‘Distance Penalty’ for Justice: Tamil Nadu Lawyers Back CM Vijay’s Push for Supreme Court Bench in Chennai
Tamil Nadu’s legal fraternity has extended its support to Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay’s renewed demand for establishing a regional bench of the Supreme Court in Chennai. The Bar Federation of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry and the Tamil Nadu Advocates’ Association have welcomed the initiative, describing it as an important step towards making access to the country’s highest judicial institution easier for people in southern India.
In a joint statement, the legal associations said the demand for a regional Supreme Court bench had been raised by members of the Bar and litigants for several decades. They argued that people from Tamil Nadu and neighbouring southern states face considerable difficulties in approaching the Supreme Court because its principal seat is located in New Delhi.
The associations highlighted what they described as a ”distance penalty” imposed on litigants from southern states. According to them, the expenses involved in travelling to Delhi, arranging accommodation and meeting litigation costs create additional financial pressure, particularly for economically weaker sections of society.
The lawyers maintained that geographical distance should not become an obstacle to accessing justice. They argued that a regional bench in Chennai would reduce travel-related expenses and make it easier for ordinary citizens, lawyers and litigants to pursue legal remedies before the Supreme Court.
The latest support follows Chief Minister Vijay’s letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi on November 4, 2026, requesting the Centre to revive the long-pending proposal for a permanent Supreme Court bench in Chennai. Vijay argued that the proposed facility would benefit not only Tamil Nadu but also other southern states by bringing the apex court closer to millions of people.
In his representation, the Chief Minister referred to Article 130 of the Indian Constitution, which provides that the Supreme Court shall sit in Delhi or at another place or places as the Chief Justice of India may, with the approval of the President, decide. He argued that this constitutional provision provides a framework for considering the establishment of a regional bench outside the national capital.
Vijay also recalled that Tamil Nadu had first raised the demand in 1980. Despite repeated representations and discussions, the proposal has remained unresolved. The Supreme Court’s Full Court had declined to reconsider its earlier position against regional benches at a meeting held on August 7, 2007, even after Tamil Nadu offered to provide the necessary infrastructure and residential facilities for judges.
The Chief Minister further cited recommendations made by Parliamentary Standing Committees in 2004, 2006, 2008 and 2021, along with various Law Commission reports supporting the establishment of regional benches. He also referred to the constitutional questions raised in the Supreme Court case of V. Vasanthakumar versus H. C. Bhatia, which was referred to a five-judge Constitution Bench.
Addressing concerns about judicial independence, Vijay maintained that establishing a regional bench would not compromise the autonomy of the Supreme Court. Administrative control over the proposed bench would continue to remain with the Chief Justice of India, ensuring that the institution’s independence and authority remain intact.
The supporting lawyers have now urged the Prime Minister and the Chief Justice of India to consider the proposal and take appropriate steps towards establishing the Chennai bench. They believe that decentralising the Supreme Court’s functioning could make constitutional remedies more accessible and strengthen the federal character of India’s judicial system.
The demand has once again brought the larger question of judicial accessibility into focus: whether access to justice at the highest level should depend partly on a litigant’s financial capacity and geographical proximity to New Delhi.
