The demand for regional or circuit benches of the Supreme Court has persisted for decades, rooted in the simple but powerful argument that justice from India’s highest court remains geographically, financially, and practically inaccessible to the vast majority of citizens who live far from the national capital.

Constitutional Basis

Article 130

Article 130 provides that the Supreme Court shall sit in Delhi or in such other places or places as the Chief Justice of India may, with the approval of the President, appoint.
So, constitutionally, the Supreme Court is not permanently tied only to Delhi.

Committee Recommendations on Regional Benches

Law Commission recommendations — the 95th, 125th, and 229th Law Commission Reports have all recommended establishing regional benches of the Supreme Court to improve access to justice.
- 95th Report of Law Commission (1984)
  - SC should consist of two Divisions, namely, Constitutional Division and Legal Division
- The Law Commission in its 229th Report
  - A Constitution Bench be set up at Delhi to deal with constitutional and other allied issues; and
  - Four Cassation (Zonal) Benches be set up in 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/ judgments of the High Courts of the particular region.
The Parliament Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice presented its 107th report on ‘Demands for Grant (2021-22) of the Ministry of Law and Justice’ and batted for the establishment of the regional benches of the Supreme Court as suggested in the 229th report of the Law Commission.

Arguments in Favour of Regional Benches/Rationale

Access to Justice
- Geographic accessibility — litigants from southern, eastern, and northeastern states currently must travel to Delhi for Supreme Court matters — regional benches would dramatically reduce this travel burden, particularly for litigants from Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Northeast states, and other distant regions
- Reducing the cost of litigation — travel, accommodation, and the need to engage Delhi-based senior counsel (who command premium fees) make Supreme Court litigation prohibitively expensive for many litigants — regional benches could reduce this financial barrier
- Equalising access across regions — currently, litigants and lawyers based in or near Delhi enjoy disproportionate ease of access compared to those from distant states — regional benches would correct this geographic bias
- Article 39A — Equal justice — Article 39A directs the State to ensure equal justice and free legal aid. Regional benches can promote substantive access to justice by reducing distance and cost barriers.
Reducing Pendency
- Distributing caseload — regional benches could help distribute the Supreme Court’s massive case pendency across multiple sittings, potentially improving disposal rates
- Faster disposal of routine appellate matters — many Supreme Court cases involve routine appeals (Special Leave Petitions) rather than substantial constitutional questions — these could be efficiently handled at regional benches, reserving the main Delhi bench for genuine constitutional matters
Judicial Effectiveness
- Improved judicial effectiveness through local familiarity — judges based regionally would be better positioned to understand local context, regional laws, customs, and practical realities — potentially leading to more relevant, informed, and quicker decision-making, especially in matters with strong local or state-specific dimensions
Democratisation of the legal profession
- Regional benches could decentralise legal infrastructure and opportunity, allowing local advocates to argue before the Supreme Court without relocating to Delhi — strengthening regional legal expertise and reducing the current concentration of apex-court practice among a small set of Delhi-based senior advocates

Arguments Against Regional Benches

Fragmentation of constitutional interpretation — Regional benches deciding cases independently risk producing inconsistent interpretations of the Constitution and law across different regions
- Different regional benches may take different views on similar legal questions, leading to inconsistency in law.
Conflicting precedents requiring further litigation — if regional benches diverge in their rulings, resolving such conflicts could require yet another layer of appeal or reference to a central bench, potentially adding complexity rather than reducing it
Resource and infrastructure requirements — establishing functional regional benches requires significant investment in infrastructure, judicial and administrative staff, and logistical coordination
Erosion of the Supreme Court’s symbolic unity — the Supreme Court’s singular character is seen by many, including past Chief Justices, as integral to its symbolic role as the unified apex of India’s judicial system — division into regional benches could dilute this symbolism
- Dilution of Supreme Court’s stature — Regional benches may weaken the image of the Supreme Court as a single national constitutional court. It may make the Court appear like an extended High Court dealing mainly with routine appeals, rather than a central institution deciding major constitutional questions.
Concerns over forum shopping — regional benches could potentially enable litigants to strategically choose benches perceived as more favourable, raising concerns about consistency and fairness
Risk of increased litigation — easier, cheaper access to the Supreme Court could lower the threshold for filing appeals, encouraging even weak or marginal cases that litigants would otherwise have accepted at the High Court level — potentially increasing overall case inflow rather than easing the pendency burden regional benches are meant to solve
Potential Bias and Influence — Concerns exist about the potential for regional biases or political influence to impact judicial decisions at regional benches, particularly in areas with strong local interests or political pressures

Way Forward

National Court of Appeal / Cassation Benches — Instead of directly creating full-fledged regional benches of the Supreme Court, India may consider a National Court of Appeal or Cassation Benches to hear routine appeals and SLPs. This would allow the Supreme Court to focus on constitutional, federal and public law matters.
- In Bihar Legal Support Society v. Chief Justice of India (1986), the Supreme Court noted it was never intended to act as a regular court of appeal against orders from lower courts. It declared it “desirable” to establish a National Court of Appeal so the Supreme Court could focus solely on cases involving questions of constitutional law and public law
Strengthen High Courts first — High Courts should be strengthened through more judges, better infrastructure, e-filing, case management and stricter scrutiny of appeals. If High Courts become more effective, the pressure to approach the Supreme Court in routine matters will reduce.
SLP filtering mechanism — Since Special Leave Petitions form a major part of the Supreme Court’s docket, a filtering mechanism may be introduced where only cases involving substantial questions of law, grave injustice or constitutional importance are admitted.
- Certification by the concerned High Court may be considered to reduce routine appeals and allow the Supreme Court to focus on constitutional and nationally significant matters.
Increase working days of Supreme Court: — The working calendar of the Supreme Court may be rationalised by reducing long vacations or increasing effective court sitting days. This can help improve disposal of pending matters, especially if combined with better case management and stricter admission of SLPs.
- The Malimath Committee suggested that the Supreme Court should work for 206 days and it also recommended that the period of vacation should be reduced by 21 days, keeping in mind the long pendency of cases.
- Law Commission’s 230th Report (2009): It suggested that court vacations be cut down by 10-15 days at all levels of the judiciary to help cut the backlog of cases.
Strengthening digital and virtual access alternatives — expanding video-conferencing and e-filing infrastructure as a less disruptive alternative or complement to physical regional benches, improving access without the institutional risks of fragmentation
Conduct feasibility studies — Before establishing regional benches, detailed feasibility studies should be conducted to assess their legal, constitutional, financial and logistical implications. The study should examine the likely impact on access to justice, pendency, cost of litigation, judicial manpower, infrastructure requirements and uniformity of Supreme Court decisions.
Start with pilot projects — Instead of immediate nationwide rollout, experimental regional benches may be started in select locations. Their performance can be assessed on the basis of case disposal, reduction in travel cost, litigant convenience, consistency of judgments and impact on the Supreme Court’s docket.
Keep exclusive powers of the Supreme Court intact — Even if regional benches are established, the Supreme Court’s core constitutional functions should remain with the principal bench in Delhi. These include original jurisdiction under Article 131, writ jurisdiction under Article 32, advisory jurisdiction under Article 143, Constitution Bench matters and issues involving substantial questions of constitutional importance.
Clear division of jurisdiction — Regional benches may deal mainly with routine appellate matters and SLPs from nearby High Courts, while the Delhi bench should handle constitutional, federal and nationally important matters. This will improve access without diluting the Supreme Court’s role as a national constitutional court.
Ensure uniformity of law — A mechanism should be created to quickly refer conflicting views of regional benches to a larger bench in Delhi. This will prevent legal uncertainty and preserve the Supreme Court’s authority as a single national court.

Regional benches of the Supreme Court can improve access to justice by reducing distance, cost and Delhi-centric litigation, especially for litigants from southern, eastern, western and north-eastern India. However, they must not dilute the Supreme Court’s role as a single national constitutional court or create inconsistency in law. A balanced model would be to retain constitutional, original, advisory and writ jurisdiction with the principal bench in Delhi, while allowing regional/cassation benches to handle routine appellate matters after proper feasibility studies and pilot projects.

Sample Mains Question

Examine the constitutional basis for establishing regional benches of the Supreme Court under Article 130. (10 Marks, 150 Words)
Discuss the recommendations of the Law Commission regarding regional benches of the Supreme Court. (10 Marks, 150 Words)

Trending Today

✍️ Curated by InclusiveIAS Editorial Team

At InclusiveIAS, our editorial team is led by experts who have successfully cleared multiple stages of the UPSC Civil Services Examination, including Mains and Interview. With deep insights into the demands of the exam, we focus on crafting content that is accurate, exam-relevant, and easy to grasp.

Whether it’s Polity, Current Affairs, GS papers, or Optional subjects, our notes are designed to:

Break down complex topics into simple, structured points
Align strictly with the UPSC syllabus and PYQ trends
Save your time by offering crisp yet comprehensive coverage
Help you score more with smart presentation, keywords, and examples

🟢 Every article, note, and test is not just written—but carefully edited to ensure it helps you study faster, revise better, and write answers like a topper.