Article 130

When the Constitution was drafted, there was debate about whether the Supreme Court should have permanent branches in different parts of India, similar to how some countries have regional court seats. The framers chose flexibility: Delhi would be the primary seat, but the Constitution allows the possibility of sitting elsewhere if ever needed, without requiring a constitutional amendment. This balances stability (one clear primary location) with adaptability (room to change if circumstances demand it), while keeping the decision within the judiciary's control, subject to executive concurrence.

There is no significant body of case law interpreting Article 130 because the power under it has essentially never been exercised. The Supreme Court has always sat in Delhi. However, this Article occasionally surfaces in public debates and Parliamentary discussions about setting up regional benches of the Supreme Court to improve access to justice for litigants far from Delhi. Courts and commentators have noted that Article 130 could theoretically permit such benches, but doing so would require the Chief Justice's decision and Presidential approval, and so far this has not happened.

• Myth: The Supreme Court already has branches in other cities besides Delhi.
  Fact: As of now, the Supreme Court sits only in Delhi; the power to sit elsewhere under Article 130 has never been used.
• Myth: Parliament can order the Supreme Court to sit in a new city.
  Fact: Under this Article, the decision belongs to the Chief Justice of India, with the President's approval — not Parliament.