Constitution of India
Article 130: Seat of Supreme Court
Part V — The Union (Chapter IV — The Union Judiciary)
Article 130 (no sub-divisions)
WHAT IT SAYS: The Supreme Court shall sit in Delhi or in such other place or places as the Chief Justice of India may, with the approval of the President, from time to time, appoint. WHAT IT MEANS: 1. Delhi is the constitutionally mandated primary seat of the Supreme Court. 2. The CJI has discretionary power to designate additional/alternative places for sittings. 3. Presidential approval is a mandatory prerequisite for any change in sitting location. 4. The power is enabling, not mandatory — no one can compel the CJI to exercise it. 5. Despite this provision, no CJI has ever invoked this power — all sittings have been held in Delhi since 1950. KEY DOCTRINE: The CJI acts as 'persona designata' under Article 130 — meaning this is a personal constitutional power of the CJI, not a power of the Supreme Court as an institution, and cannot be directed by any court or mandamus.
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. Government of India Act, 1935 — Section 200 (Federal Court of India) Original provision: The Federal Court sat in Delhi and had jurisdiction over inter-provincial disputes and appeals from High Courts. What India kept: The concept of a fixed seat at the national capital for the apex court, with flexibility built in. 2. United States Constitution — Article III, Section 1 Original provision: Establishes one Supreme Court; by convention (not constitutional text), Washington D.C. is its seat. What India kept: The idea of constitutionally locating the apex court at the seat of government. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. Express flexibility clause — Unlike the US, India explicitly empowered the CJI to establish sittings elsewhere, anticipating the vast geographical size and diversity of the country. 2. Joint CJI-President mechanism — A check-and-balance was embedded: the CJI proposes, the President approves, ensuring neither judiciary nor executive has unilateral power. 3. Capital-neutral language — Framers deliberately used 'Delhi' (not 'the capital') so the seat would not automatically shift if the capital changed; any shift would require CJI's fresh exercise of power.
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: 27 May 1949 (CAD Volume VIII) DRAFT ARTICLE: 108-A (renumbered as Article 130) ORIGIN: During debate on Draft Article 108 (Article 129 — Court of Record), a member argued that specifying Delhi as the Supreme Court's seat in that article gave the city undue importance. Dr. Ambedkar proposed separating the seat provision into a new article, 108-A. KEY SPEAKERS: 1. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (Chairman, Drafting Committee) — Justified the need to specify Delhi as the seat, stating that all courts must have a defined seat so litigants know where to approach. 2. Shri Jaspat Roy Kapoor — Moved amendments arguing the language was ambiguous; 'or' between Delhi and other places could be read as mutually exclusive, preventing circuit benches from sitting in Delhi. 3. Shri T.T. Krishnamachari (Madras) — Opposed Kapoor's amendment, stating the language was clear enough and the use of 'and/or' was inappropriate for a constitutional document. MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS: 1. Ambiguity of 'or' — Jaspat Roy Kapoor contended that using 'or' could exclude Delhi when the CJI appoints other places, making Delhi and other locations mutually exclusive. 2. Whether Delhi deserved primacy — Some members questioned why Delhi should be singled out when it had not yet been finalized as the permanent capital. FINAL OUTCOME: Dr. Ambedkar's original formulation was adopted; Kapoor's amendments were withdrawn after Ambedkar explained the draft language was flexible enough to allow sittings both in Delhi and elsewhere simultaneously. AMBEDKAR'S KEY REASONING: It was necessary for all courts to have a defined seat so that litigants would know where to approach; since Delhi was the capital, it was the most appropriate seat, and the language was flexible enough to accommodate a future change of capital without constitutional amendment.
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. Bihar Legal Support Society v. Chief Justice of India (1986) — CJ Bhagwati observed that the SC was never intended to be a regular court of appeal; suggested the desirability of setting up a National Court of Appeal to reduce backlog and make justice accessible. 2. V. Vasanthakumar v. H.C. Bhatia (2016) 7 SCC 686 — A three-judge bench headed by CJI T.S. Thakur referred to a Constitution Bench the question of establishing a National Court of Appeal with regional benches under Article 130. The matter remains pending. 3. Karthik Ranganathan v. Disciplinary Committee-IV (Madras HC, 2021) — The Madras High Court observed that there was no constitutional bar on setting up Supreme Court benches outside Delhi under Article 130, and that time had come to establish such benches for access to justice. GOVERNMENT/INSTITUTIONAL POSITIONS: 1. Attorney General (2014) — Opined that amending Article 130 to mandate regional benches was impermissible as it would change the essential constitutional structure of the Supreme Court. 2. Supreme Court Full Court (18 Feb 2010) — Unanimously rejected the 229th Law Commission's proposal, finding 'no justification' for setting up benches outside Delhi. LAW COMMISSION REPORTS: 1. 95th Report (1984) — Recommended splitting the SC into a Constitutional Division and a Legal Division. 2. 125th Report (1988) — Reiterated the 95th Report's recommendations for the SC to sit in benches outside Delhi. 3. 229th Report (2009) — Recommended a Constitution Bench at Delhi plus four Cassation Benches at Delhi, Chennai/Hyderabad, Kolkata, and Mumbai for appellate work; stated Article 130 gives sufficient power without constitutional amendment. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer — Argued there was no rationale for Delhi as exclusive venue; the centralized system reflected 'the tyranny of the south by the north.' 2. Justice P.N. Bhagwati (in Bihar Legal Support Society) — Emphasized that the SC had become overburdened with routine appeals and a National Court of Appeal was desirable to restore the SC's constitutional court character.