Article 130

Article 130 of the Constitution of India defines the seat of the Supreme Court, establishing Delhi as its principal location. However, this provision also introduces flexibility, empowering the Chief Justice of India, with the approval of the President, to appoint other places where the Court may sit from time to time. This Article thus embodies a balance between administrative centralisation and judicial accessibility, reflecting the Constitution’s adaptability to India’s geographical and social diversity.

Background and Constitutional Framework

The Supreme Court of India, established under Article 124, is the apex judicial authority in the country. When the Constituent Assembly deliberated on the structure and functioning of the judiciary, it recognised the need for a centralised seat to ensure administrative convenience and unity of judicial interpretation. At the same time, it acknowledged the vastness of India’s territory and the practical challenges citizens face in approaching the Court.
Article 130 was therefore framed to provide administrative flexibility while maintaining the Court’s central character. Its inclusion reflects a conscious constitutional choice to make justice both accessible and uniform.

Text and Meaning of Article 130

The text of Article 130 states:

“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.”

This provision explicitly establishes Delhi as the permanent seat, while also allowing the possibility of sittings in other parts of India. Such flexibility ensures that the Supreme Court’s reach is not limited by geography and that, when necessary, it may convene in regions that demand its immediate attention.

Administrative Autonomy and Role of the Chief Justice

The Article places significant responsibility on the Chief Justice of India (CJI), who holds the discretion to determine alternative locations for the Court’s sittings. This power is subject to the approval of the President of India, maintaining a balance between judicial independence and executive concurrence.
Through this mechanism, the CJI can respond to exceptional situations—such as regional legal emergencies, logistical considerations, or matters of national importance that may require proximity to specific jurisdictions.
While such sittings outside Delhi are rare, the provision demonstrates the administrative autonomy of the judiciary. It reinforces the principle that the Supreme Court, while central in structure, possesses the flexibility to function dynamically across the nation.

Historical Context and Evolution

Since its establishment in 1950, the Supreme Court has operated primarily from Tilak Marg, New Delhi, which remains its permanent seat. However, the idea of setting up regional benches has been debated for decades. The Law Commission of India, in several reports, including the 95th and 229th Reports, recommended the establishment of regional benches of the Supreme Court to enhance access to justice for litigants in distant regions such as southern, eastern, and western India.
These recommendations stem from concerns that litigants outside northern India face high costs and logistical difficulties in approaching the Supreme Court. Although Article 130 provides a constitutional basis for such regional sittings, no permanent regional benches have been created to date.

Practical and Administrative Implications

The flexibility under Article 130 allows the Supreme Court to:

• Conduct sittings outside Delhi if required, with Presidential approval.
• Improve access to justice by reaching citizens in remote regions.
• Reduce the burden on litigants who otherwise need to travel to Delhi for hearings.
• Enhance public engagement with the judiciary by symbolically and functionally decentralising its operations.

Despite these potential benefits, the Supreme Court continues to sit exclusively in Delhi. The administrative and infrastructural challenges, combined with the desire to maintain uniform judicial interpretation, have prevented regional sittings from becoming a practical reality.

Related Constitutional Provisions

Several provisions of the Constitution are closely associated with Article 130:

• Article 124: Establishes and defines the composition and powers of the Supreme Court.
• Article 129: Declares the Supreme Court to be a court of record with powers to punish for contempt.
• Article 131: Defines the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in disputes between the Union and States.
• Article 136: Provides for special leave to appeal, underscoring the Court’s role as the final appellate authority.

Together, these Articles outline the constitutional framework within which the Supreme Court operates, while Article 130 determines the physical location of its authority.

Judicial Interpretation and Case References

There are no landmark judgments directly interpreting Article 130. However, its spirit has been acknowledged in discussions regarding judicial decentralisation and access to justice. The absence of litigation around this provision reflects its administrative nature rather than a source of judicial controversy.
Indirectly, debates on the establishment of regional benches and public interest litigations concerning judicial infrastructure invoke Article 130’s principle of flexibility. The Court, however, has generally deferred to the Chief Justice and the executive in matters concerning the administrative location of its sittings.

Significance and Contemporary Relevance

Article 130 holds enduring relevance in India’s evolving judicial landscape. It symbolises:

• The central authority of the Supreme Court as the guardian of the Constitution.
• The potential for decentralised justice, allowing regional accessibility when necessary.
• The balance between judicial independence and executive oversight in administrative decisions.

As litigation grows and the demand for quicker justice increases, Article 130 serves as a constitutional foundation for proposals advocating regional benches of the Supreme Court. These proposals aim to reduce pendency, improve efficiency, and ensure that justice is not hindered by distance or cost.

Constitutional Significance

Article 130 reinforces the status of the Supreme Court as a national institution capable of adapting to the needs of India’s diverse population. Its provision for flexibility reflects a progressive vision of justice—one that combines administrative coherence with accessibility. Although Delhi remains the principal seat, the Article ensures that the Supreme Court retains the constitutional authority to extend its presence wherever the cause of justice so demands.