The full court of the supreme court has again rejected the demand for setting up its regional benches. The full bench, comprising 27 judges and headed by the Chief Justice of India, was unanimous in its decision and said setting up regional benches would affect the country's "unitary character". The apex court had rejected such demands four times in the past as well--through resolutions passed in 1999, 2001, 2004 and 2006. The latest resolution came following a fresh proposal from the law minister, M Veerappa Moily.

For ages, lawyers have been demanding regional benches, particularly those in Tamil Nadu, because of the need to travel to Delhi from across the country every time a high court order is challenged. The Law Commission had suggested that the apex court be split into a Constitution Bench in Delhi and four Cassation benches in four regions of the country. The first to deal with constitutional matters and the latter four to deal with appellate work arising out of high court orders, i.e., to ensure law has been applied correctly. Successive parliamentary committees too have supported this saying setting up benches outside Delhi "would neither impair unity and integrity nor undermine the importance of the supreme court".

The views of the Law Commission and the parliamentary panels seem quite reasonable. Regional benches, not dealing with constitutional matters, should cut down on the need to travel to Delhi and de-clog the apex court by way of extra benches. Given the long list of cases pending before courts, more than 50,000 cases are pending with the supreme court alone (out of a total of 3 crore cases pending), this step would surely help in ensuring speedy justice. At present, it takes on average 15 years for a case to come to conclusion. Shouldn't the apex court be alive to these issues? How would the country's unitary character be threatened by more benches? Don't the high courts have more than one bench in many of the states?