Whether Establishment Of Gram Nyayalayas By States/UTs Is Mandatory? Supreme Court To Consider

The Supreme Court today expressed that it would consider the question as to whether establishment and effectuation of Gram Nyayalayas by States/UTs is mandatory under the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008 ("2008 Act").A bench of Justices BR Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and KV Viswanathan was dealing with a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking establishment and effectuation of Gram Nyayalayas in the country as per the mandate of the 2008 Act. Upon hearing Senior Advocate Nidhesh Gupta (acting as Amicus in the matter), it ordered:"We direct the state governments to give information in the format annexed alongwith the present order. Needless to state that the said information will be given by the states after consulting Registrar Generals of the High Courts...to be furnished to the Court with a copy to the Amicus within a period of 6 weeks from today. The ld. Amicus is requested to prepare a chart giving specifications of the responses of the state governments. The question as to whether it is mandatory for the state governments to establish Gram Nyayalayas or not or as to whether it is optional would be considered separately. However, insofar as the states which are agreed to establishing Gram Nyayalayas, we will examine as to whether the state governments have acted in a positive manner in order to achieve the object of the enactment of providing speedy and affordable and efficient justice to the citizens living in remote areas."The Court further directed the Union of India to file a fresh affidavit on the compliance of Court's order dated 29.01.2020 as well as on state-wise disbursal of funds made to state governments. Vide order dated 29.01.2020, the Court had directed the Union to consider, in terms of the an Evaluation Study of the Scheme of Establishing & Operationalising Gram Nyayalayas, the proposal to increase the Recurring Head to Rs.15 lakhs per year for a minimum of 5 years with 50% State Government Contribution.The matter has been listed after 8 weeks.The hearing witnessed the Amicus take the Court through a chart, which divided states/UTs into 3 categories based on their stance in the matter:(i) Those which accept that the 2008 Act has to be given effect to;(ii) Those which say that establishing Gram Nyayalayas is optional and there is no mandate under the 2008 Act that they have to be established;(iii) North-eastern states, which say that they are exempted under the 2008 Act.The Amicus submitted that while 15 states/UTs have established or proposed to establish Gram Nyayalayas, 12 have responded in the negative. He pointed out that the second category of states are basing their decision to not establish Gram Nyayalayas on the use of the word 'may' in Section 3 of the 2008 Act (which deals with establishment of Gram Nyayalayas). For context, Section 3(1) reads thus:"For the purpose of exercising the jurisdiction and powers conferred on a Gram Nyayalaya by this Act, the State Government, after consultation with the High Court, may, by notification, establish one or more Gram Nyayalayas for every Panchayat at intermediate level or a group of contiguous Panchayats at intermediate level in a district or where there is no Panchayat at intermediate level in any State, for a group of contiguous Gram Panchayats."The Amicus asserted that the word 'may' has been used at 63 places in the 2008 Act, however, in 8 places, it is used in the sense of options that have been given. With specific reference to Section 3, he said that the word 'may' is used in context of the option to establish Gram Nyayalayas (i) for every Panchayat at intermediate level, or (ii) for a group of contiguous Panchayats at intermediate level in a district, or (iii) where there is no Panchayat at intermediate level in any State, for a group of contiguous Gram Panchayats.Further, he took the Court through the objects and reasons of the 2008 Act and asserted that the Court can infer whether 'may' was intended to be mandatory or discretionary from the same. Subsequently, he tried to impress upon the Court that the 2008 Act has great potential to de-clog Trial Courts in the short term, and High Courts in the medium term."There will be no overlap...all the matters which are going to be covered under this Act will go out and therefore the Trial Courts will be immediately de-clogged. Ofcourse the ripple effect to the High Court will be a little later...but this de-clogging will happen now."At this point, Justice Viswanathan remarked that if access to justice is paramount, then use of the word 'may' is only a manner of expression. The Legislature, in a polite way, sometimes uses the word 'may' but one has to look at the fundamental rights, directive principles of state policy and the purpose sought to be achieved by the Act, the judge said.Moving on, the Amicus contrasted the jurisdiction and nature of Gram Nyayalayas with that of Gram Panchayats/Kachehris. He urged that the latter are not free from political influence, are not presided by...

Whether Establishment Of Gram Nyayalayas By States/UTs Is Mandatory? Supreme Court To Consider

Debby Jain

Tags