Strongly differing on the issue of judicial intervention in the legislature’s domain, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court has delivered a split verdict on the Constitutional validity of courts issuing directions to the government on setting up of consumer forums.
As the bench comprising Justices S B Sinha and Markandeya Katju could not take a unanimous view on the question, the Chief Justice was requested to place the matter before another bench for hearing. While Justice Sinha asserted that it was the bound duty of the judiciary, particularly for the apex court, to intervene and give directions to the Government, Justice Katju maintained that courts should not cross their limits and encroach into the legislature’s turf.
The bench differed on the issue while dealing with an appeal filed by the UP government challenging an Allahabad High Court order which directed the government to constitute a certain number of consumer courts in the state on a PIL which complained of inadequate consumer forums.
The High Court had directed the government to set up atleast five consumer courts, fix the salaries for the judges and also asked the State to amend the Act suitably for the purpose.
Courts should intervene in such matters as otherwise it “would lead to virtual closure or non-functioning of such an important judicial fora created under the Consumer Act, Justice Sinha said while writing his judgement separately.
Referring to certain remarks of Justice Katju against the earlier benches of the Supreme Court for passing directions to the Government, Justice Sinha observed “Doctrine of judicial restraint, in my opinion, applies even in this realm. We should not forget other doctrines which are equally developed viz; judicial discipline and respect for brother judges.”
Justice Sinha also observed, “In a given case, the court may or may not issue any direction but the Supreme Court of India in an appropriate case should not stop its journey to creative interpretation of the Constitutional provisions vis-a-vis the independence of judiciary.
However, Justice Katju observed “when courts encroach into legislative or administrative fields almost inevitably voters, legislators, and other elected officials will conclude that the activities of the judges should be closely monitored.” He further remarked, “if judges act like legislators or administrators, it follows that judges should be elected like legislators or selected and trained like administrators.”