Supreme Court Seeks Responses Of High Courts In Plea To Establish Gram Nyayalayas

The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the Registrar Generals of all High Courts in a petition which seeks directions to the States to establish "Gram Nyayalayas" as per the Gram Nyayalayas Act 2008.

A bench comprising Justices S Abdul Nazeer and V Ramasubramanian added High Courts as respondents in the case, after noting that their presence was necessary for adjudicating the matter.

The bench was hearing a PIL filed by National Federation of Societies for Fast Justice seeking the implementation of the Gram Nyayalayas Act. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that though the Act was passed almost 14 years ago, many States have not even established even a single Gram Nyayalayas. He explained that the Act envisaged the establishment of village courts, which won't be bound by the rigid procedure of CPC and CrPC, to decide small cases of specified nature.

The Union Government has taken a stand that the establishment of Gram Nyayalayas by the States is not mandatory as the Act uses the word "may" instead of "shall", Bhushan informed the bench. He argued that the Court has interpreted "may" to mean "shall" in certain situations. Since access to justice is a fundamental right, "may" should be interpreted as "shall" in the context of Gram Nyayalayas, he argued.

"More than 50% of the population of the country cannot afford lawyers and approach regular courts. That is why this Act was enacted for courts at village levels for fast adjudication of small cases. Access to justice is a fundamental right and therefore "may" has to be construed as "shall", Bhushan argued.

He pointed out that very few states have implemented the Act such as Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Kerala.

The bench asked if any State was opposed to the establishment of Gram Nyayalayas. Bhushan replied that the Himachal Pradesh Government is opposing, despite a recommendation made by the High Court. He added that states like Bihar and Jharkhand are also opposing. Tamil Nadu has not established a single Gram Nyayalaya yet.

Senior Advocate Tapesh Kumar Singh, the Additional Advocate General of Jharkhand, submitted that the Act creates conflict with the laws relating to the administration of scheduled tribe areas, and hence the State Government was not implementing it. He pointed out that the Act has exempted North Eastern states having regard to the administration of scheduled areas. He further stated that High Courts are a necessary party in the cases, as the framing of rules and appointments are to be made by the States in consultation with the High Courts.

The bench then decided to add High Courts as parties in the case. The bench also observed that it will direct States like UP, which have established the village courts, to file an affidavit sharing their experiences.

Case Title : National Federation of Societies for Fast Justice versus Union of India and others | W.P.(C) No. 1067/2019

 Click Here To Read/Download Order