Why in News?
Recently, a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma, delivered a split verdict on a set of petitions which assailed the validity of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.
Remarkably, the judges were divided not on the merits of the challenge, but on whether a Bench of two was competent to decide the matter at all highlighting this institutional challenge.
Reform should therefore aim at specialised constitutional adjudication, coherent precedent, efficient case management and wider access to justice, while preserving judicial independence.
CEC Case: A Test of Constitutional Consistency
Appointment framework: The 2023 Act provides for a selection committee comprising the Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha and a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister.
- This replaced the interim arrangement prescribed in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023), where the CJI was included.
Article 145(3): It mandates a minimum five-judge Bench where a case involves a substantial question of law concerning constitutional interpretation.
- Example: PUCL v. Union of India (2003) examined the scope of this requirement.
Article 141: The law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts.
- Example: The constitutional principle laid down in Anoop Baranwal therefore remains relevant while examining subsequent legislation.
Interpretation versus application: State of J&K v. Thakur Ganga Singh (1959) explained that constitutional interpretation arises where competing constructions of a constitutional provision are advanced.
- Implication: A new statute does not necessarily mean that the constitutional provision itself is unsettled.
Delay: Anoop Baranwal originated in 2015, was referred to a Constitution Bench in 2018 and decided in 2023.
- Example: Such prolonged litigation can leave an institutional framework operational while its constitutional validity remains contested.
Structural Challenges to Constitutional Adjudication
Constitution Bench pendency: Government data showed 29 Constitution Bench matters pending as of 20 July 2023 - 18 before five judges, six before seven and five before nine judges.
- The Department of Justice noted that such cases often involve complex questions and lengthy hearings.
Appellate overload: Article 136 gives the Supreme Court wide discretionary jurisdiction through Special Leave Petitions.
- The 95th Law Commission Report (1984) recognised the need to distinguish constitutional adjudication from ordinary appellate work.
Fragmented jurisprudence: The Court's functioning through numerous two- and three-judge Benches can produce differing interpretations requiring larger-Bench references.
- Example: The CEC litigation demonstrates how disagreement regarding the application of constitutional precedent can itself generate further delay.
Roster-related concerns: The CJI, as Master of the Roster, determines Bench allocation.
- Reform rationale: Predetermined and transparent principles can improve institutional predictability while preserving judicial independence.
Geographical concentration: Delhi-centric functioning imposes additional costs on litigants from distant States.
- The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice (2023) recommended regional Supreme Court Benches to improve accessibility.
Structural Reorganisation: Constitutional and Appellate Functions
Constitutional Division: The 95th Law Commission Report (1984) proposed separate Constitutional and Legal Divisions.
- Benefit: Constitutional questions could receive specialised judicial attention.
Further restructuring: The 125th Law Commission Report (1988) supported restructuring the Supreme Court to distinguish constitutional adjudication from ordinary appellate functions.
- Example: A specialised constitutional forum could focus on fundamental rights and federal disputes.
Permanent Constitution Bench: The 229th Law Commission Report (2009) proposed a permanent Constitution Bench at Delhi.
- Benefit: It could reduce repeated delays in assembling larger Benches.
Cassation Benches: The same report proposed Cassation Benches at Delhi, Chennai/Hyderabad, Kolkata and Mumbai for ordinary appeals.
- Benefit: This could reduce the appellate burden on the constitutional forum.
Regional accessibility: The 2023 Parliamentary Standing Committee recommended regional Benches.
- Article 130 provides the constitutional basis for the Supreme Court to sit at places other than Delhi, subject to the prescribed procedure.
Way Forward
Clearer Bench criteria: Develop objective guidelines under Article 145(3) to distinguish genuine constitutional interpretation from application of settled principles => can prevent unnecessary references to larger Benches.
Stronger precedent management: Conflicts between Benches should receive prompt consideration by an appropriately larger Bench => reinforces Article 141.
Differentiated case management: Classify matters according to constitutional significance, complexity, age and commonality of legal issues.
- Example: The Supreme Court's 2025 New Case Categorization Framework seeks more systematic classification and prioritisation.
Technology-enabled docket management: Digital clustering can identify cases involving identical questions and avoid repetitive hearings.
- The 230th Law Commission Report (2009) emphasised better judicial administration and measures to reduce delay.
Rationalise Article 136: Stronger admission-stage scrutiny of SLPs can release judicial capacity for constitutional questions.
- The Law Commission's earlier recommendations favoured restraint in the exercise of extraordinary appellate jurisdiction, enabling the Supreme Court to concentrate more effectively on questions of national constitutional significance.
