In the intricate landscape of Indian constitutional law, some provisions hold the power to shape the very foundation of judicial proceedings, yet often remain underutilized or forgotten. Among these are Articles 132, 133, 134, and 134A of the Indian Constitution, which govern the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Arvind Datar, a prominent jurist and constitutional law expert, has recently highlighted the critical need to resurrect these articles to restore balance and efficiency in the Indian judiciary.
Understanding Articles 132-134A
Articles 132, 133, and 134 outline the conditions under which the Supreme Court can exercise its appellate jurisdiction in civil, criminal, and constitutional matters. Article 134A, introduced through the 44th Amendment in 1978, requires High Courts to consider whether a case is fit for appeal to the Supreme Court immediately after delivering their judgment. Despite their significance, these articles have gradually fallen into disuse, leading to a growing backlog of cases in the Supreme Court and a shift away from their intended purpose.
- Article 132 grants the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction in cases involving substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution.
- Article 133 deals with the appellate jurisdiction in civil cases, allowing appeals to the Supreme Court if the High Court certifies that the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance.
- Article 134 provides the Supreme Court with appellate jurisdiction in criminal cases under specific circumstances, such as cases involving a sentence of death.
- Article 134A mandates that High Courts, after delivering a judgment, must consider whether a case merits an appeal to the Supreme Court. This provision was designed to streamline the process and ensure that only cases of significant legal importance reach the apex court.
The Decline of Articles 132-134A
Over the years, the practical application of these articles has waned. The requirement for High Courts to provide certification for appeals has been bypassed or ignored, leading to an overwhelming number of cases being directly appealed to the Supreme Court. This has contributed to the burgeoning backlog of cases, with many appeals being heard by the Supreme Court that might not necessarily involve substantial questions of law or public importance.
The consequence is a Supreme Court that is overburdened and unable to focus its resources on cases of constitutional and national significance. Instead, it finds itself increasingly tied up with routine appeals, which could have been adequately resolved at the High Court level.
Arvind Datar’s Call for Resuscitation
Arvind Datar’s call to resurrect Articles 132-134A is rooted in the need to restore the original intent of these provisions. By enforcing the requirement for High Courts to certify appeals, the Supreme Court can refocus on its primary role as a constitutional court. This would allow the judiciary to function more efficiently and ensure that the Supreme Court’s time is dedicated to cases that truly warrant its attention.
Datar argues that the resurrection of these articles would not only reduce the backlog but also reaffirm the principle of judicial hierarchy. It would empower High Courts to serve as the final arbiters in many cases, thereby decentralizing the judicial process and relieving the Supreme Court from the pressure of hearing every appeal.
The Broader Implications
Reviving the use of Articles 132-134A has broader implications for the Indian judicial system. It would promote judicial efficiency by ensuring that the Supreme Court’s docket is reserved for matters of national importance, constitutional interpretation, and substantial legal questions. This shift would also encourage litigants to seek comprehensive justice at the High Court level, rather than relying on the possibility of an appeal to the Supreme Court.
Furthermore, by adhering to these articles, the judiciary would reinforce the importance of High Courts in the Indian legal system. High Courts would be recognized not just as intermediate appellate courts but as crucial components of the judicial process with the authority to decide the finality of most cases.
