Tamil Nadu CM Vijay urges PM Modi to take steps to set up Supreme Court Bench in Chennai

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay is asking Prime Minister Narendra Modi to take necessary steps to establish a Supreme Court Bench in Chennai. He wants the Prime Minister to raise the proposal again with the Supreme Court and seek a favourable decision. The demand has remained unresolved for decades.

The proposed Bench would allow the Supreme Court to hear cases in Chennai, rather than requiring every litigant to travel to New Delhi. Vijay cited the long journey, litigation costs, and limited practical access faced by people in southern States. He also pointed to Chennai’s importance and the Madras High Court Bar’s professional strength.

Vijay said Tamil Nadu would provide infrastructure, including suitable residences for Supreme Court judges. He argued that a Chennai Bench would benefit all southern States and strengthen India’s federal character. He also said judicial independence would remain protected because control would stay with the Chief Justice of India.

A Supreme Court Bench is a group of Supreme Court judges sitting to hear and decide cases. It is not a separate top court. A Chennai Bench would extend the Supreme Court’s sittings to southern India, making the Court’s constitutional remedies more reachable for people living there.

The key difference would be location and access. Instead of travelling to New Delhi for every Supreme Court matter, eligible litigants from southern States could approach a Bench in Chennai. Article 130 provides the constitutional mechanism: the Court may sit in Delhi or elsewhere if the Chief Justice of India decides, with the President’s approval.

The Chennai Bench would still belong to the same Supreme Court. The article says judicial control would remain with the Chief Justice of India, so a regional location would not mean a separate or independent court. The proposal therefore changes where the Court sits, not its constitutional status or authority.

Article 130 says the Supreme Court may sit in Delhi or in another place or places. The Chief Justice of India must decide the location, and the President must approve that decision. This means the Constitution does not require every Supreme Court sitting to take place only in New Delhi.

For the Chennai proposal, Article 130 supplies the legal route for creating a regional sitting. Tamil Nadu’s request is therefore not asking for a constitutional amendment in the article’s account. It asks the relevant constitutional authorities to use the power already provided. The article also notes that the issue was discussed at the Chief Justices’ conference in 1979.

The provision balances accessibility with judicial administration. A Bench could operate away from Delhi, while control over the judiciary would remain with the Chief Justice of India. Vijay argued that this arrangement would preserve judicial independence and allow Chennai to serve litigants across southern India.

Tamil Nadu first mooted a Supreme Court Bench in Chennai in 1980. Since the letter was reported on November 4, 2026, the demand had been pending for about 46 years. The proposal has therefore survived several decades of discussion without being implemented.

The intended beneficiaries are not limited to Tamil Nadu. Vijay said Chennai is an important South Indian city whose location would benefit all southern States. Litigants from those States currently face the distance between their homes and New Delhi when seeking Supreme Court remedies. A Chennai sitting would place the Court closer to them.

The article does not state a numerical count of the southern States that could benefit. It consistently describes the beneficiaries as “all southern States.” It also highlights Chennai’s established legal institutions, including the Madras High Court, founded in 1862, and its professionally competent Bar.

Article 32 allows citizens to approach the Supreme Court for constitutional remedies. Vijay said the Constitution’s framers intended this access to be available to everyone, regardless of economic status. He argued that the promise matters only if people can realistically reach the Court and afford the process.

The current difficulty is practical. People in southern India may have to travel to New Delhi, pay for transport and accommodation, and meet litigation expenses. Vijay said the remedy has consequently become more available to people who live geographically close to the Court or can afford the journey. A Chennai Bench would place a Supreme Court sitting nearer those litigants.

That would not automatically remove every legal cost or guarantee a case’s success. It could, however, reduce the burden created by distance and make Article 32 more meaningful for southern citizens. Vijay linked this wider access to equality and the Constitution’s federal character.

The proposal has faced institutional resistance and remains unresolved. The issue was discussed at the Chief Justices’ conference in 1979, and Tamil Nadu first raised it formally in 1980. These earlier discussions did not produce an operating Bench in Chennai.

On August 7, 2007, the Supreme Court’s Full Court found no justification for departing from its earlier resolutions against the proposal. This position remained despite Tamil Nadu’s assurance that it would provide infrastructure, including residential accommodation for Supreme Court judges suitable to their status. The Court therefore did not accept the offer as enough to change its stand.

A later development came in the Supreme Court’s July 13, 2016 order in V. Vasanthakumar vs. H.C. Bhatia and Others. Establishing a Bench was one question referred to a five-member Constitution Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India. The article records the referral, but not a final ruling.

Access to the Supreme Court is a constitutional issue because Article 32 was created to give citizens direct access to constitutional remedies. The framers, Vijay said, intended that privilege for people of every economic background. If distance and cost make access realistic only for some citizens, the formal right becomes harder to use in practice.

It is also a federalism issue because India’s citizens live across a large country, while the Supreme Court has traditionally operated from New Delhi. Vijay argued that southern citizens are disadvantaged by the distance from their States to the national capital. A Chennai Bench could distribute access more fairly while serving several southern States.

The proposal does not seek separate regional control over the judiciary. The Chief Justice of India would retain control, and Article 130 already allows sittings outside Delhi with presidential approval. Vijay therefore presented regional Benches as an access measure that could preserve judicial independence while better reflecting India’s federal character.