New Delhi (Gurpreet Singh): The Supreme Court on Wednesday raised concern over the prolonged delay in deciding cases referred to larger benches and urged the Chief Justice of India to consider creating a permanent five-judge bench to deal with important constitutional questions.
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma made the observation while referring petitions challenging the law governing the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners to a five-judge Constitution Bench.
The judges said the issue of long-pending references required “self-introspection”, noting that delays of several years did not reflect well on the institution.
Supreme Court Seeks Permanent Bench For Constitutional Matters
The Bench asked the CJI to explore the possibility of establishing a permanent five-judge bench to hear cases involving purely constitutional issues.
The judges said the idea was not new and had been raised previously by several citizens. They also observed that concerns over references remaining pending for years appeared justified.
According to the Bench, there was often no certainty about when long-pending constitutional references would finally be taken up. It described the situation as a serious concern and said institutional efforts were needed to address the delays.
29 Constitution Bench Matters Reportedly Pending
The court noted that 29 main Constitution Bench matters were reportedly pending, with the average pendency of such cases exceeding eight years.
It observed that references remaining unresolved for periods of five, 10, 20 years or even longer were not desirable and called for the matter to be addressed with urgency.
The judges emphasised that deciding constitutional questions was among the Supreme Court’s primary responsibilities and should remain a priority.
Judges Cite Delay In Earlier Constitutional References
Justice Datta and Justice Sharma also referred to their recent participation in a nine-judge Constitution Bench that decided an issue concerning the meaning of “industry” under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The Bench pointed out that the matter had taken several years to move from a seven-judge bench’s reference to consideration by the nine-judge bench.
The judges cited this and other cases as examples of constitutional matters taking considerable time to reach larger benches.
CEC Appointment Law Reference Also Sent To 5-Judge Bench
The observations came while the two-judge Bench referred petitions challenging the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 to a Constitution Bench.
The judges expressed hope that the latest reference, involving issues they described as important to India’s democratic framework, would not face the kind of prolonged delay seen in some earlier constitutional matters.
