National Court of Appeal

The Supreme Court agreed to consider the possibility of setting up a National Court of Appeals with regional seats in Chennai, Mumbai and Kolkata following the public interest litigation by advocate V. Vasanthakumar who argued that the move will help in clearing pendency of cases in the apex court.
What is National court of Appeal
The National Court Appeal with regional benches in Chennai, Mumbai and Kolkata is meant to act as final court of justice in dealing with appeals from the decisions of the High Courts and tribunals within their region in civil, criminal, labour and revenue matters. In such a scenario, a much-relieved Supreme Court of India situated in Delhi would only hear matters of constitutional law and public law.

Historical view
The Supreme Court itself, as early as in 1986, had recommended establishment of an NCA with regional Benches at Chennai, Mumbai and Kolkata to ease the burden of the Supreme Court and avoid hardship to litigants who have to come all the way to Delhi to fight their cases.
But subsequent Chief Justices of India were not inclined to the idea of bifurcation of judicial powers, and that of forming regional benches of the apex court.
Why it is needed
The Supreme Court is saddled with civil and criminal appeals that arise out of everyday and even mundane disputes. As a result of entertaining these appeals, the Supreme Court’s real mandate — that of a Constitutional Court, the ultimate arbiter on disputes concerning any interpretation of the Constitution — is not fulfilled. By taking up the Supreme Court’s appeals jurisdiction, the NCA will give the former more time for its primal functions.
The Supreme Court disposed of 47,424 cases in 2015 compared to 45,042 in 2014 and 40,189 in 2013. In spite of recently accelerated rates of case disposal, the backlog was still a staggering 59,468 cases as of February 2016.
Geographical proximity to the court is definitely an aspect of access to justice. The fact that the Supreme Court sits only in New Delhi limits accessibility to litigants from south India.
A court of appeal can work as an excellent mechanism to sieve cases. If there are areas of law that are particularly unsettled and need clarification, the court of appeal can club them together and send these forward to the Supreme Court. Not only can a number of individual cases be disposed of but areas of law can also be settled and a clear precedent set.
Opposition from government
The government, however, holds that the idea is a “fruitless endeavour” and will not lessen the burden of 2 crore cases pending in trial courts. Government cited three grounds for rejecting the idea — The Supreme Court always sits in Delhi as per the Constitution; the Chief Justices of India in the past have “consistently opposed” the idea of an NCA or regional benches to the Supreme Court; and NCA would “completely change the constitution of the Supreme Court”.
Also It will not reduce the litigation because Apex courts are not clogged but subordinate courts are.
Law commission on National court of appeal
The 229th report of the Law Commission of India delved into this problem in depth and came up with the suggestion of retaining the New Delhi bench of the Supreme Court as a Constitutional Court and the establishment of Cassation Benches of the Supreme Court in the four regions at New Delhi, Chennai/Hyderabad, Kolkata and Mumbai. The 2009 report pointed out that since Article 130 of the Constitution provides that “the Supreme Court shall sit in Delhi or such other place or places as the Chief Justice of India may with the approval of the President, from time to time, appoint”, the creation of Cassation Benches of the Supreme Court would require no constitutional amendment. It also pointed out how this basic model with appropriate variations has worked very successfully in countries such as Italy, Egypt, Ireland, the U.S. and Denmark.
Alternative approach to  this situation
Strengthening of lower courts can achieve the motive what we intended from national court of appeal. If socially conscious and meritorious women and men, who subscribe to the best constitutional values, are elevated as judges to our subordinate judiciary and the high courts, the idea of viewing the Supreme Court as a routine court of appeal can be renounced altogether. This would allow the Supreme Court to be more discerning in its use of discretion, thus substantially reducing its burden of acting as a corrector of simple errors. Also, the real issues of accessing justice relate not to the Supreme Court but the lower judiciary. In India , there is only one judge for every 73,000 people in India, a figure that is seven times worse than the United States. Civil cases never get fully disposed of, and it will likely take more than 30 years to clear all the criminal cases presently on the file of India’s lower courts.
To think about making changes even to the basic system of dispensing justice isn’t necessarily a bad thing. But, our judiciary isn’t broken because of any deficiencies in structure, but rather because of the feeble infrastructure that we have installed to support our justice delivery system. If we work towards establishing a more robust subordinate judiciary, it would not only negate any requirement on the part of most litigants to approach the Supreme Court, but it would also free the court of its shackles, allowing it to possibly regain its constitutionally ordained sense of majesty.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court has earlier rejected suggestions to have benches of the Supreme Court in other parts of the country. Given this fact, it is imperative we look at other options to the problem and seriously debate the possibilities. The solution may not even be the National Court of Appeal but a completely different idea which emerges during the course of deliberations and is found acceptable to the government, the Supreme Court and the stakeholders. It is, however, important that whatever may be the consensus, it must find a solution to the problems faced by people in India.

By: Vishal