The Union government should abolish all tribunals if the judiciary is compelled to make appointments in these bodies to keep them alive, the Supreme Court said on Friday as it reproached the Union government for creating an “imbroglio” over functioning of the tribunals and making “citizens suffer in the bargain”.
A bench of justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh called it “very unfortunate” that the Supreme Court is being called on to fill vacancies in tribunals, which is the primary job of the government that has framed legislations and rules for these forums.
“The very purpose of setting up these fora is defeated by not having people to man them. Abolish the act if the government doesn’t want them. We are stretching our jurisdiction to ensure they are filled. They are supposed to be filled in routine course but here is a situation where this court has to step in,” the bench told additional solicitor general (ASG) Aman Lekhi.
Lekhi was representing the Centre in a suo motu (in its own motion) case registered by the top court on account of “inaction of the government” in appointing members of the consumer courts and providing adequate infrastructure.
The bench further remarked: “It is unfortunate that the judiciary has been called upon to do this. When you have the law, forum and rules, they should be naturally filled up. It is not a very happy situation... The very intent of the law is defeated in this process.”
{{/usCountry}}The bench further remarked: “It is unfortunate that the judiciary has been called upon to do this. When you have the law, forum and rules, they should be naturally filled up. It is not a very happy situation... The very intent of the law is defeated in this process.”
{{/usCountry}}During the hearing, senior counsel Gopal Sankaranarayanan, assisting the bench as amicus curiae, further drew the attention of the bench on the government’s enactment of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, in violation of the Supreme Court judgment in the Madras Bar Association case in July.
The court took note that the challenge to the 2021 law is pending before a different bench in the top court, but not before expressing its displeasure with regard to how the government brought back the very same provisions for administration of tribunals in the new law that were struck down by the Supreme Court merely a few months ago.
“The judiciary says something; you bring back the same rule. The judiciary says it again, but you do the same thing again. You have created an imbroglio. And in the bargain, citizens are suffering. These are fora for remedies for a common man. Take consumer courts for example...the disputes there are not of very high magnitude but you have rendered them remedy-less,” the bench told ASG Lekhi.
Lekhi replied that the government, in the consumer court matters, is not looking at taking up cudgels by making it an issue of ego or delay the appointments.
But the bench retorted: “We cannot really say...There is a judgement rendered but again the act brings back the same provisions. The net result is that we are not happy with such a situation.”
The court also clarified that the process of appointing members in the consumer courts for all other states but Maharashtra will go on in terms of its previous order in August, and will not be impacted by a recent judgment of the Bombay high court. The high court judgment on September 14 struck down certain provisions of the Consumer Protection Rules, 2020 governing appointment of president and members to state and district consumer disputes redressal commissions.
The bench added that the Supreme Court’s August order on laying down a timeline of eight weeks for filling up around 800 vacancies in consumer courts across the country shall also be strictly adhered to by the Centre and states.
Adjourning the case to November 10 to take stock of the process of appointments and the upgradation of infrastructure of consumer courts, justice Kaul also asked Lekhi to ponder over how far the tribunals have worked, and whether strengthening the judicial system is a better idea than having these bodies with ad hoc appointments.
Justice Sundresh, on his part, called for a debate whether a structure such as the judiciary should replace the consumer forums, or appointing young judicial officers to man them to decide the cases given the fact that consumerism as a concept has developed so much.
“The system has to be developed in that direction now. Should we go on with this ad hoc arrangement or should we have a permanent set up? We need to think aloud,” said the judge.
A tussle has been brewing between the judiciary and the government over the 2021 law on tribunals.
In September, a bench, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana, issued strictures against the Centre for re-enacting the same provisions relating to tenure and some other service conditions that were struck down by the court in July on the ground of tinkering with independence of judiciary and violating basic structure of the Constitution.
Examining a clutch of petitions against the validity of the 2021 Act, the bench observed then that it is “very upset” by the government, which, it added, is “bent upon not honouring” the orders of the court and has rather sought to overrule a judgment by enacting a “replica” of the old law.
Responding to the criticism, the government said in its affidavit on October 18that any attempt by the Supreme Court to strike down the new law on administration of tribunals will violate the constitutionally mandated separation of powers between different organs of the State.
Asserting its authority to enact laws and policies, the Centre also registered its strong objection against invocation of the principles of independence of judiciary by the Supreme Court to annul laws and rules which, it said, are otherwise valid.
“The Government of India is distressed by the fact that both laws and statutory rules made by parliament and executive in areas of pure policy are being held to be void by invoking independence of judiciary when such laws and rules do not violate fundamental rights or any provision of the Constitution, and is wholly within competency,” stated the affidavit filed through the department of revenue.
A bunch of petitions, filed by the Madras Bar Association, Congress leader Jairam Ramesh, and others, have requested the top court to quash the new law, which was passed by both the houses in the monsoon session of parliament. The petitions argue that the Centre has re-enacted the same provisions relating to tenure and some other service conditions that were struck down in July on the ground of tinkering with independence of judiciary and violating the basic structure of the Constitution.