| Headnote |
Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 2, 3, 4, 14, 19, 132, 134, 136, 216, 217, 221, 222, 223, 224, 226, 227, 230 and 246(2); Entries 77, 78, 79 and 95 of List I, Entry 3 of List II, Entries 11-A, 13, 46 and 65 of list-III/Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948/letters Patent (Amendment) Act, 1948/Maharashtra Civil Court (Enhancement of Pecuniary Jurisdiction and Amendment) Act, 1977/Bombay City Civil Court and Bombay Court of Small Causes (Enhancement of Pecuniary Jurisdiction & Amendment) Act, 1986/Maharashtra High Court (Hearing of Writ Petitions by Division Bench and Abolition of D letters Patent Appeals) Act, 1986/Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (letters Patent Appeal Samapti) Adhiniyam, 1981. Bombay City Civil Court and Bombay Court of Small Causes (Enhancement of Pecuniary Jurisdiction & Amendment) Act, 1987- Maharashtra High Court (Hearing of Writ Petitions by Division Bench and Abolition of letters Patent Appeals) Act, 1986 -Constitutionality of-Held: By way of amendment in the Acts, disparity in pecuniary jurisdiction removed by conferring unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction on the City Civil Court at par with other Civil Courts in other parts of the State of Maharashtra-Power of legislature to confer or take away general jurisdiction of the Courts, other than Supreme Court, forms part of the administration of justice and not forming part of the Constitution and organizations of High Courts-State legislature could confer general jurisdiction on all Courts in terms of Entries 3, 11-A and 46 of the Concurrent List-Jurisdiction and powers of High Court dealt separately under Entry 11-A purportedly for bifurcation of legislative powers possessed by the Centre and the State legislature-But the subject Constitution and Organization of Supreme Court and High Courts rests with the Union in the Scheme of the Constitution-It cannot be said that Parliament alone has the exclusive competence to invest the High Courts with General Jurisdiction referable to Constitution and Organizations of High Courts-Investing the City Civil Courts with unlimited jurisdiction in terms of amending Acts by the State does not amount to dealing with the subject Constitution and Organization of the High Courts-Hence constitutional validity of both the Acts, 1986 and 1987 Act, upheld. Madhya Pradesh (Uchcha Nyayalya Letters Patent Appeals Samapti) Adhiniyam, 1981-Constitutionality of-Held: Since State Legislature competent to pass law relating to general jurisdiction of High Courts dealing with administration of justice, Adhiniyam cannot be declared unconstitutional/ invalid-Hence, constitutional validity of the Adhiniyam upheld-Interpretation of Statutes. Entry 13 of List-I/I-Scope of-Held: In the mailer of Civil Procedure the Parliament and the State legislature acquire the concurrent Legislative competence. Entry 3 of List-II/ before amendmen vis-a-·vis Entry 11 of list-III after amendment r/w Entry 65 of list-II-Implication of-Held: Administration of justice is a State subject-General Jurisdiction includes jurisdiction and powers of all Courts including High Courts for administration of justice, such power rests with the Stale. Entry 11-A, List-III-Use of Semicolon after 'administration of justice' Signification of-Discussed. 'Administration of Justice' vis-a-vis 'General Jurisdiction '-Relation between-Discussed. Absence of provision for right lo appeal in a Statute-Effect of Discussed. Words and Phrases: 'Constitution', 'organization' and 'administration of justice '-Meaning of Doctrines: Doctrine of 'pith and substance '-Applicability of The questions which arose for determination in these appeals were as to whether the Bombay City Civil Court and Bombay Court of Small (Enhancement of Pecuniary Jurisdiction & Amendment) Act, 1986 A (1987 Act), which already received assent of the President, Maharashtra High Court (Hearing of Writ Petitions by Division Bench and Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) Act, 1986 (1986 Act), which also received the assent of the President were constitutionally valid, and as to whether the Full Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh was right in striking B down the provisions of Letters Patent Appeals by bringing the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Letters Patent Appeals Samapti) Adhiniyam, 1981. The principal question that arose for consideration relates to the legislative competence of the State legislature in passing these enactments. Further, with regard to the 1987 Act, it was contended that in the absence of infrastructure and necessary facilities, it cannot be brought into force unless the State Government satisfies that there are sufficient number of court halls and other infrastructure including the requisite number of judges available to discharge their functions in the City Civil Court. Two other contentions required to be considered are - (i) whether in the absence of necessary infrastructure and the requisite number of judges in the city civil court, the action of the State Government in issuing the notification was arbitrary and unreasonable and (ii) also whether the notification was issued unfairly due to extraneous consideration. |
