From the Editor-in-Chief
 

60 years of independence – India is shining – justice FROM APEX COURT is beyond reach of COMMON CITIZENS

  1. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar while drafting the Constitution of India had a vision that one day the Supreme Court may have to reach to the people, hence, the Article 130 of the Constitution of India reads as under. Seat of Supreme Court – “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 President, from time to time appoint”.

  2. Shri F. S. Nariman, Sr. Advocate, Supreme Court of India, while delivering Key note address on 6th September, 2002, (Friday), in a conference organised by FICCI and The Bar Association of India on theme of “Governance — Indian Judiciary”, has stated as under:—

    “ I think it is time that the highest court also went to the people — in the sense of, not of proliferation; we do not want the Supreme Court in each and every nook and corner of India. But we want it in a zone just as the Law Minister has said that we should have an international law school in the four zones, why cannot we have a Supreme Court in the four zones?”

  3. Shri R. K P. Shanker, former President of International Bar Association also endorsed the view of Shri Fali S. Nariman for setting up of Supreme Court Benches in four zones for the benefit and convenience of the ordinary litigants. Shri Ashok H. Desai, Sr. Advocate and former Attorney General of India in his speech stated that every adjournment in Supreme Court costs the client minimum of about Rs. 1 lakh.

  4. If this is the minimum cost for an adjournment, we can imagine how many person can afford to approach the Supreme Court for justice. One of our Member informed us that, in a matter before the Supreme Court, which was filed by the department has been adjourned for more than 8 times and only adjournment, cost them Rs. 12 lakhs. He feels that the cost may be up to 50 lakhs when the matter will be finally decided by the Apex Court. If this trend continues it is only big Corporates and Multinationals who would afford to approach the highest court of India for justice.

  5. Our Federation on 20-8-1999 & 2-6-2000 has made representations to then Hon’ble Law Minister to constitute the Benches of the Supreme Court in four zones.

  6. The paper reports dated 26-5-2000 has also stated that, the Parliament Committee has asked the Union Government to pursue the Supreme Court to set up its Benches in three distant regions.

  7. The Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa vide letter dated 11-4-2000 also endorsed the view of the Federation.

  8. Mumbai is the commercial capital of our country where more than 40% of Direct and Indirect revenue of the Government of India is contributed by the State of Maharashtra. Ironically, more than 50% of the matters pending before Hon’ble Supreme Court on Direct and Indirect taxes may be arising from the State of Maharashtra. If we consider, the appeals filed by the States of Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka & Goa, we find that more than 60% of the matters which are pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, may be originating from these states.

  9. For a common person approaching for justice before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, is beyond his means for the simple reason that it is impossible on his part to meet the high travelling cost, staying expenses and other incidental costs, and also on the uncertainty of exact date of hearing. Any matter, which an assessee desires to take up before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, will cost a minimum of five lakh rupees. It, therefore, implies that justice has a sectorial role to play. It is only meant for the rich assessee(s). If, on the contrary, we take the volume of pending litigations under Direct & Indirect taxes, we find to our dismay that more than 50% of the pending matters refer to small medium assessees who find it extremely unaffordable to approach the Hon’ble Apex Court. Therefore, it is very essential to consider the proposal of having a Bench of Supreme Court at Mumbai to decide the matters of Direct and Indirect taxes. If it works to the satisfaction, the same may be extended to Kolkata and Chennai.

  10. When the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal started functioning, it had principal Bench at Delhi, thereafter gradually the additional Benches have been constituted at different parts spreading across the breadth of our country. At present, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has 73 Benches covering 27 cities of our country which facilitates the assessees to get speedy and inexpensive justice at their wits end.

  11. Similarly, the Settlement Commission has principal Bench at Delhi and additional Benches at Mumbai, Chennai and Kolkata.

  12. Authority for Advance Ruling is also functioning from Delhi. However, there is specific provision to constitute additional Bench, considering the number of applications received from any particular place.

  13. Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that Benches of the Supreme Court may be constituted having jurisdiction to decide the matters from the following states.

    NAME OF THE BENCH JURISDICTION
    1. Supreme Court Bench at Mumbai States of Maharashtra, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Goa. Union Territories of Daman & Diu.
    2. Supreme Court Bench at Kolkata States of Bihar, Orissa, West Bengal & North Eastern States.
    3. Supreme Court Bench at Chennai Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala & Tamil Nadu, Union Territories Pondicherry & Lakshadweep
    4. Principle Bench at Delhi All States and Union Territories other than mentioned in three divisions above.

  1. It is also the time to introduce the technology for efficient working of the Judiciary, so that the hearing of the matter before the Apex court can be done by linking the various High Courts and affording facilities for arguing the matter before the Apex court sitting at respective High Courts. Both the parties may be advised to file the brief submission in advance, the judges should go through the same and thereafter by granting a minimum time to both the parties so that the matter can be decided. We have been given to understand that, in the Supreme Court of the United States, an oral argument usually lasts one hour, with attorneys for each side of case given 30 minutes to make representation to the Court and answer questions posed by the Justice.

  2. The World Bank Report 2007 on the subject of ‘Doing business in South Asia’ observed as under:

    “Commercial disputes before courts in India are among the most lengthy, costly and complex in South Asia and globally – resulting in a rank of 173rd on the ease of enforcing contracts. It takes 1,420 days to enforce a contract in India, compared with 969 days on average in South Asia, 351 days on average in OECD countries, 450 days in Malaysia and only 292 days in China. Court costs and attorneys’ fees add up to 36% of the value of the claim. In China they cost 27% of the claim and on average in South Asia 26.4%. And while it takes 56 procedures to enforce a contract in India, only 39 procedures are required on average in South Asia, 32 on average in East Asia, and 31 in China.”

  3. We sincerely feel that, it is time to think and debate, how litigants can get quicker and inexpensive justice from the highest judiciary of our country. The above suggestions are made objectively so that the desire of our Hon’ble Prime Minister to have an unpolluted, speedy and inexpensive justice is fulfilled.

  4. We are sure that for this noble cause, even the other political parties would whole-heartedly support the Government. We therefore, of the opinion that the quick and easy justices is made available to be the citizens, the same will help the country for getting more investments to India.

Dr. K. SHIVARAM
Editor-in-chief