Discuss the constitutional and institutional obstacles to setting up regional benches of the Supreme Court, with reference to the Law Commission's 229th Report.

Under Article 130, the Supreme Court sits in Delhi or at other places the CJI appoints with the President's approval [1]. Pendency had already crossed 60,000 cases by March 2020 [2], yet the Court still has no regional benches. The Constitution's text is not what blocks them. The real obstacles are how it is interpreted and the reluctance of the institutions involved.

The 229th Report (2009): what was proposed

• A Constitution Bench at Delhi for constitutional matters, plus four cassation benches to hear appeals from High Courts [3].
• The suggested locations were Delhi, Chennai/Hyderabad, Kolkata and Mumbai. The aim was to free the apex court's docket and bring justice closer to distant litigants [4].

Constitutional obstacles

• Unity of precedent (Art. 141): the law the Supreme Court declares binds all courts. Regional benches could give conflicting rulings, which would need yet another layer of appeal to settle.
• Benches vs. a new tier: Art. 130 permits benches without any amendment. A separate cassation or Court of Appeal tier, however, would alter Arts. 124 and 136, and that change would be tested against the basic structure doctrine.
• Pending reference: the National Court of Appeal question was referred to a Constitution Bench on 13.07.2016 and remains sub judice [5]. This lets the government defer any action.

Institutional obstacles

• Judicial veto: the CJI opposed outside benches in 2007, and the Full Court found "no justification" in 2010 [4]. Because Art. 130 depends on the CJI acting first, nobody else can move.
• Executive deference: in July 2024 the Government told the Rajya Sabha there is "no proposal" for regional benches [1].
• Parliament sidelined: in 2023 the Standing Committee on Law and Justice recommended benches at 4–5 locations, with appeals heard regionally and constitutional matters kept in Delhi [6]. Parliament, however, has no role under Art. 130.
• Status and logistics: concerns that the Court's stature would be diluted, rivalry among regional Bars, and the cost of infrastructure and rotating judges.

The obstacles are therefore more institutional than textual: each actor is waiting for another to move first. A way forward has four steps:

• the Full Court revisits its 2010 decision in light of rising pendency;
• a pilot bench is set up under Art. 130;
• the 2016 reference is heard early;
• regional benches must refer conflicting rulings upward, so that precedent stays uniform.

Together, these steps would give effect to Article 39A's promise of equal access to justice and keep the Supreme Court's constitutional primacy intact.