"The Supreme Court of India risks becoming a court of appeal rather than a constitutional court." Critically examine, and assess whether a Constitutional Court plus regional Courts of Appeal is the answer.

The Constitution made the Supreme Court the final interpreter of the Constitution (Arts. 32, 141, 145(3)). Article 136, however, lets it hear an appeal from almost any order. In early 2020, about 59,859 cases were pending before it [1]. Most of these were routine appeals, which supports the claim, but only in part.

Why the claim holds

• SLP flood: Special Leave Petitions (Art. 136), meant to be used rarely, now fill most of the court's docket. This crowds out constitutional work.
• Constitution Benches are rare: questions that need five or more judges stay pending for years. The National Court of Appeal reference made in 2016 was still sub judice in 2024 [3].
• Access gap: a Delhi-only court is costly for litigants from the South and North-East [4]. This weakens Art. 39A.

Why it is overstated

• Correcting errors under Art. 136 has delivered justice in many criminal and civil cases where the lower courts went wrong.
• Constitution Benches still decide landmark questions such as Article 370, electoral bonds and privacy. The constitutional role is delayed, not lost.

Is the split model the answer?

Merits

• It sorts the work, so a small Delhi bench is left free for constitutional cases. The Law Commission's 229th Report (2009) proposed exactly this: a Constitution Bench at Delhi and four cassation benches at Delhi, Chennai/Hyderabad, Kolkata and Mumbai [2].
• The Parliamentary Standing Committee (2023) endorsed regional benches at 4–5 places under Art. 130 [4].

Concerns

• Art. 141 unity: regional courts could give conflicting rulings, which would add one more tier of appeal.
• Institutional resistance: the Full Court rejected benches outside Delhi in 2010 [2], and the Government says there is "no proposal" [3].
• A separate Court of Appeal tier would need a constitutional amendment, which must pass basic-structure review.
• If admission filters stay loose, the backlog may simply move to the new courts.

Way forward

• Begin with a pilot bench under Art. 130, which needs no amendment.
• Tighten the admission standards for SLPs.
• Decide the 2016 reference.
• Require regional courts to refer any conflicting ruling to the Constitutional Court.

The diagnosis is broadly correct. A Constitutional Court with regional Courts of Appeal is a sound direction if it comes with strict filters and safeguards for uniform precedent. Brought in step by step, as the Law Commission and Parliament have suggested, it would strengthen the court's constitutional role and widen access to justice.