**Executive Summary**
This document addresses Unstarred Question No. 1169 in the Lok Sabha, scheduled for February 6, 2026, regarding the feasibility of establishing permanent benches of the Supreme Court in southern States and Union Territories. The response from the Minister of Law and Justice outlines the constitutional provisions regarding the Supreme Court's location and details previous considerations and recommendations for establishing benches outside of Delhi. The matter regarding establishing a National Court of Appeal is currently sub-judice in the Supreme Court.
**Key Points / Main Content**
* **Constitutional Provision:**
* Article 130 of the Constitution of India states that the Supreme Court shall sit in Delhi or in such other place as the Chief Justice of India may, with the approval of the President, appoint.
* **Law Commission Recommendations:**
* The Eleventh Law Commission's 125th Report (1988) reiterated recommendations from the Tenth Law Commission to split the Supreme Court into a Constitutional Court at Delhi and a Court of appeal or Federal Court sitting in North, South, East, West, and Central India.
* The Eighteenth Law Commission's 229th Report suggested a Constitutional Bench at Delhi and four Cassation Benches in Delhi (Northern Region), Chennai/Hyderabad (Southern Region), Kolkata (Eastern Region), and Mumbai (Western Region).
* **Chief Justice of India's Decision:**
* The Chief Justice of India, after consideration, informed that the Full Court in its meeting held on February 18th, 2010, found no justification for setting up benches of the Supreme Court outside Delhi.
* **Current Status:**
* Writ Petition WP(C) No. 36/2016 on the establishment of a National Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court deemed it proper to refer the aforementioned issue to Constitutional Bench for authoritative pronouncement. The matter is sub-judice in the Supreme Court.
**Impact Analysis**
**Stakeholder: Litigants in Southern States and Union Territories**
* **Impact:** The establishment of permanent benches of the Supreme Court in the southern States and Union Territories would have improved access to justice and reduced hardships to litigants.
* **Action Required:** No immediate action required; outcome dependent on Supreme Court decision.
**Stakeholder: Government**
* **Impact:** The government is tasked with evaluating regional case-load, logistical requirements, and legal steps for placing a reasoned proposal before the competent authorities. The government will be impacted by the Supreme Court decision on Writ Petition WP(C) No. 36/2016.
* **Action Required:** Monitor Supreme Court proceedings and potentially prepare proposals based on the Court's judgment.
**Stakeholder: Supreme Court**
* **Impact:** The Supreme Court's operations and structure could be significantly altered depending on the outcome of Writ Petition WP(C) No. 36/2016 and any subsequent decisions regarding the establishment of benches outside Delhi.
* **Action Required:** Adjudicate Writ Petition WP(C) No. 36/2016 and issue authoritative pronouncement.
Key Entities Referenced
Supreme Court of India: The highest judicial body in India, central to the discussion of establishing benches in Southern States.
Ministry of Law and Justice: The ministry responsible for addressing the question regarding the establishment of Supreme Court benches.
Article 130 of the Constitution of India: The constitutional provision specifying where the Supreme Court may sit.
Law Commission of India: Referenced for its past reports on splitting the Supreme Court.
Southern States and Union Territories: Geographic area specifically targeted for establishing Supreme Court benches.
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
LOK SABHA
UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. 1169
TO BE ANSWERED ON FRIDAY, THE 06th FEBRUARY, 2026
Establishing Benches of Supreme Court in Southern States
1169. Shri Ve Vaithilingam:
Will the Minister of Law and Justice be pleased to state:
(a) whether the Government has examined the feasibility of establishing
permanent benches of the Supreme Court of India in southern States and Union
Territories, including Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and
Puducherry, for improving access to justice and reducing hardships to litigants;
(b) if so, the details of consultations held by the Government with the
Supreme Court, High Courts concerned Bar Councils and advocates’
associations on the above proposal; and
(c) the measures proposed to be taken by the Government for evaluating
regional case-load, logistical requirements and legal steps for placing a reasoned
proposal before the competent authorities?
ANSWER
MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) OF THE MINISTRY
OF LAW AND JUSTICE; AND MINISTER OF STATE IN THE
MINISTRY OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS
(SHRI ARJUN RAM MEGHWAL)
(a) to (c): Article 130 of the Constitution of India provides that 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.: 2 :
The Eleventh Law Commission in its 125th Report titled “The Supreme
Court – A Fresh Look”, submitted in 1988, reiterated the recommendations
made by Tenth Law Commission in its 95th Report for splitting the Supreme
Court into two namely (i) Constitutional Court at Delhi and (ii) Court of
appeal or Federal Court sitting in North, South, East, West and Central India.
The Eighteenth Law Commission in its 229th Report had also suggested that a
Constitutional Bench be set up at Delhi and four Cassation Benches be set up
in the Northern region at Delhi, Southern region at Chennai/Hyderabad,
Eastern region at Kolkata and Western region at Mumbai.
The matter was referred to the Chief Justice of India, who has informed
that after consideration of the matter, the Full Court in its meeting held on 18th
February, 2010, found no justification for setting up of benches of the Supreme
Court outside Delhi.
In Writ Petition WP(C) No. 36/2016 on establishment of National Court
of Appeal, the Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 13.07.2016 deemed it
proper to refer the aforementioned issue to Constitutional Bench for
authoritative pronouncement. The matter is sub-judice in the Supreme Court.
***