Supreme Court To Decide Whether Gram Nyayalayas Under 1998 Act Are Optional Or Mandatory

The Supreme Court said it would examine whether the provisions of the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008, are mandatory for state governments to implement or optitional.

A three-judge Bench of Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice K.V. Vishwanathan was hearing a Writ Petition filed by the National Federation of Societies for Fast Justice.

The Bench said it would consider two questions: 1) Whether the provisions of the Act are mandatory or optional and 2) whether the states which have agreed to implement the Act have done so in a “positive manner” with the objective of speedy delivery of justice to citizens in remote areas.

Senior Advocate Nidhesh Gupta appeared as amicus curiae and Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi appeared for the High Court of Himachal Pradesh.

On January 29, 2020, a Bench led by then Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana issued an Order directing all states which had not issued a notification for the constitution of Gram Nyayalayas to issue the same within four weeks and file an affidavit. The Bench had also requested the Chief Justices of the High Courts to expedite the process of consultation with the respective state governments.

The amicus noted that the Act emphasises access, speedy justice, affordability and simplified procedures. Implementing the Act would help unclog trial courts, as smaller matters would be heard by gram nyayalayas, the amicus said. The first appeal under the Act lies with the district courts for civil matters and sessions court for criminal matters. There is no provision for second appeals at the district and sessions level.

The amicus told the Bench that there are three views held by state governments on this subject. One group consists of states which believe that the Act has to be mandatorily given effect to. The second, the states which say that provisions of the Act are optional and the third, which say that they are exempted under the Act.

In eight places in the statute, the amicus said, the word “may” has been used before listing options, separated by the word “or”. In this regard, he noted Section 3 of the Act, which reads: “For the purpose of exercising the jurisdiction and powers conferred on a Gram Nyayalaya by this Act, the State Government, after consultation with the High Court, may, by notification, establish one or more Gram Nyayalayas for every Panchayat at intermediate level or a group of contiguous Panchayats at intermediate level in a district or where there is no Panchayat at intermediate level in any State, for a group of contiguous Gram Panchayats." The Supreme Court would have to interpret whether the provisions of the Act are mandatory or discretionary, the amicus said.

On the wording of Section 3, which says that Gram Nyayalayas may be established for “a group of contiguous Panchayats at intermediate level in a district or where there is no Panchayat at intermediate level in any State”, Justice Gavai remarked that wherever there is a court of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class at the panchayat level, Gram Nyayalayas “may not be necessary.”

North-Eastern states of Nagaland, Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh and tribal areas are exempt from the Act. “In the tribal areas, they have their own systems,” Justice Gavai remarked about the exemption. The erstwhile state of Jammu And Kashmir (J&K) also used to be exempted. The amicus noted that a typo arose in Section 1(2) of the Act when J&K was removed from the provision. The word “except” was also mistakenly removed, leading to an ambiguity about the Act’s application to the three North-Eastern states and tribal areas.

Justice Mishra, questioning the need to establish Gram Nyayalayas, said, “In almost every tehsil, we have a civil court.” He then added, “Creating one more court, one more confusion, one more litigation (on) whether jurisdiction lies here or there.”

The jurisdiction of Nyayadhikaris under the Act is limited in that they can only try offences punishable with less than two years, some Central Acts and those civil disputes listed in the Second Schedule of the Act. Justice Vishwanathan recognised that the object of the Acts seems to be to unclog the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class’s court, which are empowered to try offences punishable up to seven years.

Justice Gavai said that the solution may be need-based and state-specific and the question on whether to constitute Gram Nyayalayas would have to be answered through consultations between the state government and respective High Courts. “The Chief Justice and Chief Minister will have to take a call,” he said.

The Bench ordered the state governments and the High Courts to file a fresh affidavit stating their position on the constitution of Gram Nyayalayas within six weeks. The Union Government was directed to file an affidavit detailing the state-wise disbursal of funds for implementing the Act.

Cause Title: National Federation Of Societies For Fast Justice And Anr. Versus Union Of India And Ors [W.P.(C) No. 1067/2019]