9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 2. Legislative competence of the Parliament to establish consumer courts. 3. Independence of the judiciary under the Act. 4. Transfer of cases and interim orders under the Act. 5. Interpretation of Section 25 of the Act regarding enforcement of orders. Summary: 1. Constitutionality of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986: The Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which was challenged on the grounds that the Parliament is not empowered to establish a hierarchy of courts parallel to those established under the Constitution without a suitable amendment u/s Article 368. The Court held that the Act is constitutional and does not conflict with the existing judicial system. It supplements rather than supplants the jurisdiction of civil courts. 2. Legislative Competence of the Parliament: The Court examined the legislative competence of the Parliament to enact the Act, referring to various entries in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. It concluded that the Parliament has the requisite power to create special courts and tribunals u/s Entry 11A of List III, which covers the administration of justice and the constitution and organization of all courts except the Supreme Court and High Courts. The Court also referenced the Union of India v. Delhi High Court Bar Association case, affirming that Articles 323-A and 323-B are enabling provisions and do not restrict the Parliament's power to establish tribunals. 3. Independence of the Judiciary: The petitioners argued that the Act strikes at the independence of the judiciary. The Court rejected this argument, stating that the Act provides for quasi-judicial authorities at various levels, ensuring that consumer grievances are addressed without procedural complexities. The Act aims to protect consumers and promote their rights, and the presence of judicial members in the consumer forums ensures fairness and impartiality. 4. Transfer of Cases and Interim Orders: The petitioners contended that the Act is unworkable as it lacks provisions for transferring cases between consumer courts and for passing interim orders. The Court held that the absence of such provisions does not render the Act unconstitutional or unworkable. The Act provides adequate safeguards through the appellate system and the power of judicial review by higher courts. 5. Interpretation of Section 25: The Court disagreed with the Karnataka High Court's interpretation of Section 25, which suggested that consumer courts must send their orders to civil courts for execution. The Supreme Court clarified that Section 25 creates a legal fiction, allowing consumer courts to enforce their orders as if they were decrees of civil courts. Only if the consumer court is unable to execute its order should it be sent to a civil court for execution. The Court emphasized that consumer courts possess the necessary powers to execute their own orders. In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, affirmed the legislative competence of the Parliament to enact the Act, and provided clarity on the enforcement of orders u/s Section 25. The appeals challenging the Act were dismissed, and the interpretation of Section 25 by the Karnataka High Court was overturned.
|
