2001 (3) TMI 1064 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of the A.P. Civil Courts Laws (Amendment) Act, 1997.
2. Legislative competence of the State to amend the pecuniary jurisdiction.
3. Alleged violation of Articles 14, 21, and 39A of the Constitution of India.
4. Judicial review of legislative policy and separation of powers.
5. Procedural law and change of forum.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutionality of the A.P. Civil Courts Laws (Amendment) Act, 1997:
The primary issue for decision was the constitutionality of the A.P. Civil Courts Laws (Amendment) Act, 1997, which altered the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Senior Civil Judge to matters valued at or below Rs. 5 lakhs. The petitioner argued that this amendment was ultra vires, given the difficulties it posed to litigants in remote areas, thereby potentially violating Article 21 of the Constitution, which ensures the right to life and personal liberty.

2. Legislative Competence of the State:
It was established that the State has the legislative competence to amend statutes enacted by it, as per items 11-A and 13 of List III of the VII Schedule of the Constitution of India. This competence extends to the administration of justice, the constitution and organization of courts, and civil procedure, subject to Article 246 of the Constitution. The court noted that the legislative competence of the State was not in dispute.

3. Alleged Violation of Articles 14, 21, and 39A of the Constitution of India:
The petitioner contended that the amendment violated Articles 14 (Right to Equality) and 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) of the Constitution. However, the court held that a statutory provision limiting the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court does not violate these articles. The principle of "ubi jus ibi remedium" (where there is a right, there is a remedy) was acknowledged, but it was emphasized that a litigant does not have the choice of forum, which is within the legislative competence of the State.

4. Judicial Review of Legislative Policy and Separation of Powers:
The court asserted that it is not entitled to question legislative wisdom or policy under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was emphasized that Article 39A of the Constitution and the provisions of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, aim to make justice accessible but do not mandate that courts with unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction be constituted everywhere. The court cited Union of India v. S.P. Anand, which reinforced that policy decisions regarding the seating of courts, such as the Supreme Court, are beyond judicial direction.

5. Procedural Law and Change of Forum:
The court referred to N.I Insurance Company v. Shanti Misra, which held that a change in the forum is a procedural law and operates retrospectively. The court emphasized that no substantive right, including the right to life and liberty under Article 21, was taken away by the change in the forum. The change in pecuniary jurisdiction was viewed as a procedural adjustment rather than a substantive legal alteration.

Conclusion:
The applications challenging the constitutionality of the A.P. Civil Courts Laws (Amendment) Act, 1997, were dismissed. The court found no merit in the arguments presented, affirming the legislative competence of the State and the procedural nature of the change in forum. The decision underscored the separation of powers and the limited scope of judicial review concerning legislative policy. No order as to costs was made due to the specific circumstances of the case.