Article 130 of the Indian Constitution addresses a seemingly simple, yet constitutionally significant aspect: the location where the Supreme Court of India holds its sittings. This article fixes the primary seat of the highest court of the land while also providing a mechanism for flexibility in its operations.
Understanding Article 130 is important for UPSC aspirants as it highlights the structural and functional aspects of the Indian judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court. It reflects a balance between establishing a fixed principal location and allowing for practical adjustments based on necessity, subject to proper constitutional authority and approval.
Original Text
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 the President, from time to time, appoint.
Detailed Explanation
Article 130 of the Indian Constitution designates the seat of the Supreme Court. It lays down a primary rule and an exception to that rule. The primary rule is that the Supreme Court shall sit in Delhi. This establishes Delhi as the permanent and principal seat of the Supreme Court.
However, the article also incorporates a degree of flexibility. It permits the Supreme Court to sit in other place or places besides Delhi. This power to decide on sitting in other locations is vested in the Chief Justice of India (CJI). The CJI is the administrative head of the judiciary and is best placed to determine the necessity and feasibility of holding court proceedings elsewhere.
Crucially, the exercise of this power by the Chief Justice of India is not absolute or unilateral. The decision to sit in a place other than Delhi requires the prior approval of the President of India. This requirement introduces a check and balance mechanism, involving the executive head in a decision affecting the judiciary’s functioning, ensuring executive awareness and assent.
The phrase “from time to time” implies that such appointments of places other than Delhi for sittings are not intended to create permanent, alternative seats or benches but are for temporary sittings as deemed necessary by the CJI with the President’s approval. This has been the long-standing interpretation, particularly in the context of demands for establishing permanent benches of the Supreme Court in different parts of the country, which Article 130, as currently interpreted, does not facilitate.
Detailed Notes
- Primary Seat: The Supreme Court of India is constitutionally mandated to sit primarily in Delhi.
- Fixed Location: Delhi is designated as the permanent and principal seat of the Court by this Article.
- Power to Appoint Other Places: The power to decide on holding sittings of the Supreme Court at places other than Delhi rests with the Chief Justice of India (CJI).
- Requirement of President’s Approval: The decision of the CJI to appoint another place for sittings is subject to the approval of the President of India.
- Flexibility Provision: The article provides for flexibility to hold sittings elsewhere, based on need, but does not create multiple permanent seats.
- Temporary Nature: The phrase “from time to time, appoint” suggests that sittings in other places are temporary arrangements rather than the establishment of permanent alternative benches.
- Constitutional Authority: The power originates directly from the Constitution, ensuring the legitimacy of sittings outside Delhi when properly authorised.
- Checks and Balances: The requirement of Presidential approval introduces a check on the CJI’s administrative decision-making regarding the Court’s location for sittings.
Additional Comments
- Article 130 specifies where the Court shall sit, implying the location of the proceedings and judicial functions, not necessarily where the entire administrative machinery must be located permanently.
- There has been a persistent demand for establishing permanent regional benches of the Supreme Court in different parts of India (e.g., South, West, East) to make access to justice at the highest level easier and more affordable for citizens living far from Delhi.
- However, the prevailing interpretation of Article 130 by the Supreme Court itself is that it only allows for the Chief Justice of India to appoint other places for holding sittings from time to time with the President’s approval, and does not provide for the creation of permanent regional benches.
- The rationale against permanent benches often cited includes maintaining the unity and integrity of the Supreme Court as a single apex court, avoiding potential conflicts between benches, and ensuring uniformity of law.
- Any decision to establish permanent regional benches would likely require either a constitutional amendment or a significant re-interpretation of Article 130 by a larger bench of the Supreme Court.
- Practical difficulties such as logistics, infrastructure, availability of judges, and legal practitioners are also factors considered in debates around sittings outside Delhi.
Summary
Article 130 of the Indian Constitution mandates that the Supreme Court shall primarily sit in Delhi. It empowers the Chief Justice of India to appoint other places for the Court to sit, subject to obtaining the approval of the President of India. This provision establishes Delhi as the principal seat while allowing for temporary sittings elsewhere, balancing stability with administrative flexibility. The prevailing interpretation does not support the creation of permanent regional benches of the Supreme Court under this Article.