2005 (1) TMI 711 - SC - Indian Laws

SC Confirms Validity of 1987 Act, 1986 Act & Adhiniyam; Affirms State Legislative Power; Dismisses Appeals; MP HC Decision Overturned.

Jamshed N. Guzdar Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Jamshed N. Guzdar Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. - 005 AIR 862, 2005 (1) SCR 223, 2005 (2) SCC 591, 2005 (1) JT 370, 2005 (1) SCALE 192 Issues Involved:1. Constitutional validity of the Bombay City Civil Court and Bombay Court of Small Causes (Enhancement of Pecuniary Jurisdiction & Amendment) Act, 1986 (1987 Act).2. Constitutional validity of the Maharashtra High Court (Hearing of Writ Petitions by Division Bench and Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) Act, 1986 (1986 Act).3. Correctness of the Full Bench decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh striking down the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Letters Patent Appeals Samapti) Adhiniyam, 1981 (Adhiniyam).4. Legislative competence of the State legislatures of Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh.5. Validity of the Government Notification dated 20th August 1991 issued by the State of Maharashtra.6. Adequacy of infrastructure and necessary facilities for the implementation of the 1987 Act.7. Allegations of extraneous considerations and pressure influencing the issuance of the Notification.Summary:Issue 1: Constitutional Validity of the 1987 ActThe Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the 1987 Act. The Court found that the State Legislature had the power to confer general jurisdiction on all courts except the Supreme Court under Entry 11-A in the Concurrent List, which includes 'administration of justice.' The 1987 Act, which enhanced the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Bombay City Civil Court, was within the legislative competence of the State Legislature.Issue 2: Constitutional Validity of the 1986 ActThe Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the 1986 Act, which abolished Letters Patent Appeals and provided for the hearing of writ petitions by a Division Bench. The Court found that the State Legislature was competent to enact the 1986 Act under Entry 11-A of List III, which deals with 'administration of justice.' The Act was not beyond the competence of the State Legislature and did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution.Issue 3: Correctness of the Full Bench Decision of the Madhya Pradesh High CourtThe Supreme Court set aside the Full Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had declared the Adhiniyam unconstitutional. The Court held that the Adhiniyam was within the legislative competence of the State Legislature under Entry 11-A of List III. The Adhiniyam, which abolished Letters Patent Appeals, was valid, and the writ petitions challenging it were dismissed.Issue 4: Legislative Competence of State LegislaturesThe Supreme Court clarified that both Parliament and State Legislatures have the power to legislate on the subject of 'administration of justice' under Entry 11-A of List III. The Court emphasized that the general jurisdiction of High Courts falls under 'administration of justice,' and State Legislatures are competent to confer or take away such jurisdiction.Issue 5: Validity of the Government Notification dated 20th August 1991The Supreme Court deferred the implementation of the Notification dated 20th August 1991, which sought to bring the 1987 Act into force. The Court found that the necessary infrastructure and requisite number of judges were not in place to handle the transfer of jurisdiction to the Bombay City Civil Court. The implementation of the Notification was deferred until further orders from the Court.Issue 6: Adequacy of Infrastructure and Necessary FacilitiesThe Supreme Court concurred with the High Court's finding that the State Government had not provided adequate infrastructure and necessary facilities, such as court rooms and judges, for the implementation of the 1987 Act. The Court deferred the implementation of the Notification until the State Government could demonstrate that the necessary infrastructure was in place.Issue 7: Allegations of Extraneous Considerations and PressureThe Supreme Court rejected the contention that the Notification was issued due to pressure from a section of lawyers and for extraneous considerations. The Court found no material evidence to support this allegation and upheld the validity of the Notification, subject to the condition that its implementation would be deferred until adequate infrastructure was provided.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the 1987 Act, 1986 Act, and the Adhiniyam. The Notification dated 20th August 1991 was deferred until further orders from the Court, pending the provision of adequate infrastructure and necessary facilities. The appeals challenging the validity of the Acts were dismissed, and the Full Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court was set aside.