equality
before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of
India.” However, in the current case, the permanent seat of the Supreme
Court of Indica in Deli discriminates amongst those parties that have to
come to the Hon’ble court from areas far from New Deli, i.e., it
discriminates on the basis of place of residence. The same will be
elaborated in the arguments further.
DELAY IN JUSTICE
[¶12] In the case of Sheela Barsa vs Union of India10, the Supreme Court
held that if an accused is not tried speedily and his case remains pending
before the Magistrate or the Sessions Court for an unreasonable length of
time, it is clear that his fundamental Right to Speedy Trial would be
violated, unless there is some interim order passed by the superior Court or
deliberate delay on the part of the accused. The verdict also highlighted
that under Article 39, the State has the fundamental duty to ensure that
justice is not denied to anyone due to economic reasons or any other
disabilities.
[¶13] It must be also highlighted that the current model also puts a financial
burden on the financially weak parties as well, violating article 14. In the
9
10
Sheela Barsa vs Union of India (1988) 4 SCC 226.
Page 15 of 31
case of V. Vasanthakumar vs. H.C. Bhatia and Ors.11 , while noting the
difficulty, hardships and adversity of litigants who stayed far off from
Delhi, where the Supreme Court is located, the court observed that it led to
denial of justice. The court also called for serious attention to be given to
setting up National/Regional Court of Appeal.
[¶14] Article 21 12 of the Constitution of India says that, “No person shall
be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure
established by law.” Over time, the courts have widened the amplitude of
interpretation of article 21, to also include various aspects of human life,
like the right to a safe environment, access to justice etc.
[¶15] In the verdict of Sheela Barse v. Union of India 13 , the Hon’ble

Court declared that speedy trial is an essential right under Article 21.
Furthermore, the same was upheld in the case of Anita Kushwaha v.
Pushap Sudan14, where the court observed that denial of “access to
justice” will affect the quality of human life. While the court held that
access to justice is a facet of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21,
it added that the same was also guaranteed under Article 14 of the
Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law and equal protection
of laws to not only citizens but non-citizens too. The court commented that
if justice is not delivered quickly, “access to justice” as a constitutional
value will be an illusion.
HIGH PENDENCY OF CASES
[¶16] The issue of delay in trial and disposition of cases, as well as the
subsequent pendency of cases in the Supreme Court and its subordinate
courts, has been a source of tremendous concern, debate, discussion, and
11
V Vasanthakumar vs HC Bhatia and Ors MANU/SC/0774/2016.
12
13
Sheela Barse v Union of India (1988) 4 SCC 226.
14
Anita Kushwaha v Pushap Sudan (2016) 8 SCC 509.
Page 16 of 31
criticism. In its 28th Report on the Supreme Court (Number of Judges)

Amendment Bill 200815, the Department Related Parliamentary Standing
Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law, and Justice mentioned
that an excessive delay in providing justice to the public undermines the
judiciary's core mission as an institution. The scale of the problem of cases
pending at various levels of the judiciary must be appreciated in the context
that people turn to the courts as a last option for redressal of their
complaints and justice.
[¶17] It must be highlighted that people place their ultimate faith and trust
in the judicial system more than the legislature and executive. The subject
of pending cases before the country's apex court is a well-known feature of
the Supreme Court of India's working procedure. The number of pending
cases is growing every day, which demonstrates the current model's
inability to provide justice timely. On the comparison of the Indian legal
system to the other judicial systems globally, it can be discovered that the
number of cases pending in India is more than in any other court system in
the world.
[¶18] The Apex Court of India has a sanctioned judge strength of 34,
including the Chief Justice of India. As per the data on the SC website, the
number of outstanding cases at the end of 2018 was 56,994, the end of 2019
was 58,669 and in the beginning of 2022 was 70,154. The ratio of judges
per pending case in this situation roughly comes out to be more than 2,120
cases per judge. This number is not only impractical but also concerning,
upon consideration that this number is not stagnant but likely to increase in
view of the resuming of operations post-pandemic.
15
Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law, and
Justice, 28th Report on the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill 2008 (2008, Rajya
Sabha, Parliament of India).
Page 17 of 31
[¶19] Additionally, it must be noted that currently, the Supreme Court has
diverged from its initial role as a Constitutional Court in favour of
becoming an ordinary court of appeals. It was discovered that there was a
net yearly rise of 6.8 percent per year. This Court was asked in Mathai v.
George16, whether Special Leave Petitions should or should not be
considered against all types of orders. This Court observed that litigants
were filing Special Leave Petitions against nearly every single type of
order, resulting in huge arrears and transforming this Court into an ordinary
appellate court, which was contrary to the intent of the framers of the
Constitution when they enacted Article 136. The Court determined that the
Supreme Court's exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the
Constitution was discretionary and that the provision did not establish a
vested right of appeal on a party in litigation.
[¶20] Therefore, it should be emphasised that, while an SLP is
discretionary, the lawsuit rate on the same is unlikely to decrease. Since the
court still has a high pendency rate, a 'self-restraint' will only result in
terrible injustice because many of these cases clearly involve a larger legal
question. As a result, the addition of more judges will not alleviate the
problem of pending cases. Hence, more courts with appellate jurisdiction
are required.
JUSTICE MADE INACCESSIBLE
[¶21] The current model of justice administration is violative of Article

39A17 of the Constitution of India. Article 39A of India says, “The State
shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice, on a
basis of equal opportunity, and shall, in particular, provide free legal aid,
by suitable legislation or schemes or in any other way, to ensure that
16
Mathai v George (2010) 4 SCC 358.
17
Constitution of India 1950, art 39A.
Page 18 of 31
opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of
economic or other disabilities.”
[¶22] The Supreme Court has its sole permanent seat in Delhi as a result of
which, persons travelling from remote regions such as villages in Tamil
Nadu, Gujarat, Assam as well as other States across India must spend a
significant amount of money on transit to approach the Supreme Court. It
is common procedure to bring one's own counsel who argued the issue in
the High Court to the Supreme Court. This raises the cost and, in many
cases, makes access to justice prohibitively expensive. Adjournment is also
a common occurrence in the court that leads to an increase in the overall
expenditure.
[¶23] Here, it must be noted that the formation of regional appellate

benches will lead to a division of burden across the benches in South, East,
and West India. This would not only be significantly efficient, but the
plaintiff would also benefit from having his case contested by the same
lawyer who assisted him in the High Court and who would not have to
travel considerable distances. In case any constitutional issues arise, the
Supreme Court can convene an en banc hearing in Delhi to address the
same. This cost-benefit ratio is another, but as essential, argument for
renewing support for the regional appellate benches.
[¶24] In Anita Kushwaha v. Pushap Sudan18, while analysing the essence

of justice, the court also commented upon the four fundamental aspects
that make up the essence of access to justice, which are:
i. The government shall create an effective judicial system;

ii. the mechanism in question must be accessible from a reasonable
distance;
18
Page 19 of 31
iii. the adjudication process must be quick/speedy; and

iv. The adjudicatory process must be accessible to the litigant at a
reasonable cost.
[¶25] In Sheela Barsa vs Union of India19, it was further remarked that

under Article 39, the State has the fundamental obligation to ensure that no
one is denied justice due to economic or other disadvantages.
[¶26] In the case of Karthik Ranganathan v. Disciplinary Committee-IV,

Bar Council of Tamil Nadu & Puducherry & Ors20, the Madras High
Court observed that the concentration of courts and tribunals in New Delhi,
in the absence of regional benches, was responsible for injustice to the
people residing far from Delhi. In the same case, Justice N. Kirubakaran
observed that the idea that the Hon'ble Supreme Court is only for the people
residing in and around New Delhi or the States that surround New Delhi
should be discouraged, as India was a large country consisting of Jammu
and Kashmir in the north, Tamil Nadu in the south, and Gujarat in the west
to Manipur in the east. He further reiterated the necessity of having regional
benches and asked the govt to take necessary steps to ensure that.
RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD OF ADVOCATES
[¶27] Under the aforementioned circumstances, it can be inferred that

justice is denied to those people who are socially, educationally and
economically backward. However, upon using the bird’s eye view, it is
apparent that the entire legal system that serves to impart justice suffers.
The current model delays justice for both the victim and the accused, in
cases when the High Court passes an erroneous judgement, it becomes the
19
Sheela Barse v Union of India (1988) 4 SCC 226.
20
Karthik Ranganathan v Disciplinary Committee-IV WP No 13796 of 2021.
Page 20 of 31
final verdict for a majority of the population as they do not have the funds
to further bring the case to the Supreme Court.
[¶28] It must be highlighted that although the reimbursements and aids are
available to low income and low-middle income individuals, they only
cover limited expenses. Additionally, the system of legal aid has been
ineffective in India as many work within the legal aid program; pressure
their clients, many of whom are innocent, to pay them extra fees, despite
the fact that they are meant to get their fees from the legal aid committee.
One aspect that may be contributing to this is that the legal aid committee's
compensation for attorneys is very low, which doesn’t even cover the
lawyer's incidental expenses. This gives us a reasonable explanation for the
reason why people of low or low-middle incomes avoid the legal aid
available to them. Hence, the only viable alternative available to them in
such cases remains to be availing services of an Advocate. Even if in such
circumstances they are able to procure funds for legal representation, they
may not be able to continue with the same advocate when moving from the
High Court to the Supreme Court for further hearings.
[¶29] Furthermore, the current judicial model has made litigation far more
expensive, and the delay in justice due to the huge bulk of pending cases,
causes the victim, accused and witnesses to either prolong their stay away
from their state of residence or visit for every court hearing, this is only
feasible for a minority of the population. These factors deter people from
filing lawsuits as delayed lawsuits multiply costs. The direct impact of this
is a lower rate of litigation, and prevailing of injustice and wrongs in the
society. Although it might be argued that this is the step forward to reduce
pendency in courts, the same line of thought would encourage us to make
medical facilities inaccessible to simply reduce the number of patients.
Thus, these issues are severely impacting the service providers in the legal
Page 21 of 31
fraternity who would be able to assist these people if the courts were more
accessible.
B. MODEL PRESENTED BY THE 225th LAW COMMISION REPORT

IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FUNDAMENTAL ASPECTS OF
JUSTICE
model presented by the 225th Law Commission Report is consistent with
the fundamental aspects of justice. In 1984, the 95th Law Commission also
advocated for the partition of the Supreme Court into constitutional and
legal branches. It promised for separating the Supreme Court in 1988 as
well. In its 229th report in 2009, the panel proposed the establishment of
Cassation Benches in four areas, as well as a Constitution Bench in Delhi.
[¶31] Furthermore, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Law and

Justice has consistently urged in its 2nd 21 (2004), 6th22 (2005), and 15th23
(2006) Reports that in order to promote fast justice for the common man,
Supreme Court benches be built in the country's southern, western, and
north-eastern regions. In its 20th24 (2007), 26th25 (2008), and 28th
26
(2008) Reports, the Standing Committee proposed that a Supreme Court
Bench be formed at least in Chennai on a trial basis, since this would be of
21
Parliamentary Standing Committee on Law and Justice, 2nd report for demands for grants (2004-
2005) of the Ministry of Law and Justice (2004-05, Rajya Sabha, Parliament of India) paras 111-113.
22
Parliamentary Standing Committee on Law and Justice, 6th report for demands for grants (2005-
2006) of the Ministry of Law and Justice (2005-06, Rajya Sabha, Parliament of India) paras 8.31- 8.34.
23
2007) of the Ministry of Law and Justice (2006-07, Rajya Sabha, Parliament of India) paras 8.33-8.34.
24
2008) of the Ministry of Law and Justice (2007-08, Rajya Sabha, Parliament of India).
25
26
Page 22 of 31
great assistance to the poor who are unable to commute from their homes
to Delhi.
UNDERSTANDING THE 2009 LAW COMMISSION REPORT
[¶32] In its 95th Report27, titled “Constitutional Division within the

Supreme Court – A recommendation for," released in 1984, the 10th Law
Commission suggested that the Supreme Court of India be divided into two
divisions: (a) Constitutional Division and (b) Legal Division.
[¶33] Every case containing a serious point of law as to the interpretation

of the Constitution or an order or regulation made under the Constitution,
as well as every other case involving a question of constitutional law,
should be assigned to the proposed Constitutional Division of the Supreme
Court. Other cases that come before the Supreme Court will be allocated to
the Legal Division.
[¶34] The Law Commission Report of 2009, recommended four regional

Supreme Court benches; Cassation Benches for the northern zone in Delhi,
the southern zone in Chennai/Hyderabad, the eastern zone in Kolkata, and
the western zone in Mumbai – to deal with all appellate usually created out
of orders and verdicts of the respective high courts. It was also suggested
that judges appointed to the Supreme Court be assigned to a certain division
from the start.
[¶35] The 10th Law Commission also considered whether a Constitutional

Court, rather than a Constitutional Division, should be established to decide
constitutional questions, but with the understanding that the establishment
of a separate Court for dealing with constitutional issues would necessitate
structural changes of a more extensive and complex nature than those
27
Law Commission, Constitutional Division within the Supreme Court – A recommendation (Law
Com No 10, 1984).
Page 23 of 31
necessitated by a proposal for creating, within the Supreme Court as

organised at present, a Constitutional Division.
[¶36] Additionally, the 11th Law Commission28, in its 125th Report titled
“The Supreme Court – A Fresh Look,” which was issued in 1988, restated
the aforementioned advice for dividing the Supreme Court in two and
provided a further justification for doing so. The suggestion, however,
suffered from the same flaw of demanding major structural modifications
to the Supreme Court.
[¶37] Hence, it must be noted that the common man seeking justice is
affected the most by the pendency of litigation in this environment. Despite
the many efforts taken by the government and the judiciary, it is cause for
considerable worry that the number of cases pending or arrears has
continuously increased over the years, bringing the judicial system as a
whole to near standstill. Furthermore, the number of cases pending before
the Supreme Court reflects the legal system's delays, making it a source of
grave worry that requires immediate reaction.
[¶38] According to previous data, a rise in the number of judges on the

Supreme Court does not result in a decrease in the number of outstanding
cases. As a result, it is obvious that factors other than a lack of judge
strength are to blame for the build-up of unresolved cases at the Supreme
Court.
[¶39] Keeping the above in mind, the 229th report of the Law commission
of India proposed a model to deal with the aforementioned issues. The
model included the division of the judicial system of the country in four
zones. The benches will operate as Cassation Benches to hear appeals from
a High Court in the respective region. The Supreme Court could then deal
28
Law Commission, The Supreme Court- A Fresh Look (Law Com No 11, 1988).
Page 24 of 31
with constitutional concerns and other cases of national importance on a

daily basis, while the accumulated backlog of cases would be assigned to
the appropriate zones to which they relate. The Supreme Court would
therefore be alleviated of the backlog of accumulating cases, which is a
burden and constant demand on the highest court's resources. Because the
accumulated cases relating to a particular region would be dealt with by the
respective zonal bench, the apex court would be free to deal with only
constitutional cases such as constitutional interpretation, matters of
national significance.
[¶40] The benefit of establishing benches in the aforementioned method is

that it may be implemented immediately because the formation of benches
is a topic within the purview and competence of the Supreme Court itself
as per its rules29 mentions that; if, during the hearing of any cause, appeal,
or other process, the Bench believes that the case should be heard by a
bigger Bench, it shall refer the subject to the Chief Justice, who shall then
convene such a Bench for the purpose of hearing it.
[¶41] Therefore, it is evident that the given model incorporates solutions

in order to resolve the high pendency of cases, delayed justice and
inaccessibility of the top court. Thus, making the judicial system more
efficient. Hence, it is submitted that it improves the current system by
complying with the fundamental aspects of justice as iterated in Anita
Kushwaha v. Pushap Sudan30.
29
SCR 1996 Ord 7, r 2.
30
Page 25 of 31

JUDICIARY:
[¶42] It is humbly submitted to the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the

establishment of such regional benches of the Apex Court throughout the
country, would not cause prejudice to its subordinate courts or any other
areas of judiciary. The proposed regional benches, won’t affect the current
tier-based system as prescribed by the Constitution of India.
A. THE FRAMEWORK OF THE REGIONAL BENCHES OF THE

HIGH COURTS CAN BE APPLIED TO THE SUPREME COURTS
[¶43] It is humbly submitted that the establishment of such regional

benches would not cause prejudice to its subordinate courts or any other
areas of judiciary. The same can be seen through two arguments (a) Success
of the same framework in the context of High Courts (b) Success of similar
models in various democracies
[¶44] We can see that a similar framework has been adopted in India in
many High Courts, as the Bombay High Court and Guwahati High Court
have benches in 3 cities within their respective jurisdictions. The
functioning of these regional benches provides us with a blueprint on how
the regional benches can thrive in the presence of the Supreme Court.
Conversely, when viewed from the lens of the model proposed above, we
can see that the power and authority of the Supreme Court remain undiluted
due to its power over issues of greater importance.
Page 26 of 31
[¶45] Thus, the idea of having a Constitution Bench in addition to a

Cassation Bench is not novel. The democratic transition that transpired in
many regions of the world in the late twentieth century resulting in the
proliferation of courts with constitutional adjudication and powers of
cassation being exercised concurrently; there is a blend of functions of
judicial review typically performed by the constitutional court or
constitutional tribunal as well as the exercise of powers of cassation. Italy
has a Constitutional Court with single constitutional review authority and
a Supreme Court of Cassation with the authority to examine regular court
rulings for legality.
B. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE CO-EXISTENCE OF THE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND CASSATION SYSTEMS IN IRELAND
AND GERMANY
[¶46] It must be highlighted that the Government of Ireland, in 2014, made

note of the huge overburdening of cases in the Courts, which they felt was
impeding the timely and effective disposition of justice, in a condition that
was very identical to the problem experienced by the Indian Courts. This
proposal was suggested on the basis of the understanding that, both India
and Ireland had encountered comparable challenges with a significant
backlog of cases. A successful remedy devised in Ireland may also be
beneficial in India. As a result, the Irish model of judicial hierarchy has
been analysed in order to comprehend the paradigm of such a prospective
solution and its potential impact on the Indian Legal System.
[¶47] The Court of Appeal, which was founded on October 28, 2014,
serves as an appellate jurisdictional layer between the Supreme Court and
the High Court. The Court of Appeal Act, 2014 was adopted under the
Constitutional authority of Article 34.2, paragraph (ii), of the Irish
Page 27 of 31
Constitution. This Court was established to serve as a superior court of

record with appellate jurisdiction as defined by the Constitution.
[¶48] To guarantee that the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal were
not burdened by the number of cases in the same manner that the Supreme
Court had been burdened previous to the founding of the Court of Appeal,
the judges of both Courts were urged to follow the Judicial Restraint
philosophy. For example, the courts would be required to evaluate only
matters stated by the parties on record, rather than examining such
problems with the interpretation of constitutional statutes.
[¶49] Despite the fact that the Court of Appeal is subservient to the
Supreme Court, this structure establishes the Court of Appeal's relevance
and significance in the three-tiered system. The two features of the Act that
follow, demonstrate how the Supreme Court of Ireland works in tandem
with the Court of Appeal:
A. Except under extraordinary circumstances, where an appeal to the

Supreme Court is permitted, the Court of final decision.
B. Currently ongoing Supreme Court appeals may be moved to the
Court of Appeal.
[¶50] In addition, a comparative comparison of the German legal system

can also be understood in this context. This is supported by the fact that
Germany is a prominent example of the parallel presence of a
Constitutional and Cassation Court system. The German constitutional
system serves as a solid foundation for comprehending the constitutional
viability of such a model inside the Indian paradigm. The judicial
complexity of a case determines whether it will me moved from the
appellate court to the top court. This means that the functions of the
Constitutional and Cassation Courts would overlap in some circumstances,
Page 28 of 31
such as when issues of constitutional interpretation of legislation were

presented before the Cassation Court. When the Cassation Court has
correctly determined the maintainability of the topic before it, it may
recommend it to the Constitutional Court.
[¶51] The following components have been identified as distinguishing

characteristics of a constitutional appeal:
a. A previous selection technique that permits the Constitutional Courts to

weed out possibly failed appeals through a legal procedure.
b. The subject matter of such appeals is typically concentrated on

constitutional rights and freedoms granted to all people of the nation.
[¶52] As a result of this, the concurrent cassation function of the

constitutional complaint procedure, which may be granted to a Cassation
Court, is less severe. The Cassation Court has the authority to rule on the
"interpretation" and "application" of a basic right. This role in no way
interferes with the Cassation Court's specialised jurisdiction. As a result,
the application of the Constitution continues to be common in all German
courts. The Constitutional Courts do not claim to have a monopoly on the
implementation of the Constitution, but they do serve as coordinators of
the Constitutional mandate.
[¶53] After careful analysis of the Irish and German models, it is clear that
a system of Courts of Appeal may coexist with a Supreme Court and be
logically accommodated within the vast scope of the Indian Constitution
with the required liberal attitude of Article 130.
[¶54] Additionally, the Indian constitution provides Article 136 which

states that “…the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave
to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in
Page 29 of 31
any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory
of India”. This allows the Supreme court to receive cases of national
importance that are sieved out of the appellate courts.
Page 30 of 31
PRAYER
Wherefore in the light of the facts of the case, issues raised, arguments
advanced, and authorities cited, may this Hon’ble Court be pleased to
adjudge and declare that:
I. That the setting up of such permanent regional benches of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court is constitutional as per Article 130.
II. That the establishment of such regional benches of hon’ble
supreme court of indica will meet the ends of justice.
III. That the establishment of such regional benches would not cause
prejudice to its subordinate courts or any other areas of judiciary.
And /Or
Pass any other order that it may deem fit in the interest of justice,
equity,
and good conscience.
s/d
On Behalf of Petitioner
Page 31 of 31

VMC2 - Petitioners

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

VMC2 - Petitioners

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER: VMC2

Team Code: VMC2

M.K.E.S COLLEGE OF LAW

7th NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDICA

FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDICA

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL)

MEMORIAL for the Appellant/ Petitioner

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................... 3

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................... 5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ........................................................ 6

STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................ 7

ISSUES FRAMED .................................................................................... 8

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ................................................................ 9

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED: ................................................................. 11

I. THAT SETTING UP OF SUCH PERMANENT REGIONAL

A. LIBERAL INTERPRETATION ...................................................................... 11

II. THAT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SUCH REGIONAL

A. THE CURRENT MODEL IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14,

B. MODEL PRESENTED BY THE 225th LAW COMMISION

III. THAT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SUCH REGIONAL

SUBORDINATE COURTS OR ANY OTHER AREAS OF

A. THE FRAMEWORK OF THE REGIONAL BENCHES OF THE

B. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE CO-EXISTENCE OF THE

STATUTES AND ARTICLES

1. Constitution of India 1950, art 130 ..................................................... 11

1. Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel,

Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill 2008 (2008, Rajya Sabha,

Advocate Association, the Petitioner in the Public Interest Litigation filed

The present memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions, and

THE COUNTRY OF INDICA- A BACKGROUND:

STATE OF THE PROBLEM:

Every aggrieved citizen of the country is empowered to approach the SC

A. Whether setting up of such permanent regional benches of Supreme

Court of Indica meet the ends of justice?

to its subordinate courts or any other areas of judiciary?

I. THAT SETTING UP OF SUCH PERMANENT REGIONAL

II. THAT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SUCH REGIONAL

III. THAT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SUCH REGIONAL

The petitioner is demanding the regional benches of Supreme Court across

I. THAT SETTING UP OF SUCH PERMANENT REGIONAL

[¶4] In another case of Navinchandra Mafatlal v. CIT 4, the court threw

of the Drafting Committee was accepted by the Assembly, and the

with Bermudian Constitution. In this case, Lord Wilberforce had reiterated

II. THAT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SUCH REGIONAL

A. THE CURRENT MODEL IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14,

[¶15] In the verdict of Sheela Barse v. Union of India 13 , the Hon’ble

HIGH PENDENCY OF CASES

criticism. In its 28th Report on the Supreme Court (Number of Judges)

JUSTICE MADE INACCESSIBLE

[¶21] The current model of justice administration is violative of Article

[¶23] Here, it must be noted that the formation of regional appellate

[¶24] In Anita Kushwaha v. Pushap Sudan18, while analysing the essence

i. The government shall create an effective judicial system;

iii. the adjudication process must be quick/speedy; and

[¶25] In Sheela Barsa vs Union of India19, it was further remarked that

[¶26] In the case of Karthik Ranganathan v. Disciplinary Committee-IV,

RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD OF ADVOCATES

[¶27] Under the aforementioned circumstances, it can be inferred that

B. MODEL PRESENTED BY THE 225th LAW COMMISION REPORT

[¶31] Furthermore, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Law and

UNDERSTANDING THE 2009 LAW COMMISSION REPORT

[¶32] In its 95th Report27, titled “Constitutional Division within the

[¶33] Every case containing a serious point of law as to the interpretation