Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.

» Home
Monday, April 29, 2024

SC Directs States To Issue Notifications For Establishing Gram Nyayalayas Within Four Weeks

Posted in: Supreme Court
Wed, Feb 5, 20, 21:10, 4 Years ago
star star star star star
4 out of 5 with 1 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 12276
National Federation Of Societies For Fast Justice & Anr. Vs. UOI Notifications for establishing the Gram Nyayalayas to issue the same within four weeks.. It was considering a PIL filed by National Federation Of Societies For Fast Justice.

It is a matter of profound significance with far reaching implications that the Supreme Court just recently on January 29, 2020 in a notable judgment titled National Federation Of Societies For Fast Justice & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. In Writ Petition(s) (Civil) No(s). 1067/2019 has directed the States which have not yet issued Notifications for establishing the Gram Nyayalayas to issue the same within four weeks. The Bench of Apex Court which delivered this notable judgment comprised of Justice NV Ramana, Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Krishna Murari. It was considering a PIL filed by National Federation Of Societies For Fast Justice.

To start with, it is first and foremost observed in the opening para that, At the commencement of hearing, Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has placed before us State-wise Administrative Units Information in tabular form, showing the steps taken by various States for establishing and functioning of Gram Nyayalayas under the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008.

Going forward, the ball is then set rolling in the next para which states that, Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the State of Goa has issued Notification for establishing 2 Gram Nyayalayas under the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008 but none are functioning there; the State of Haryana has issued Notification for establishing 3 Gram Nyayalayas but only 2 are functioning; the State of Jharkhand has issued Notification for establishing 6 Gram Nyayalayas but only 1 is functioning there;

the State of Karnataka has issued Notification for establishing 2 Gram Nyayalayas but none are functioning; the State of Kerala has issued Notification for establishing 30 Gram Nyayalayas and all are functioning there whereas the State had to establish 152 Gram Nyayalayas; the State of Madhya Pradesh has issued Notification for establishing 89 Gram Nyayalayas out of which 87 are functioning; the State of Maharashtra has issued Notification for establishing 25 Gram Nyayalayas out of which 23 are functioning whereas the State had to establish 351 Gram Nyayalayas; the State of Odisha has issued Notification for establishing 22 Gram Nyayalayas out of which 16 are functioning; the State of Punjab has issued Notification for establishing 2 Gram Nyayalayas, both of which are functioning; the State of Rajasthan has issued Notification for establishing 45 Gram Nyayalayas and all the 45 are functioning there and the State of Uttar Pradesh has issued Notification for establishing 113 Gram Nyayalayas out of which only 14 are functioning, whereas the State had to establish 822 Gram Nyayalayas.

Going further ahead, it is then pointed out that, Vide order dated 18.10.2019, this Court had directed various States to file their affidavits before 18.12.2019.

To be sure, it is then revealed that, Today, during the course of hearing, we have come to know that some of the States, such as the States of Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Telangana, West Bengal, Uttarakhand and Odisha have not yet filed their affidavits.

Be it noted, the Bench then holds that, We direct the aforementioned States to file their affidavits within one week from today, subject to deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) by each of the above-mentioned States with the Registrar (Judicial) of the Supreme Court, who shall keep the same in a separate head.

What's more, the Bench then hastens to add that, Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the States of Bihar, Jharkhand and Himachal Pradesh submit that there might be some conflict between the functioning of their local laws and the functioning of Gram Nyayalayas under the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008 which requires clarification. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Arunachal Pradesh submits that the said State may be granted exemption for establishing and functioning of Gram Nyayalayas under the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008. We shall decide the said issues on the next date of hearing.

To put things in perspective, the Bench then points out that, Taking into consideration the personal difficulty of the counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Kerala, we grant liberty to the counsel for the said State to file the affidavit during the course of the day.

As it turned out, we then see that the Bench waxes eloquent to say that, The prayer made on behalf of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Tripura is also accepted and he is directed to file affidavit during the course of the day.

To put it succinctly, the Bench then also holds that, At the request of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the States of Madhya Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh, we grant them liberty to file affidavit of their respective States on 30.01.2020.

Furthermore, the Bench then observes that, Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the States of Assam and Punjab are directed to file affidavits by 30.01.2020, failing which these States will have to pay the costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) each, as mentioned above.

Not stopping here, the Bench also then makes it known that, Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material placed before us, it appears to us that although some States have issued Notifications for establishing the Gram Nyayalayas, all the established Gram Nyayalayas are not functioning, except in the States of Kerala, Maharashtra and Rajasthan. It has been brought to our notice that in some of the States, the proposals for establishing the Gram Nyayalayas are pending before the High Court for consultation and some of the States have not yet initiated the process of issuing Notifications for establishing such Nyayalayas.

Most significantly, it is then held by the Bench that, In view of the above, we direct the States, who have not yet issued Notifications for establishing the Gram Nyayalayas, to issue the same within a period of four weeks from today and place copies of the same before us with an affidavit.

In addition to the above, the Bench also then adds further that, We also request the learned Chief Justices of the High Courts, where the constitution of Gram Nyayalayas and appointments of its members are pending, to expedite the process of consultation with the respective State Governments.

To say the least, the Bench then also states that, Learned counsel for the petitioners also brought to our attention the Evaluation Study of the Scheme of Establishing & Operationalising Gram Nyayalayas, which is pending consideration before the Government of India. In the said Report, it is observed as under:

DOJ may consider increasing the Recurring Head to Rs. 15 lakhs per year for a minimum of 5 years with 50% State Govt. Contribution and revising the Non-recurring Head to Rs. 35 lakhs per Gram Nyayalaya because the present assistance is not sufficient and dates back to calculation approved in 2009.

Lastly, it is then held that, In view of the above, we direct the Union of India to consider the said proposal of increasing the Recurring Head to Rs. 15 lakhs per year for a minimum of 5 years with 50% State Government Contribution. By the next date of hearing, the counsel for the Union of India has to place before us the views of the Government on the said issue. List after four weeks. The Registry is directed to communicate the instant order to the Chief Justices of all the High Courts as also the Chief Secretaries of all the States through E-mail as also by speed post.

No doubt, it is a very well reasoned, well timed and well founded judgment! The Apex Court in this latest, landmark and extremely laudable judgment very rightly directs States to issue notifications for establishing Gram Nyayalayas within four weeks! There can be no denying or disputing it that the Gram Nyayalayas are now the crying need of the hour as it will bring justice at the doorsteps of those living there and save them from so many inconveniences which they have to face severely mainly due to the absence of Gram Nyayalayas!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
In the light of the latest judgment provided by the SC for commuting the death penalty of former pm Rajiv Gandhi’s assassins to life imprisonment on the ground of excessive wait on govt and President’s part to decide their whim pleas
Shanti Bhushan v Supreme Court of India through its Registrar and another in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 789 of 2018 (Arising out of Diary No. 12405 of 2018) refused pointblank to declare that the function of allocating cases and assigning benches should be exercised by the collegium of five senior Judges instead of the Chief Justice of India.
Coming straight to the nub of the matter, let me begin at the very beginning by first and foremost expressing my full and firm support to the growing perfectly justified demand that seeks chemical castration for child rapists
Justice KS Puttaswamy (Retd) and another v Union of India has upheld the validity of Aadhaar for availing government subsidies and benefits and for filing income tax returns! The lone dissenting Judge in this landmark case is Justice Dr DY Chandrachud. He differed entirely from the majority and struck down Section 139AA.
It is most reassuring, refreshing and re consoling to note that for the first time in at least my memory have I ever noticed a Chief Justice of India who even before assuming office outlined his priorities very clearly and courageously
Manohar Lal Sharma vs Narendra Damodardas Modi dismissed a string of petitions seeking an independent probe into the 2015 Rafale deal, for registration of FIR and Court-monitored investigation by CBI into corruption allegations in Rafale deal.
Judgement by the Supreme Court about energy conservation and infrastructure laws in the state of Himachal Pradesh.
In a major and significant development, the Supreme Court which is the highest court in India has for the second time designated 37 lawyers as Senior Advocates.
On 17th October 2018, the Cannabis Act came into force and Canada became the largest country in the world with a legal marijuana marketplace.
Why Only Lawyers Are Held Liable For Accepting Foreign Funding And Not Politicians? Why is it that under our Indian law only lawyers are held liable for accepting foreign funding and not politicians? Why politicians are mostly never held accountable for accepting foreign funding?
Finally Hindus Get The Right To Worship At Entire Disputed Land And Muslims Get 5 Acre In Ayodhya
I am a student at New Law College, Bharati Vidyapeeth University studying LLB. I am currently majoring in 3 yrs LLB Course from New Law College, and have started with my last year from July 2019.
230th report of Law Commission of India, it will certainly produce more diamonds like the Chief Justice of India designate Sharad Arvind Bobde who is most invaluable and even Kohinoor diamond stands just nowhere near him
Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court Of India vs Subhash Chandra Aggarwal the office of Chief Justice of India is a public authority under the Right to Information Act
Sections 126 to l29 deal with the privilege that is attached to Professional Communications between the legal advisors and their clients. Section 126 and 128 mention the circumstances under which the legal advisor can give evidence of such professional communication.
Madhuri Jajoo vs. Manoj Jajoo has allowed the first petition for divorce by mutual consent, through the virtual hearing system.
Reepak Kansal vs. Secretary-General, Supreme Court Of India has taken a stern view of the increasing tendency to blame the Registry for listing some cases more swiftly as compared to others.
upheld the Shebait rights of the erstwhile royals of Travancore in the administration, maintenance and management of Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple in Thiruvananthapuram.
Justice R Banumathi had assumed the role of a Supreme Court Judge on 13 August 2014. She is the sixth women to be a Judge of the Supreme Court of India
Judges cannot speak out even if they are humiliated. How long can the Supreme Court and the Judges suffer the humiliation heaped regularly?
Neelam Manmohan Attavar vs Manmohan Attavar that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would not be maintainable in order to challenge an order which has been passed by the High Court in the exercise of its judicial powers.
Jugut Ram vs. Chhattisgarh the fact that a lathi is also capable of being used as a weapon of assault, does not make it a weapon of assault simpliciter.
Sagufa Ahmed vs. Upper Assam Plywood Products Pvt. Ltd the said order extended only the period of limitation and not the period upto which delay can be condoned in exercise of discretion conferred by the statute
the legendary Kesavananda Bharati whose plea to the Apex Court is considered the real reason behind the much acclaimed Basic Structure doctrine propounded in 1973
Amar Singh vs NCT Of Delhi conviction can be based on the testimony of a single eye witness so long he is found to be wholly reliable.
Madhya Pradesh vs. Bherulalthe governments taking for granted the period of limitation prescribed. In other words, it is high time and all the governments in our country both in the Centre and the States must now
Madhya Pradesh vs. Bherulal the governments taking for granted the period of limitation prescribed.
the manner in which Bombay High Court handled the Arnab Goswami case. A vacation Bench comprising of Justices Dr DY Chandrachud and Indira Banerjee of the Supreme Court is currently hearing the petition filed by Republic TV anchor Arnab Goswami
Indian Olympics Association vs. Kerala Olympic Association civil original jurisdiction dismissed Indian Olympics Association's (IOA) plea seeking transfer of a writ petition before Kerala High Court to Delhi High Court.
In Arnab's case, Justice Dr DY Chandrachud had minced no words to say that: There has to be a message to High Courts – Please exercise your jurisdiction to uphold personal liberty
It is most shocking, most disgusting and most disheartening to read that criminals are ruling the roost and making the headlines in UP time and again
Parveen vs. State of Haryana while setting aside an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the plea of a man in view of absence of his counsel has observed in clear, categorical
Madras Bar Association vs Union of India that exclusion of advocates in 10 out of 19 tribunals, for consideration as judicial members is contrary to the Supreme Court judgments in Union of India v. Madras Bar Association
Inderjeet Singh Sodhi vs Chairman, Punjab State Electricity Board the dismissal of special leave petition is of no consequence on the question of law. We all must bear it in mind from now on
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Zaixhu Xie the practice of pronouncing the final orders without reasoned judgments.
It cannot be denied by anyone that government is the biggest litigator in courts and is responsible to a large extent for the huge pending cases in different states all across the country. The top court is definitely not happy with the state of affairs and the lethargic and complacent motto of Sab Chalta Hain attitude of the governments in India.
Centre has finally decided to get its act together and constitute the All India Judicial Service (AIJS) about which we have been hearing since age
Prashant Dagajirao Patil vs. Vaibhav@Sonu Arun Pawar a High Court, while exercising bail jurisdiction cannot issue directions which will have a direct bearing upon the trial.
Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle-B, Bharatpur vs M/s Bhagat Singh in exercise of itsextraordinary appellate jurisdiction that a statute must be interpreted in a just, reasonable and sensible manner
Pravat Chandra Mohanty vs Odisha refused the plea seeking compounding of offences of two police officers accused in a custodial violence case.
Sessions Judge, Bhadrak in S.T. Case No.182/392 of 2014, acquitting the Respondents from charges under Sections 302/201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code IPC
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. vs. M/S Navigant Technologies Pvt. Ltd. the period of limitation for filing the Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act would commence from the date on which the signed copy of the award was made available to the parties.
Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal and another v. Maharashtra in page 386 of the citation that: The quantum of bribe is immaterial for judging gravity of the offence under PC Act. Proceedings under PC Act cannot be quashed on the ground of delay in conclusion particularly where the accused adopted dilatory tactics.
The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has proposed to introduce the Cinematograph (Amendment) Bill, 2021.The new proposal would amend the Cinematograph Act of 1952 to grant the Centre "revisionary powers" and allow it to "re-examine" films that have already been certified by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).
I have not come across a single person in my life who has not complained of milk being not up to the mark and even in my own life I don't remember how many times my mother
Akhila Bharata Kshatriya Mahasabha v/s Karnataka barring installation of statues or construction of any structure in public roads, pavements, sideways and other public utility places.
Manohar Lal Sharma vs Union of India has made it clear that State won't get a free pass by mere mention of national security.
State of MP vs Ghisilal the civil courts has no jurisdiction to try suit relating to land which is subject-matter of ceiling proceedings, Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.
Deserving cases in Supreme Court also don't get listed in time and keep pending for a long time and not so deserving cases get listed most promptly when backed by eminent law firms and senior lawyers
Top