LexBAR COUNCIL OF INDIA versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2012] 6 S.C.R. 1094 BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA v. UNION OF INDIA (Writ Petition (Civil ) No. 666 of 2002) AUGUST 3, 2012 [R.M. LODHA AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.) Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 - Chapter VI-A (ss. 22-A to 22-E) [as inserted by Legal Services Authorities C (Amendment) Act, 2002] - Pre-litigation conciliation and settlement - Establishment of Permanent Lok Ada/at - For settlement of disputes in matters of public utility services - Constitutional validity of - Held: Chapter VJ-A is constitutionally valid - It is not violative of Articles 14 and 2t o of the Constitution nor contrary to rule of law, fairness and even-handed justice - It is an alternative institutional mechanism for settlement of disputes concerning public utility services - Legislature has the power to set up such mechanism - It is in addition to and not in derogation of for a E provided under special statutes - It is not a constitutional right to have dispute adjudicated by means of court only - Not making CPC and evidence Act applicable to the Lok Ada/at does not make its justice delivery ineffective as the Ada/at has to follow the principles of na_tural justice - Absence of right to F appeal also does not make the provisions unconstitutional - The independence of the Lok Adalats have a/so not been compromised - Since the challenge to the provisions has already been decided by Supreme Court in an earlier case on merits and dismissed, deciding the same issues again is G against public policy - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 39-A, 14, 21 and 141 - Precedent. H Appeal - Held: There is no inherent right of appeal - Appeal is a creature of statute - Non providing of appeal in - 1094 BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA v. UNION OF INDIA 1095 a statute by itself may not render that statute unconstitutional A - Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. The petitioner challenged the vires of Chapter VIA comprising of ~s. 22-A to 22-E of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, as inserted by the Legal Services 8 Authorities (Amendment) Act, 2002. The provisions were challenged on the ground that the same were arbitrary per se, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and were contrary to the rule of law as they denied fair, unbiased and even-handed justice to all. c The respondent-State interalia contended that the issues raised in the present writ petition sin~e already been decided in S.N. Pandey v. Union of India (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 543/2002 decided by Supreme Court on 28.10.2002), the present petition deserved to be D dismissed on this ground alone. Dismissing the petition, the Court HELD: 1.1. Article 39-A came to be inserted in the Constitution by Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976 with effect from 3.1.1977. It enjoins upon the State to secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice on the basis of equal opportunity and in particular to provide free legal aid by suitable legislation or schemes or in any other way and to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities. Equal justice to all and free legal aid are hallmark of Article 39- E F A. Pursuant to these objectives, the 1987 Act was enacted by the Parliament to constitute legal services G authorities to provide free and competent legal services to the weaker sections of the society to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities, and to organize Lok Adalats to secure that the operation of H 1096 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 6 S.C.R. A the legal system promotes justice on the basis of equal opportunity. It was felt that the system of Lok Adalats provided in the 1987 Act sometimes results in delaying the dispensation of justice where the parties do not arrive at any compromise or settlement in Lok Adalat and the B case is returned to the court of law or the parties are advised to pursue appropriate remedy for redressal of their grievance. Accordingly, amendment in the 1987 Act was felt by the Parliament to be necessary. [Paras 10 and 11] [1107-E-G; 1108-A; 1109-F-G] c 1.2. Chapter VI-A inserted by the 2002 Amendment Act in 1987 Act, as its title suggests, provides for pre- litigation. conciliation and settlement procedure. The disputes relating to public utility service like transport service for carriage of passengers or g
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.