Executive Acting In Breach Of Judgments Would Be Invitation To Anarchy: Supreme Court Pulls Up Centre For Not Making Appointment In CERC

"We have shown considerable restraint in this matter. Our restraint seems to be misunderstood!", remarked the Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul while it pulled up the Central Government for not appointing law member in Central Electricity Regulatory Commission [CERC].

Expressing its anguish, the court observed that the 'Government does not seem to be interested in coming to the aid of the consumers or making the Commission functional, which is not an unusual scenario seeing the functioning of the other Tribunals and Commissions, on account of lack of appointments to deal with the matter.'

In 2018, the Supreme Court had held that it is mandatory that there should be a person of law as a Member of the Commission, which requires a person, who is, or has been holding a judicial office or is a person possessing professional qualifications with substantial experience in the practice of law, who has the requisite qualifications to have been appointed as a Judge of the High Court or a District Judge. The Contempt petition was filed against non-appointment of a law member to the Commission. The court, observing that there is prima facie willful disobedience, had earlier directed two members of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission to go on leave until a Member law is appointed to the Commission.

The bench, also comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy, observed that the Government is showing no anxiety about the interests of the consumers or the Commission. The bench observed: 

"We have to express our anguish with the manner in which the Government sought to act, contrary to a judgment of this Court. It is the legislative function to pass the Acts and the administrative function to implement the provision of that Act. It is left to the judiciary to interpret the law. The law was interpreted by our judgment. The Executive cannot be expected to act nor permitted to act in breach of the judgment of this Court. This would be invitation to anarchy! The mutual respect of the three pillars of democracy requires each of them to respect the role and functioning of the other."

The court also refused the plea to lift the stay order to the extent of permitting the judgments to be pronounced as the consumers are affected. The bench observed:

"The passage of time also doesn't seem to have awoken the Government to the problem at hand and almost four months have passed since then. We are unable to come to the aid of the consumers because the Government does not seem to be interested in coming to the aid of the consumers or making the Commission functional, which is not an unusual scenario seeing the functioning of the other Tribunals and Commissions, on account of lack of appointments to deal with the matters."

The court has, however, posted the matter on 20th January 2021 accepting the request of Additional Solicitor General. 

CASE: K K AGARWAL VS. SANJIV NANDAN SAHAI [CONMT.PET.(C) No. 429/2020 ]

Click here to Read/Download Order

Read Order