Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud Addresses Advocate’s Concerns on Constitutional Bench Matters
On September 15, Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud responded firmly to an email from Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara, which suggested that the Supreme Court should prioritize “ordinary cases” over Constitutional Bench matters. The advocate had even labeled the latter as “useless.”
During a hearing attended by Advocate Nedumpara, which also saw the presence of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, CJI Chandrachud addressed the email’s content. He quoted,
“Mr. Nedumpara, my Secretary General placed the email by you complaining that the Supreme Court should not be hearing Constitution bench matters because these are useless matters and the Supreme Court should be hearing non-Constitution bench matters.”
In response, Nedumpara acknowledged the email and emphasized that the Supreme Court should focus on “ordinary people’s cases.”
CJI Chandrachud, highlighting the significance of Constitution Bench matters, stated that these cases often revolve around interpreting the Constitution, the bedrock of India’s legal system. He mentioned,
“You may think that Article 370 – that petition is not relevant. I don’t think that that is what the government or the petitioners in that case feel.”
Further elaborating on the scope of Constitution Bench matters, CJI Chandrachud cited a recent case related to the Light Motor Vehicle Driving License. This case, which was deliberated by a Constitution Bench, questioned if a person with a license for a “light motor vehicle” could drive a
“transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class”
with an unladen weight not exceeding 7500 kg. The case’s outcome could potentially impact the livelihoods of countless drivers nationwide.
Addressing Nedumpara’s concerns, CJI Chandrachud emphasized that not all Constitution Bench matters are solely about constitutional interpretations. He said,
“All Constitution bench matters are not necessarily interpretations of the Constitution… we were dealing with a matter which concerned the livelihood of hundreds and thousands of drivers all across the country.”
Nedumpara, however, held his ground, expressing concerns about the court hearing matters of public interest without adequately representing the public’s voice. In response, CJI Chandrachud pointed out that in the Article 370 matter, individual interveners from the valley had addressed the court, ensuring that the “voice of the nation” was heard.
It’s worth noting that the Supreme Court had reserved its judgment on the Article 370 matter after 16 days of extensive hearings.
