STATE OF KARNATAKA versus VISHWABHARATHI HOUSE BUILDING COOPERATIVE SOCIETY AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] 1 S.C.R. 397 · Decided: 17-01-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
·A 
. 
. 
~
-
. V~SHWA~HA~~THI HOUSE. BUILDING COOPERATIVE SOCIETY 
.. 
AND ORS. 
. 
JANUARY 17, 2003 
B 
., (V._N. KHARE, CJ~ K.G. BALAKRlSHNAN AND S.B. SINHA, JJ~ ] 
Constitution of India, 1950-Artic/es 246, 323A, 3218-Seventh · 
Schedule-List/, entries 77, 78, 79, 95 and List Ill, enrries 1 JA and 46--: 
Legislative competence of Parliament to enact Consumer Protection Act- C 
Held, Parliament is empowered to enact the Act and has competence to create 
parallel civil courts-Consumer Protection Act, /986. 
Consumer Protection Act •. 1986: 
Constitutionality of-Held, constillltiona/ly valid-Absence of provision D 
for transfer of case from one foruin to other or provision to grant injunction 
does not render it ultra vires the Constitution or unworkable. 
· · 
Section 25-/nJerpretalion of-Held, the forum or commission is entitled 
to execute its order-However, in the event of its inability to execute the same 
It may send it to the Civil Court for its executiott-Further, it cannot be E 
concluded that Consumer Court cannot execute its own order and by 
compulsion it ha! to send all its orders for execution to the Civil Court. 
, 
. 
.. 
I · 
lnlerpretation of statutes-Principle of-Plain meaning used in Section 
must be given Its ordinary meaning. 
In writ petitions before it, the High Court upheld the vires or 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and whUe interpreting Section 25 held that 
In each and every case the order passed by the District Forum/State 
Commission/National Commission Is requfred to be sent to the dvU courts 
F 
for execution tbereof. Hence the present appeals and writ petitions. 
Appellaht·petlUonen contended that the Parliament is not empowered to G 
establish blerarchy or Couru like the District Fora. State Commission and 
National Commission parallel to the hlenuby of Courts established under 
the Constitution In the absence or a suitable amendment made in the 
Constitution; tha! such hierarchy or consumer courts established under 
the Consumer Protection Act would result tn con met of decisions with the 
397 
H 
.. 
398 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2003] I S.C.R. 
A hierarchy of courts established under the Constitution dealing with similar 
matters; that the Parliament having regard to the provisions of Articles 
323A ·and 3238 of the Constitution could not enact the Act by establishing 
forums which are substitutes of the Ch·il Courts including the High Court; 
that the provisions of the Ac:t strike at the independence of the judiciary; 
that as the Act does not contain any provision to transfer a case from ilne 
B consumer court to another and furthermore the forum and the 
Commissions having no power to pass interim orders, the functioning 
thereof is unworkable; and that the Parliament c&n only establish court! 
which may deal with special subjects specified therefor but not a court 
which will run parallel to civil courts. 
C 
Disposing of the matters, the Court 
HELD: l. The legislative competence of Parliament to provide for 
creation of special courts and tribunals is covered by List I, entries 77, 
78, 79, 95 and List Ill, entries 11 A, 46 of the Constitution of India. 
Administration of justice; constitution and organization of all courts, 
D except Supreme Court an~ High Courts is squarely covered by entry ItA 
of List HI of the Constitution of India. Furthermore by virtue ofCJause 
2 of Article 246 of the Constitution, the Parliament bas the requisite power 
to make laws with respect of constitution of organization of all courts 
except the Supreme Court and tbe High Court. Thus, in view or the 
E constitutional scheme relating to legislative competence of Parliament and 
State Legislature there cannot be any doubt or dispute that the Parliament 
has the requisite legislative competence to enact the Consumer Protection 
Act and the submission that the relevant provisions of the Constitution 
required amendments cannot be accepted. Further, the submission that 
Parliament did not have the competence to create parallel civil courts is 
F fallacious Inasmuch as the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act are 
in addition to the provisions of any other taw for the time being in for~~ 
and not In derogation thereof as is nident from Section 3 or the Act. 
. 
. 
.. l-'12·C·Di 414-B; 40S.F~H; 40~A, B, El 
\ 
' 
~ 
' 
• 
I 
, . 
' 
~ 
' 
' 
• I ' • 
-
Union of India and Anr. v. Delhi High Court Bar Associati('n and Ors., 
G (20021 4 SCC 275 and L. Chandra Kumar v. Unio

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.