News Updates

Madras High Court rejects PIL on establishment of National Court of Appeals

Gaurav Pathak
11 March 2015 5:33 AM GMT
Madras High Court rejects PIL on establishment of National Court of Appeals
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

Hearing a PIL filed by Advocate V.Vasanthakumar, the Madras High Court has held that establishment of National Court of Appeals "is a matter of legislation and Constitutional amendment. The representation of the petitioner having been examined and rejected, we are of the view that the petitioner cannot keep on agitating re-consideration of the issue again and again by filing the present writ petition and such a petition would not be maintainable."

The petitioner had earlier filed a PIL in the Supreme Court wherein he had relied on observations made by the Apex Court in "Bihar Legal Support Society v. Chief Justice of India, 1986(4) SCC 767, about the desirability to set up a National Court of Appeal with the present Apex Court only dealing with the questions of Constitutional and Public Law."

The Supreme Court in that petition had asked the Union Government to consider the representation put forward by the petitioner. However, the government in its reply to the representation said, "In terms of the said communication, the issue of setting a National Court of Appeal or Benches of the Honourable Supreme Court in other part of the country was taken up by the Central Government with the Honourable Chief Justice of India on several occasions and it was opined successive Chief Justices have consistently opposed the setting up of Supreme Court Regional Benches outside Delhi. The Attorney General was consulted in the manner recommended by the Law Commission in its 229th report and he opined that amendment to Article 130 was impermissible as this would change Constitution of the Supreme Court completely. Thus the representation stands rejected."

The petitioner thereafter approached the Madras High Court, for quashing of said communication by the Government. However, the Court found the petition to be not maintainable as it is matter of legislation and constitutional amendment.

Read the order here.

Next Story
Share it