Supreme Court Junks Plea for Cases’ Disposal Within Fixed Time, Says ‘Not American Supreme Court’

A bench of Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra observed that the plea sought disposal of all cases in courts, including the apex court, between 12 and 36 months.

Supreme Court (Photo Credits: ANI/File Image)

New Delhi, October 18: The Supreme Court on Friday said it was not the American Supreme Court as it dismissed a plea seeking directions for the disposal of cases pending before all the courts in the country within a fixed time frame.

A bench of Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra observed that the plea sought disposal of all cases in courts, including the apex court, between 12 and 36 months. ‘Law is Not Blind’: New Lady of Justice Statue Introduced at Supreme Court Without Blindfold, Sword Replaced by Constitution (See Pics and Video).

"We are not the American Supreme Court," remarked the top court after the petitioner highlighted the presence of a time frame for disposal of cases in other countries. "You want hearing in all the cases to be disposed of within 12 months in the Supreme Court?" the bench questioned the petitioner.

The CJI then remarked although it was "very desirable" the same was "unachievable". He added several things were required for such an exercise, which included enhancing the infrastructure and increasing in the number of judges. The top court questioned the petitioner whether he was aware of the number of cases being handled by the Supreme Court in America or some other countries in a year. Supreme Court of India Commences Live Streaming of All Court Proceedings on Its Official Website To Enhance Transparency.

It said the amount of cases being dealt with or disposed of by the benches in the apex court in a day was more than what the Supreme Court in several western countries dealt with in a year.

"We can't restrict," the bench said, underlining the judicial system in India provided for the access to justice to all. The petitioner said his argument was not about restricting anyone from approaching the courts.

Share Now

Share Now