MOOT COURT

MOOT COURT

Before the Honorable Supreme Court of Indica

Filed PIL under article 32 of the Constitution of Indica, 1950

In the matter of Articles 130 and 39A of Constitution of Indica, 1950

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. OF 2022

ASSOSIATION OF ADVOCATES PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNION OF INDICA RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

1 ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 MOOT COURT

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

US United States
UOI Union of India
SC Supreme court
HC High court
SEC Section
CPC Civil procedure code
CRPC Criminal Procedure
code
R/W Read with
ART Article
AMD Amendment
SCC Supreme court cases
AIR All India report

2 ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 MOOT COURT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Index of authority 3

Acts referred 4

Books referred 5

Statement of Jurisdiction 6

Synopsis of facts 7

Statement of issues 8

Summary of pleadings 9

Arguments Advanced 10

Prayers 20

3 ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 MOOT COURT

INDEX OF AUTHORITY

CASES REFERED

 Bihar Legal Support Society vs The Chief Justice of India &

Anr on 19 November, 1986 Union Of India & Anr vs S.P Anand &
Ors on 7th August,1998.
 Gajula Rajaiah vs State Of A.P And Others on 2 nd March 2001.
 Godavaris Mahabidyalaya And Anr vs Director of Public
Inspection on 14th December 1981.
 Akbar Sarcar And Ors. vs Ramesh Chandra Moitra on 9th August
1922.
 Ram Rakh Vyas vs The Union of India and Ors. On 28th January
1977.
 Akhil Bandhu Saha vs The State of West Bengal & Ors on 20th
March 2014.
 Advocate’s Association vs Chief Minister on 17th June.
 Manoharan vs Shivarajan & Ors on 25th November 2013.

4 ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 MOOT COURT

ACTS REFERRED

 Indian Constitution, 1950.

 The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
 The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.

5 ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 MOOT COURT

BOOKS REFERED

 The Constitution of India Bare Act

 The Constitutional Law of India – Dr. Kailash Rai
 Constitutional Law of India – Dr J N Pandey
 Constitutional Law of India – Dr S R Myneni
 Constitutional Development and National Movement of India – RC
Agarwal and Dr Mahesh Bhatnagar.

6 ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 MOOT COURT

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The SC has power to issue directions or orders or writs for the

enforcement of any of the fundamental rights under Article 32 of
Indian constitution 1950.
ARTICLE 32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by
this part III –

(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings

for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.

(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders
or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus,
prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be
appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by
this Part.

(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court

by clause (1) and (2), Parliament may by law empower any other
court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any
of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).

(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except
as otherwise provided for by this constitution”

7 ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 MOOT COURT

SYNOPSIS OF FACTS
Indica is a megadiverse country, all being governed
under the largest constitution under which the citizens derive their
respective rights, power and bases for establishing, empowering and
creating all aspects for running and governing a country like Indica.
The Supreme Court of Indica situated at New Deli, the
capital of the country. The Chief Justice of Indica is the head and
Chief Judge of the Supreme Court which consists of a maximum of
34 number of judges and has extensive powers in the form of
original, appellate and advisory jurisdictions.

Every citizen of this country has the right to

approach the Supreme Court for the enforcement of their
fundamental rights and/or as per the process laid down by law and
on the other hand there exists only one Supreme Court in place as a
Court of Final Appeal which has led to serious pendency of cases
which has further led to an unending burden of pendency in
delivering justice to every rightful citizen of this country. By citing
the data from the National Judicial Data Grid and the Supreme
Court itself, presently, there are more than 69,000 cases pending
before the Apex Court.

On the light of Art 39A of the constitution and

from this, an association of advocates have filed a PIL before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court praying for passing of directions against
the respondents for establishing permanent regional benches of the
Supreme Court in Mumbhai, Calicutta, and Chinnai and such other
locations as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit.

8 ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 MOOT COURT

STATEMENT OF ISSUE

Issue 1: Whether setting up of such permanent regional benches of

Supreme Court Constitutional?

Issue 2: Will establishment of such regional benches of Hon’ble

Supreme Court of Indica meet the ends of justice?

Issue 3: Whether establishment of such regional benches causes

prejudice to its subordinate courts or any other areas of judiciary?

Issue 4: Whether the regional benches can be properly maintained

or not?

9 ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 MOOT COURT

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
1.Increase in state expenditure
Establishment of permanent regional benches of
supreme court can increase the state expenditures of those states
where the regional benches of the Supreme court are established.

2.Supreme court is the apex court

Supreme court is said to be the apex court of India and

establishment of such regional benches for the Supreme court can
hamper the title as “the apex court of India”.

3.Personal bias

Introduction of such regional benches of the supreme

court can increase the personal bias between the officials of the
supreme court and respective high courts relating to cases of public
interest.

4.Political bias

There can be a huge political bias by the introduction

of the regional benches of the supreme court.

5.Affects the hierarchy of courts

In a country like Indica, there is a hierarchy of courts
like; Supreme court as the apex court, below supreme courts comes
the high court and at last the subordinate courts. By the
introduction of such regional benches for the supreme court, it can
affect the pre-defined hierarchy of courts in a country like Indica.

10 ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 MOOT COURT

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 01: Whether setting up of such permanent regional

benches of Supreme Court Constitutional?

Access to justice is a fundamental right granted under the

Constitution of India. Article 130 permits the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court, in consultation with the President of India, to have
the benches of the Supreme Court. But even after 71 years since the
Constitution came into force, this Article 130 of the Constitution is
not being used. The NCA, as proposed by the Congress, will
consist of six regional benches consisting of three judges per
bench. The Congress has also proposed to move a constitutional
amendment to restrict the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to only
cases involving interpretation of the Constitution and adjudication
of cases of national importance. This article aims to expound the
legal matrix surrounding this proposal.

The setting up of a National Court of Appeals would require an

amendment in Article 130 of the Constitution of India, which
would, in fact, be tantamount to tampering with the basic
constitutional framework of the Supreme Court. Such an

11 ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 MOOT COURT

amendment would divest the Supreme Court of its extraordinary

powers with regard to hearing appeals. The same was also stated by
the Union ministry of law and justice while rejecting the
aforementioned request in 2014.

As such, the issue of whether or not such a court should be

established shall remain outside the purview of this article.
However, the Congress manifesto opens up the larger issue of
whether decentralising the Supreme Court is constitutionally
feasible and practically desirable.

In 1950, the Supreme Court consisted of seven judges and worked

for four hours a day for 28 days a year. Switching over to 2019, the
Supreme Court has a sanctioned strength of 31 judges, but case
pendency has increased from 690 cases in 1950 to a staggering
61,300 cases, making it one of the most overburdened
constitutional courts in the world.

This situation may be attributed in no small part to the Supreme

Court deviating from its primary function of adjudicating cases of
constitutional significance and converting itself into a regular court
of appeals as well. The Supreme Court was never intended to be a
regular court of appeal and the extraordinary jurisdiction for
granting special leave was conferred upon it, so that it could
interfere whenever it felt that the law had not been enunciated
properly by the High Courts or lower judiciary and it was necessary
to correct the position of law.

12 ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 MOOT COURT

This deviation had a cataclysmic impact on the justice delivery

system owing to the excessive backlog of cases. Frequent
adjournments due to the geographical concentration of the Supreme
Court in Delhi have only added to the pre-existing backlog of
cases. Apart from the backlog of cases, the Law Commission’s
229th report also pointed out the logistical difficulties that poor
litigants face by travelling all the way to Delhi.

Litigants regularly request their advocates in the High Courts to

appear in the Supreme Court, resulting in multiplication of costs in
terms of hotel and travel expenses. To quote the Law
Commission’s report, “Adjournments become prohibitive, costs get
multiplied.”

Article 130 of the Constitution of India states, “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” A bare reading of the aforementioned article
makes it amply clear that the Supreme Court can sit not only in
Delhi but also in any other place.

Moreover, this view was also endorsed by Justice P. N. Bhagwati

in a 1986 judgement.

The Law Commission itself had stated in its 229th report, “If
Article 130 is liberally interpreted, no constitutional amendment
may be required for the purpose of setting up of cassation benches
in four regions and a Constitution Bench at Delhi. Action by the
13 ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 MOOT COURT

chief justice of India with the president’s approval may be enough.

It may also be noted that under Article 130, the chief justice of
India acts as a persona designata and is not required to consult any
other authority/person. Only presidential approval is necessary.
However, in case this liberal interpretation of Article 130 is not
feasible, suitable legislation/constitutional amendment may be
enacted to do the needful.”

Thus, the constitutional scheme of things provides for setting up

benches on both a geographical and functional basis. Moreover, a
mere literal interpretation of Article 130 makes it clear that no
constitutional amendment would be required in order to set up such
benches. As such, setting up regional benches of the Supreme
Court dealing with appeals, with a constitutional bench in Delhi is
the best way forward.

Many legal experts feel that setting up regional benches of the

Supreme Court would dilute its constitutional superiority.
However, with the decentralisation being both functional and
structural in nature, with only the bench in Delhi dealing with
constitutional matters, such concerns may be put to rest.

Thus, setting up regional benches in no way dilutes the finality or

superiority of the Supreme Court’s decisions. The Supreme Court
of India has been a robust institution, which remains unparalleled
in the service that it has rendered to the nation. The founding
fathers of the Constitution never envisaged the Supreme Court to
be geographically concentrated in Delhi. With the rising arrears of
14 ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 MOOT COURT

cases and practical difficulties being faced by poor litigants, it is

about time that the idea of setting up both regional and functional
benches be explored seriously.

ISSUE 02: Will establishment of such regional benches of

Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indica meet the ends of justice?

Responding to a question on pendency of cases

in courts, the Union government told the Rajya Sabha that the
Supreme court has consistently not agreed to set up benches outside
Delhi.
setting up of Benches was referred to the Chief Justice of India for
consideration. The Chief Justice of India, in his letter dated 12th
August, 2007, informed that after consideration of the matter, the
full Court, in its meeting held on 7th August 2007, found no
justification for deviating from its earlier resolution on the subject
and unanimously resolved that the recommendation made by the
Committee cannot be accepted,” Rijiju said.

He added that the Law Commission, in its 229th Report, had also
suggested that a constitutional bench be set up at Delhi and four
cassation benches be set up in the Northern region at Delhi, the
Southern region at Chennai/Hyderabad, the Eastern region at
Kolkata and the Western region at Mumbai. However, the Chief

15 ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 MOOT COURT

Justice of India informed that after the full court considered the
matter in its meeting held on February 18, 2010 “found no
justification for setting of Benches of the Supreme Court outside
Delhi”
There is a Writ Petition No. 36 of 2016 filed in the Supreme Court
of India on the subject of establishment of National Court of
Appeal and the matter is sub-judice in the court,”

When it comes to high courts, benches are established in

accordance with the recommendations made by the Jaswant Singh
Commission and the judgment pronounced by the apex court in
Federation of Bar Associations in Karnataka and after due
consideration of a complete proposal from the state government.
Rijiju said that though requests for establishment of high court
benches in places other than the principal seat of high courts have
been received from various organisations, at present there is no
complete proposal pending before the Union government

ISSUE 03: Whether establishment of such regional benches

causes prejudice to its subordinate courts or any other areas of
judiciary?

The Law Commission favoured a liberal interpretation of

Article 130, so that no Constitutional amendment is required for the
purpose of setting up of Cassation Benches in four regions and a
Constitution Bench at Delhi. If it is found that Article 130 of the

16 ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 MOOT COURT

Constitution cannot be stretched to make it possible to implement

the above recommendations, Parliament should enact suitable
legislation or constitutional amendment for this purpose, the Law
Commission recommended in its report.

The debate on the setting up of regional benches of the

Supreme Court seems to have been revived with many favouring
virtual and hybrid courts as an alternative in the aftermath of
COVID-19 pandemic.
ISSUE 04: Whether the regional benches can be properly
maintained or not?
ARTICLE 130 of the Indian Constitution says that
the Supreme Court shall sit in Delhi or in such other place or places, as
the Chief Justice of India (CJI) may, with the approval of the President,
from time to time, appoint. It will be of interest to revisit this provision
which has partly remained dormant all these years, as no CJI has so far
thought it appropriate to facilitate the sitting of the Supreme Court
outside Delhi.

In 2009, the Law Commission recommended four regional benches of

the Supreme Court – Cassation Benches for the northern region/zone at
Delhi, the southern region/zone at Chennai/Hyderabad, the eastern
region/zone at Kolkata and the western region/zone at Mumbai – to deal
with all appellate work arising out of the orders and judgments of the
high courts of the particular region.

17 ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 MOOT COURT

The Law Commission favoured a liberal interpretation of Article 130, so

that no Constitutional amendment is required for the purpose of setting
up of Cassation Benches in four regions and a Constitution Bench at
Delhi. If it is found that Article 130 of the Constitution cannot be
stretched to make it possible to implement the above recommendations,
Parliament should enact suitable legislation or constitutional amendment
for this purpose, the Law Commission recommended in its report.

In July 2021, Bar Councils in the south submitted a representation to the

CJI N.V.Ramana as well as the Vice President, Venkaiah Naidu seeking
that a Supreme Court bench be set up in south India. But successive CJIs
have been lukewarm to the idea of regional benches on the ground that it
would affect the prestige of the Supreme Court. One CJI,
K.G.Balakrishnan, even remarked that it would lead to its disintegration.

But that was not the view of all his successor CJIs. CJI T.S.Thakur was
certainly receptive to the proposal, and even tried to find a judicial
solution to it when he referred my petition seeking setting up of a
National Court of Appeal to a Constitution bench.

The debate on the setting up of regional benches of the Supreme Court

seems to have been revived with many favouring virtual and hybrid
courts as an alternative in the aftermath of COVID-19 pandemic.

The relative success of virtual hearings by the courts at all levels during
the pandemic has made many to suggest that hybrid hearings (a
combination of virtual as well as physical hearings) could well be an
answer to the demand for establishing regional benches of the Supreme
18 ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 MOOT COURT

Court, as mandated by the Constitution. The Law Ministry’s view

notwithstanding, this is far from the truth, as I will explain in this article.

Why open court is sine qua non of effective justice delivery

Under Article 145 (4) of the Constitution, no judgment shall be
delivered by the Supreme Court save in open court, and no report shall
be made under Article 143 save in accordance with an opinion also
delivered in open court.

Under Section 153 -B of the Code of Civil Procedure, the place of trial
should be deemed to be open court. To reproduce Section 153-B in full:

The place in which any Civil Court is held for the purpose of trying any
suit shall be deemed to be an open court, to which the public generally
may have access so far as the same can conveniently contain them:

Provided that the presiding Judge may, if he thinks fit, Order at any
stage of any inquiry into or trial of any particular case, that the public
generally or any particular person, shall not have access to, or be or
remain in, the room or building used by Court.

19 ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 MOOT COURT

PRAYER

In light of the issues raised, arguments Advanced and the

Authorities cited, the
council for the respondent humbly prays that the hon'ble court be
pleased
Quashed the writs filed by the petitioners in the Hon’ble Court of
law since there

1) Can be an increase in the state expenditure.

20 ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 MOOT COURT

2) Can lead to personal and political bias and

3) Affects the hierarchy of courts.

The court may pass any order which the Hon’ble court deems fit in
light of justice
equity and good conscience.
All of which is most humbly prayed.

Date
Place
Counsel for Respondent

21 ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT