My Constitutional Rights

Timeline
>> October 10, 2017: Plea filed in SC challenging the constitutional validity of Section 497 of IPC, by an NRI from Kerala, Joseph Shine, who in his petition said Section 497 was “prima facie unconstitutional on the ground that it discriminates against men and violates Article 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution”.
>> December 8: SC agrees to examine the constitutional validity of penal provision on adultery.
>> January 5, 2018: SC refers to a five-judge Constitution bench the plea challenging the validity of the penal law on adultery.
>> July 11: Centre tells SC that striking down Section 497 will destroy the institution of marriage.
>> August 1: Constitution bench commences hearing.
>> August 2: SC says matrimonial sanctity is an issue but the penal provision on adultery is apparently violative of the right to equality under the Constitution.
>> August 8: Centre favours the retention of penal law on adultery, says it is a public wrong which causes mental and physical injury to the spouse, children and the family.
>> August 8: SC reserves verdict on pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the penal law on adultery in the hearing that went on for six days.
>> September 27: SC holds Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code as unconstitutional and strikes down the penal provision.
What was the hurry in considering the above, when 3 crore litigations are pending? Was it a matter of NATIONAL IMPORTANCE? On one hand the courts shout of shortage of benches and on the other hand priority is given to such non-productive matters.
Election petitions are heard overnight, whereas criminal matters are pending for decades.
Right to pray is decided fast but right to many other things which affect the citizen's life is decided after decades.
Civil matters are not decided during complainant's life-time, only to leave behind a legacy and a cost to him.
Ordinary "Citizen" does not get relief but a "criminal" politician gets instant relief.
Have we lost directions? Or have we formed the habit of sensationalising matters like politicians? Is the Supreme Court devoting more and more time to such matters at the cost of delaying normal cases, which are taking a life-time of a civilised citizen?
If such matters have to be considered on priority, let there be separate constitutional courts only to hear such matters, so that they do not hinder the normal process of law. Let there be seperate courts to decide PILs and assertions of rights and liberties of a citizen.
Do not mix up these with the normal cases. Or fix a time frame for all matters like an assurance that I will get justice within 2 years of filing my petition.