In March this year, Member of Parliament Vivek Gupta introduced a Private Member Bill in the Rajya Sabha to set up a Bench of the Supreme Court in Kolkata..In an exclusive interview with Bar & Bench, he discussed the reasoning behind the Bill, and how the Bill would alleviate the difficulties of poor litigants..(Excerpts below).Bar & Bench- Why Kolkata? Why not an alternate Bench in any other state?.Vivek Gupta- I belong to Kolkata. I am sure it will be a good idea if the Supreme Court or the government of the day concludes that there should be at least one Bench in every region just like in any other progressive country. Take the case of a person from Purulia district who has to travel 4-5 hours to come to Kolkata and then take a train to Delhi. And I am talking about a poor person here who cannot afford the luxury of taking a flight. This person has limited means to cover his stay in the capital including food expenses, lodging expenses, lawyer fees etc only to be informed that his matter is adjourned because of a strike or because the Judge is not sitting on that particular day..Such adjournments are a commonplace occurrence and the litigant can never have previous information on such things. This entire cycle ensures that we are not only increasing the cost of litigation, but also the level of inconvenience caused to these people. And thereby, a fear psychosis gets generated – “Let it be, we do not want to litigate”. If a Bench can be created in Kolkata, it will be a one day affair for the guy. He can go in the morning and be back by the evening and frequent adjournments may not majorly affect his interests because of the proximity of the Bench. Going to the Supreme Court is not a matter of fancy but a matter of fighting for your beliefs in the highest court of India..Bar & Bench- So why not create a hierarchy of courts in every region? A Final Court of Appeals in every state and limit the Supreme Court to deciding only constitutional questions.Vivek Gupta- Why not? Whichever way you want to call it, the idea is to establish a court that is equivalent to the powers exercised by the Supreme Court because people understand that the Supreme Court is the last and final place of judgment. Even in the Supreme Court, it does happen that a matter, subsequent to its decision, can be reviewed or get referred to a larger Bench. A good start would be to have one judge of the Supreme Court heading this “Final court of appeals” as you call it, in every State. The intent is to provide litigants with quicker and cheaper justice..Bar & Bench– What about the jurisprudential clash or confusions that might occur because of the second Bench?.Vivek Gupta– Confusions exist even today. Various High Courts deliver different kind of judgments. How many judgments (by the Supreme Court) are there that are delivered by a unanimous view? Not every case may involve a greater principle of law that will need adjudication. Let us assume that the Supreme Court delivers a ruling that live-in relationships constitute rape. So at least we know that the ground rules are set. But what if am fighting the case because I was not heard properly? The reasons for going to the Supreme Court are very different and diverse. It is very difficult to classify them and say that, ‘okay these are the areas on which a confusion could arise so let’s not adjudicate on them.’ At the very least, we can try and settle such issues because of the legal rights that are involved. If that is done, then even the litigants would know that ‘now if I go to Delhi, the question has to be strictly on a point of law over which there still exists ambiguity and not for any frivolous point relating to the case.’.And sometimes, the choice to litigate may not be mine at all. I maybe dragged to the final court and forced to litigate over a simple tax issue which may not be as complicated. But the government is adamant to drag me to court because if the concerned official does not move the Apex Court, he will be charged with corruption. He knows that he has lost the case but the only reason he will go to the Final Court is to tell his superiors that ‘look I’ve tried my best and pursued the matter till the very end because am not in the wrong.’ And because the government can afford paying the lawyers with the tax payer’s money, they go ahead with this continuous cycle..No corporate or big person should be able to threaten a litigant that he will be taken to Supreme Court and put to hardships & burgeoning costs. The Bill is to provide a remedy to the physical and mental torture that one undergoes while coming all the way to Delhi, just to satiate the vehemence of litigation by the other side..Bar & Bench- Senior Advocate KK Venugopal had once said that setting up of one regional Bench may lead to the establishment of many such regional Benches..Vivek Gupta- I am not aware of any such specific criticism. However for the sake of argument, let us take the case of North-East and say that there is a Bench which comes up in Gauhati. So the seven sister States can get some relief from that Bench. Is it going to be perfect? No. Are all laws perfect? Most definitely not. The Supreme Court has had to intervene so many times in the past to correct lacunae in the existing legal provisions, by way of judicial interpretation. For the fear of unknown, you cannot dilute the good intent behind an initiative which may help the entire population of that region..It is not a ‘You Vs. Me’ debate here. It is very easy for lawyers to think that all that separates Chennai from Delhi is a mere three hour flight. So what is this brouhaha all about. But talk to someone who is from Rameshwaram. He has to come to Chennai first and then take a 36 hour train journey just to get some relief from the topmost court of the country. He loses his precious time, something he will never get back. All of this simply, because we refrained from going down an experimental route for the judiciary?.Bar & Bench– Do you view this Bill as a means to overhaul the traditional practices of dispute settlement ?.Vivek Gupta– The Supreme Court and various High Courts are experimenting with video conferencing. They are specifically directing that prisoners should not to be physically brought to Courts. So this particular thought is already going on in their minds. At times we find Judges stepping out of courtrooms to administer justice. These kind of things are happening and I am not putting down a proposal which is out of the blue or not being practiced already, albeit through different means. What am trying to tell you is that we work towards creating a situation that if a person wishes to approach the Supreme Court, he should be allowed to pursue that option, minus the concern of draining his resources and physical comfort..Bar & Bench– What in your mind, poses the biggest hurdle for the passage of this Bill?.Vivek Gupta– I don’t think that there should be any hurdles at all. Whoever opposes it, be it genuine concerns or not, will be answerable to the nation on why he wants the common man to suffer. I will gladly withdraw my Bill if the Government addresses the concerns of poor litigants. It is the government’s job to do it. In fact, I should not have been the one to take this decision and it should have been the government’s prerogative!
In March this year, Member of Parliament Vivek Gupta introduced a Private Member Bill in the Rajya Sabha to set up a Bench of the Supreme Court in Kolkata..In an exclusive interview with Bar & Bench, he discussed the reasoning behind the Bill, and how the Bill would alleviate the difficulties of poor litigants..(Excerpts below).Bar & Bench- Why Kolkata? Why not an alternate Bench in any other state?.Vivek Gupta- I belong to Kolkata. I am sure it will be a good idea if the Supreme Court or the government of the day concludes that there should be at least one Bench in every region just like in any other progressive country. Take the case of a person from Purulia district who has to travel 4-5 hours to come to Kolkata and then take a train to Delhi. And I am talking about a poor person here who cannot afford the luxury of taking a flight. This person has limited means to cover his stay in the capital including food expenses, lodging expenses, lawyer fees etc only to be informed that his matter is adjourned because of a strike or because the Judge is not sitting on that particular day..Such adjournments are a commonplace occurrence and the litigant can never have previous information on such things. This entire cycle ensures that we are not only increasing the cost of litigation, but also the level of inconvenience caused to these people. And thereby, a fear psychosis gets generated – “Let it be, we do not want to litigate”. If a Bench can be created in Kolkata, it will be a one day affair for the guy. He can go in the morning and be back by the evening and frequent adjournments may not majorly affect his interests because of the proximity of the Bench. Going to the Supreme Court is not a matter of fancy but a matter of fighting for your beliefs in the highest court of India..Bar & Bench- So why not create a hierarchy of courts in every region? A Final Court of Appeals in every state and limit the Supreme Court to deciding only constitutional questions.Vivek Gupta- Why not? Whichever way you want to call it, the idea is to establish a court that is equivalent to the powers exercised by the Supreme Court because people understand that the Supreme Court is the last and final place of judgment. Even in the Supreme Court, it does happen that a matter, subsequent to its decision, can be reviewed or get referred to a larger Bench. A good start would be to have one judge of the Supreme Court heading this “Final court of appeals” as you call it, in every State. The intent is to provide litigants with quicker and cheaper justice..Bar & Bench– What about the jurisprudential clash or confusions that might occur because of the second Bench?.Vivek Gupta– Confusions exist even today. Various High Courts deliver different kind of judgments. How many judgments (by the Supreme Court) are there that are delivered by a unanimous view? Not every case may involve a greater principle of law that will need adjudication. Let us assume that the Supreme Court delivers a ruling that live-in relationships constitute rape. So at least we know that the ground rules are set. But what if am fighting the case because I was not heard properly? The reasons for going to the Supreme Court are very different and diverse. It is very difficult to classify them and say that, ‘okay these are the areas on which a confusion could arise so let’s not adjudicate on them.’ At the very least, we can try and settle such issues because of the legal rights that are involved. If that is done, then even the litigants would know that ‘now if I go to Delhi, the question has to be strictly on a point of law over which there still exists ambiguity and not for any frivolous point relating to the case.’.And sometimes, the choice to litigate may not be mine at all. I maybe dragged to the final court and forced to litigate over a simple tax issue which may not be as complicated. But the government is adamant to drag me to court because if the concerned official does not move the Apex Court, he will be charged with corruption. He knows that he has lost the case but the only reason he will go to the Final Court is to tell his superiors that ‘look I’ve tried my best and pursued the matter till the very end because am not in the wrong.’ And because the government can afford paying the lawyers with the tax payer’s money, they go ahead with this continuous cycle..No corporate or big person should be able to threaten a litigant that he will be taken to Supreme Court and put to hardships & burgeoning costs. The Bill is to provide a remedy to the physical and mental torture that one undergoes while coming all the way to Delhi, just to satiate the vehemence of litigation by the other side..Bar & Bench- Senior Advocate KK Venugopal had once said that setting up of one regional Bench may lead to the establishment of many such regional Benches..Vivek Gupta- I am not aware of any such specific criticism. However for the sake of argument, let us take the case of North-East and say that there is a Bench which comes up in Gauhati. So the seven sister States can get some relief from that Bench. Is it going to be perfect? No. Are all laws perfect? Most definitely not. The Supreme Court has had to intervene so many times in the past to correct lacunae in the existing legal provisions, by way of judicial interpretation. For the fear of unknown, you cannot dilute the good intent behind an initiative which may help the entire population of that region..It is not a ‘You Vs. Me’ debate here. It is very easy for lawyers to think that all that separates Chennai from Delhi is a mere three hour flight. So what is this brouhaha all about. But talk to someone who is from Rameshwaram. He has to come to Chennai first and then take a 36 hour train journey just to get some relief from the topmost court of the country. He loses his precious time, something he will never get back. All of this simply, because we refrained from going down an experimental route for the judiciary?.Bar & Bench– Do you view this Bill as a means to overhaul the traditional practices of dispute settlement ?.Vivek Gupta– The Supreme Court and various High Courts are experimenting with video conferencing. They are specifically directing that prisoners should not to be physically brought to Courts. So this particular thought is already going on in their minds. At times we find Judges stepping out of courtrooms to administer justice. These kind of things are happening and I am not putting down a proposal which is out of the blue or not being practiced already, albeit through different means. What am trying to tell you is that we work towards creating a situation that if a person wishes to approach the Supreme Court, he should be allowed to pursue that option, minus the concern of draining his resources and physical comfort..Bar & Bench– What in your mind, poses the biggest hurdle for the passage of this Bill?.Vivek Gupta– I don’t think that there should be any hurdles at all. Whoever opposes it, be it genuine concerns or not, will be answerable to the nation on why he wants the common man to suffer. I will gladly withdraw my Bill if the Government addresses the concerns of poor litigants. It is the government’s job to do it. In fact, I should not have been the one to take this decision and it should have been the government’s prerogative!
.jpg?w=480&auto=format%2Ccompress&fit=max)
