While some legal pundits insist that the Supreme Court is meant only to decide constitutional matters, and is hence a constitutional court, it is fairly conceded by Sriram Panchu, in his article “A National Court of Appeal? Aye.” (March 2), that litigations from other areas too deserve a hearing by the Supreme Court if important questions of the law are involved or where High Courts have erred in their conclusions. The general suggested alternative idea of constituting a National Court of Appeal will only isolate the common man from the Supreme Court, which is disastrous. Another alternative idea of having four regional centres of a fully equipped Supreme Court is better in the sense that the litigant will have the satisfaction that his case has been heard by the highest court. Introspection will only make us agree with Chief Justice T.S. Thakur’s emotional appeal for more judges at all levels.
V. Lakshmanan,Tirupur, Tamil Nadu
Instead of constituting a National Court of Appeal in the four regions of the country, wouldn’t it be wiser to increase the strength of the Supreme Court by 50 per cent? The sanctioned strength is 31, but the actual strength is 25. With the increased bench strength, some judges can follow a schedule to visit the four regions. The rest can form two constitutional benches at New Delhi and hear constitutional cases round the year. This will answer the test of geographical proximity and also finality. However, if there are four national courts of appeal, there can be still no finality because one can go to the Supreme Court. In Australia, the High Court (which is equal to our Supreme Court), with its principal seat in Canberra, goes in circuit to other places/states like Melbourne and Sydney. A National Court of Appeal will create only one more tier of litigation (May 2).
N.G.R. Prasad,Chennai
The creation of a court of appeal can only add to the judiciary’s burden. Instead of doing this, we can try to reduce pendency in our lower courts. This along with police reform, no tolerance towards corruption and reducing the number of holidays for the judiciary can help improve the situation.
Saurabh Pandey,New Delhi
