Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Against Court Relocation In Andhra Pradesh; Emphasises Litigants’ Rights

In a significant ruling that reinforces the primacy of litigants in India’s judicial system, the Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a petition filed by the Machilipatnam Bar Association, which had challenged the relocation of the Sixth Additional District and Sessions Court from Machilipatnam to Avanigadda in Andhra Pradesh.

The bench, headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud (with earlier references attributed to Justice BR Gavai in similar contexts), made a firm observation that courts exist for litigants, not lawyers.

“We speak of doorstep justice and Gram Nyayalayas, yet lawyers routinely oppose such decentralised access,” the bench remarked.

Litigants’ Convenience Comes First

During the hearing, the court emphasised that planners must prioritise litigants’ convenience over lawyers’ interests when deciding judicial infrastructure and court locations.

The bench reiterated that the primary purpose of the judiciary is to deliver justice to the people, particularly those living in remote and rural areas who often struggle to access the system.

Faced with this strong stance, the petitioners chose to withdraw their plea.

The court’s position echoes a broader judicial commitment to taking justice closer to the people, especially in underserved regions.

The Machilipatnam Bar Association had filed the plea objecting to the state government’s decision to move the court to Avanigadda, arguing that the transfer would inconvenience practising lawyers.

However, this is not the first legal challenge to the transfer.

Earlier, the Andhra Pradesh High Court had also dismissed a similar petition.

In its judgment, the High Court clearly stated that judicial decisions regarding court locations must consider the interests of litigants, particularly in terms of travel, accessibility, and convenience.

The High Court acknowledged that while the relocation may cause some discomfort to lawyers, the benefits to the public — especially those from Avanigadda and nearby villages — would be significant.

Locals would no longer need to travel long distances for every court hearing.

Strengthening Grassroots Justice

This episode has reignited the debate around rural judicial infrastructure and the need for legal institutions to be accessible to those residing in non-urban regions.

The Supreme Court’s remarks are likely to influence future decisions involving court relocations and judicial accessibility.

The decision underscores a clear message: Access to justice must not be held hostage to professional convenience.

As India moves towards digitisation and decentralisation in governance, the judiciary appears determined to ensure that the delivery of justice also follows suit.

Also Read: Supreme Court Refuses To Hear Plea Seeking Inclusion Of Political Parties Under POSH Act