- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- 'Pendency Of Cheque Dishonour Cases...
'Pendency Of Cheque Dishonour Cases Grotesque' : Supreme Court Urges Centre To Create Additional Courts For Sec 138 NI Act
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
4 March 2021 11:09 AM GMT
The Supreme Court on Thursday urged the Central Government to consider the establishment of additional courts to deal with the "grotesque" problem of pendency of cheque dishonour cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.A Constitution Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India SA Bobde told the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that the power under Article 247 of the Constitution...
The Supreme Court on Thursday urged the Central Government to consider the establishment of additional courts to deal with the "grotesque" problem of pendency of cheque dishonour cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
A Constitution Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India SA Bobde told the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that the power under Article 247 of the Constitution to create additional courts is "coupled with a duty".
The CJI told the SG that as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court, a "judicial impact assessment" is necessary before the enactment of a statute. The impact of the new law on the judicial system has to be assessed while making a law. The CJI cited the instance of courts in Bihar being flooded with thousands and thousands of bail applications after the passing of the liquor prohibition act.
"Negotiable Instruments Act contribute to over 30% pendency. When Section 138 was made, impact assessment was not done. Why can't it be done now? We want you to exercise this power", the CJI told the SG.
A bench comprising the CJI, Justices L Nageswara Rao, BR Gavai, AS Bopanna and S Ravindra Bhat was considering the suo moto case taken to evolve measures to expedite trial of cheque bounce cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act(In Re Expeditious Trial of Cases Under Section 138 of the N.I Act).
The CJI suggested that even a temporary law can be made for creation of additional courts.
"The backlog problem caused by Section 138 cases is grotesque. You may even make a temporary legislation. You may appoint even retired judges", the CJI said.
The Solicitor General replied that he personally felt this was a "welcome solution" but added that "wide ranging consultations" might be necessary to work out the "nitty-gritties".
The SG said that the Government is open to the idea but the issue needs wide consultations and sought time for consultations at the highest level. Following this, the matter was adjourned till next Wednesday.
Earlier, the Centre was not favoring the idea of additional courts, and the Ministry of Finance had submitted certain alternate suggestions. However, the Court yesterday told Additional Solicitor General Vikramjit Banerjee that the suggestions of the Ministry are "inadequate".
Yesterday, the Court had made a prima facie observation that the Centre has a duty to create additional courts for better administration of the NI Act, as per Article 247 of the Constitution.
Article 247 of the Constitution speaks of the power of the Parliament to provide for the establishment of certain additional courts in respect of matters under the Union List.
The order passed by a 3-judge bench comprising CJI Bobde, Justices L Nageswara Rao and S Ravindra Bhat yesterday reads as follows :
"Prima facie we are of the view that the Article confers a power coupled with a duty on the Union to establish additional courts for the better administration of laws made by the Parliament. There is no doubt or dispute about the fact that matters under NI Act have posed what by now has become an intractable problem and accounts for close to 30-40 per cent of pendency in trial courts and very high percentage in High Courts also. ASG Sri Vikramjit Banerjee however submitted that the Ministry of Finance has suggested that instead of setting up additional special courts certain measures specified by them(in their Office Memorandum) be implemented. It is not necessary to reproduce or analyse the impact of measure suggested by the Union. Suffice to say, having gone through the measures, and having heard the learned counsel on the said measures, we find that the measures, to say the least, are inadequate for the purpose".
