A-G KK Venugopal has suggested that the apex court only hear cases of constitutional and national importance. Instead, there should be a Court of Appeal above High Courts, with four benches of 15 judges each.
The suggestion was made recently, on the day of Law Day. The attorney general mentioned that through video-conferencing everyone has learnt new ways of addressing arguments. This type of process is something that can continue even after the pandemic is over and courts resume hearings.
During the time the Court debates the utility, usefulness and necessity of the Central Vista Development Project, Attorney General (AG) KK Venugopal has suggested a new element in its judicial architecture that of a Court of Appeal between the High Courts and the Supreme Court.
The A-G emphasised that the Supreme Court was the apex court, which was a constitutional court, and heard cases of national and constitutional importance, but strangely also hears matrimonial, rent, landlord and tenant cases, land acquisition cases and bail matters.
Calling the attention towards the constitutional provisions, regarding appeals to the Supreme Court are in Articles 132, 133, 134, 134A and 136. In the respective constitution, one can easily find provisions for appeals in certain cases, appeals in civil cases, appeals in criminal cases, appeals by certificate to appeal and appeals by special leave to appeal. We have, therefore, clear constitutional provisions for appeals to the Supreme Court.
The A-G felt that the Supreme Court should regain its status and only hear cases of constitutional and national importance. He suggested that there should be a Court of Appeal above High Courts, consisting of four benches with 15 judges each, who should be of the same status and calibre as judges of the Supreme Court.
With a Court of Appeal, the workload of the Supreme Court would reduce to about 2,000 manageable cases. He also said that setting up a Court of Appeal shall require an amendment of the Constitution.