2025 (8) TMI 415 - HC - Companies Law

HC upholds executive's discretion on NCLT infrastructure and location, citing separation of powers doctrine

The HC dismissed the appeal challenging the denial of basic facilities to the NCLT Advocates Bar Association at the Kolkata Bench. It held that decisions ... Denial of basic facilities to the members of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Advocates Bar Association at the Kolkata Bench - doctrine of separation of powers - HELD THAT:- Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the records this Court is of the view that matters relating to the allocation of infrastructure, including the location of judicial forums such as the NCLT, fall squarely within the domain of administrative discretion and policy formulation by the appropriate executive authorities. The judiciary, while vested with the power of judicial review, must exercise restraint in interfering with such decisions in the absence of demonstrable illegality, arbitrariness or violation of constitutional or statutory rights. Judicial independence includes, inter alia, the discipline to refrain from intruding into spheres explicitly reserved for the executive and legislature. The Court is conscious of the doctrine of separation of powers, which has been firmly upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court in several decisions. In the present case, the demands raised by the appellant/ petitioner association pertain primarily to infrastructural deficiencies and facilities at the NCLT, Kolkata Bench and the distance of NCLT from Calcutta High Court. While the concerns of the legal fraternity are not insignificant, but both the NCLTs are developed and maintained by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. This Court is equally conscious of the fact that the new premises are equipped with improved facilities, better infrastructure and are in many ways, more suited to meet the evolving demands of modern judicial administration. The question, however, is not whether the shift in location is beneficial or detrimental per se, but whether this Court can, in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, intervene in such matters of administrative discretion. The answer to that must be in the negative. It is a well-settled principle of constitutional law that the judiciary must maintain institutional boundaries and refrain from trenching upon the domain of the executive - Courts are not equipped, nor are they mandated, to undertake such evaluations or substitute their own judgments in place of that of the competent authorities. This Court, therefore, deems it appropriate to exercise judicial restraint and abstains from issuing any directive that would interfere with the executive's domain. If the competent authorities, in their administrative wisdom, have concluded that the relocation is appropriate and beneficial for the functioning of the tribunal, then this Court finds no ground to interfere with the same. Appeal dismissed. ISSUES: Whether the relocation of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Kolkata Bench, to a new premises constitutes a violation of judicial independence and the doctrine of separation of powers.Whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable on grounds of inconvenience and alleged infrastructural deficiencies.Whether the judiciary can interfere with executive decisions relating to administrative matters such as allocation of infrastructure and location of tribunals.Whether the appellants have locus standi and have demonstrated violation of fundamental rights to invoke writ jurisdiction in this matter.Whether the impugned order of the Single Judge directing provision of basic facilities and amenities to NCLT advocates is sustainable in law. RULINGS / HOLDINGS: The Court held that the relocation of the NCLT, Kolkata Bench, falls within the domain of administrative discretion and policy formulation by the executive, and the judiciary must exercise restraint in interfering with such decisions absent demonstrable illegality, arbitrariness or violation of constitutional or statutory rights.The writ petition was found not maintainable as the appellants failed to demonstrate any violation of fundamental rights or legal injury; mere inconvenience does not constitute locus standi for invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226.The Court ruled that the judiciary cannot substitute its own judgment for that of the competent authorities in matters of infrastructure allocation and tribunal location, as these are executive functions.The impugned order of the Single Judge was set aside to the extent it interfered with administrative and policy matters, as such interference would amount to micro-managing executive decisions.The Court acknowledged the importance of judicial independence as per the doctrine of separation of powers and binding precedents, but found no violation in the relocation decision as there was no material indicating mala fides or arbitrariness. RATIONALE: The Court applied constitutional principles including Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the doctrine of separation of powers, and the mandate of judicial independence as elucidated in the landmark judgment of Union of India v. Madras Bar Association.It relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Swiss Ribbons Private Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India regarding administrative control of tribunals and the necessity for tribunals to function independently, but recognized that administrative decisions such as tribunal location remain within executive competence.The Court emphasized judicial restraint in matters of administrative policy, noting that the judiciary's role is not to interfere unless there is clear arbitrariness or constitutional violation.The decision referenced recent Supreme Court authority underscoring that mandamus cannot be issued to direct the functioning of a tribunal from a particular location, reinforcing the executive's discretion in such matters.While acknowledging the appellants' concerns regarding facilities and autonomy, the Court found no evidence of mala fide intent or violation of judicial independence sufficient to warrant judicial intervention.