9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (5) TMI 619 - SC - Indian LawsValidity Of directions issued by the High Court - To Fix salaries and allowances of the members of the State Commissions as well as the District Consumer - Principle of sub silentio - Violation of statutory provisions in Sections 10(3) and 16(2) of the Consumer Protection Act - encroachment of powers into the legislative and executive domain - HELD THAT - If this Court itself fixes such salaries and allowances, it will be really amending the law, and it is well settled that the Court cannot amend the law vide Union of India Vs. Association for Democratic Reforms Anr. 2002 (5) TMI 820 - SUPREME COURT and Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association Vs. Union of India Ors. 1989 (7) TMI 333 - SUPREME COURT . If we issue the direction as prayed for by learned Additional Solicitor General in this case, we would be issuing a direction which would be wholly illegal being contrary to Section 10(3) and Section 16(2) of the Consumer Protection Act. This Court is subordinate to the law and not above the law. We regret to say that the directions of the High Court (which have been quoted in this judgment) are really an encroachment into the legislative and executive domain. Whether there should be one State Consumer Forum or five or more State Consumer Fora is entirely for the legislature and executive to decide. The High Court has directed that the State Government should constitute at least five State Consumer Forums at the State level by making necessary amendments in the Act. In our opinion such a direction was clearly illegal. The Court (including this Court) cannot direct amendment of an Act made by the legislature. The establishment of the District, State and National level Consumer Fora is done u/s 9 of the Consumer Protection Act by the authorities mentioned in that Act. The composition of these Fora is also prescribed in that section, and so are the salaries and allowances and other conditions of service of the members. It is only the authorities mentioned in the Act who can do the needful in this connection, and this Court cannot arrogate to itself the powers given by the Act to the said authorities. For instance, the salaries and allowances of member of the State and District Fora can only be prescribed by the State Government. We have been informed that in some States these salaries and allowances are very low. Be that as it may, this Court cannot arrogate to itself the powers and functions of State Government in this connection. Different State Governments have different constraints and considerations e.g. financial constraints, the number of cases, etc. and it is entirely for the State Governments to exercise the powers prescribed to them by the Act. Similarly it is entirely for the Central Government to perform the functions given to it by the Act, and this Court cannot interfere with the Central or State Government in the exercise of their functions. At best this Court or the High Court can make recommendations for increase of salaries, allowances and betterment of working conditions, etc. but there its jurisdiction ends. It cannot give binding directions in this connection. We regret to say that even the interim order of this Court dated 26.11.2000 by which it directed the Union of India to file a comprehensive scheme with regard to the structuring of the Consumer Forums at all the three levels does not seem to be within its jurisdiction as it is contrary to the clear provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. It has been nowhere provided in the Consumer Protection Act that the Central Government has a duty, or power, to prepare a comprehensive scheme with regard to the structure of Consumer Fora at all the three levels. No doubt the High Court, as well as this Court, are concerned that the Consumer Fora in many parts of the country are not functioning properly, but the Court could at most have given some recommendations to the Central and State Government in this connection, and it is entirely upto the Central and State Governments whether to accept those recommendations or not, at their discretion. This Court cannot amend the Consumer Protection Act by issuing directions contrary to the clear provisions of the Act nor can the High Court do so. However, the Central and State Governments are requested to consider fixing adequate salaries and allowances for members of the Consumers Fora at all three levels, so that they can function effectively and with a free mind. They are also requested to fill up vacancies expeditiously so that the Fora can function effectively.
Issues Involved:
1. Judicial overreach and separation of powers. 2. Directions issued by the High Court regarding the constitution and functioning of Consumer Forums. 3. Authority to fix salaries and allowances of members of Consumer Forums. 4. Judicial recommendations versus binding directions. 5. Judicial restraint and its importance. Detailed Analysis: Judicial Overreach and Separation of Powers: The judgment begins by highlighting a "widespread malady" in the Indian judicial system where courts encroach into legislative or executive domains, violating the broad separation of powers envisaged under the Constitution. The Supreme Court emphasized that such actions undermine the constitutional balance and should be avoided. Directions Issued by the High Court: The High Court had directed the State Government to constitute at least five State Consumer Forums and to appoint retired High Court Judges as Presiding Officers with the same facilities as sitting High Court Judges. These directions were issued to address the grievances about excessive electricity bills and the non-functioning of the District Consumer Forum, Chamoli, due to vacancies. Authority to Fix Salaries and Allowances: The Supreme Court pointed out that the High Court's directions were contrary to the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. Sections 10(3) and 16(2) of the Act clearly state that the salaries and allowances of the members of the District and State Consumer Forums are to be prescribed by the State Government. The Court reiterated that it cannot override the statute by substituting its judgment for that of the legislature. Judicial Recommendations Versus Binding Directions: The Supreme Court clarified that while it can make recommendations to the State Governments regarding the adequacy of salaries and allowances, it cannot issue binding directions to amend the law. The Court referred to several precedents, including the All India Judges' Association case, to emphasize that judicial directions without laying down a principle of law do not constitute a precedent. Judicial Restraint and Its Importance: The judgment strongly advocated for judicial restraint, stating that the judiciary should not encroach upon the functions of the legislature or executive. The Court cited various cases and legal scholars to underline that judicial activism should not lead to judicial overreach. The Court concluded that the judiciary must respect the constitutional boundaries and exercise its powers with humility and self-restraint. Conclusion and Recommendations: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's directions, emphasizing that the judiciary cannot amend laws or take over the functions of the legislature or executive. The Court, however, requested the Central and State Governments to consider fixing adequate salaries and allowances for members of the Consumer Forums and to fill up vacancies expeditiously to ensure their effective functioning.
|
