1. Challenge to validity of Legal Services Authority (Amendment) Act, 2002 inserting Chapter 6A on pre-litigation conciliation and settlement. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2002 Supreme(SC) 2230
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.N. Kirpal, CJI., Y.K. Sabharwal, Arijit Pasayat, JJ.
S.N. Pandey - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Anr. - Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No.543/2002
Decided On : 28-10-2002
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Manoj Goel, Advocate
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Manoj Goel, Advocate
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Legal Services Authority (Amendment) Act, 2002, ruling that Permanent Lok Adalats for public utility service disputes are constitutionally valid as they provide an efficient, speedy, and impartial alternative dispute resolution mechanism to reduce judicial workload.
Headnote:(A) Legal Services Authority (Amendment) Act, 2002 - Chapter 6(A) - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 89 - Pre-litigation conciliation and settlement - Validity of Chapter 6(A) challenged - Provisions are complementary to Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure - Legislature's effort is to decrease court workload by resorting to alternative dispute resolution - Permanent Lok Adalats for disputes involving public utility services offer a fast means of dispensation of justice, bringing litigation to a quick end without further appeals - No constitutional infirmity found as the legislation ensures that justice will be available to the litigant speedily and impartially. (Paras 1, 2 and 3)
(B) Permanent Lok Adalats - Composition and functioning - Persons appointed should be of integrity and adequate experience - Lok Adalats are primarily enacted to bring about settlement amongst the parties and shall perform their duties and function even if members of the Bar choose not to appear. (Paras 3 and 4)
Facts of the case:
A challenge was filed against the constitutional validity of the Legal Services Authority (Amendment) Act, 2002, specifically the insertion of Chapter 6(A) relating to pre-litigation conciliation and settlement and the establishment of permanent Lok Adalats for deciding disputes involving public utility services.
Findings of Court:
The court found no constitutional infirmity in the said legislation, observing that the Lok Adalat mechanism is an established and fast means of dispensing justice that serves the interest of the litigating public by reducing court burdens.
Issues: Whether the provisions of Chapter 6(A) of the Legal Services Authority (Amendment) Act, 2002, concerning pre-litigation conciliation and settlement via permanent Lok Adalats, are constitutionally valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Act is valid as it promotes alternative dispute resolution, complements the Code of Civil Procedure, and ensures speedy and impartial justice, thereby functioning in the interest of the public regardless of the appearance of the Bar.
Result: Validity of the Act upheld; petition disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. The Act is complementary to Section 89 CPC, aims to decrease court workload via alternative dispute resolution, and has no constitutional infirmity. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
3. The Legal Services Authority (Amendment) Act, 2002 inserting Chapter 6A is constitutionally valid as it provides speedy and impartial justice. (Para 3 , 4 )
4. Upholds validity of the Legal Services Authority (Amendment) Act, 2002 and directs early setting up of Permanent Lok Adalats. (Para 4 , 5 )
5. Is the Legal Services Authority (Amendment) Act, 2002 constitutionally valid?
Yes, the Act is valid as it provides speedy and impartial justice through alternative dispute resolution and complements Section 89 CPC. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
6. Are permanent Lok Adalats a valid mechanism for dispute resolution?
Yes, they are valid and have been successful in settling hundreds of thousands of cases quickly without appeals. (Para 2 , 3 )
7. Can Lok Adalats function even if lawyers refuse to appear?
Yes, the court held that Lok Adalats shall perform their duties and function even if members of the Bar choose not to appear. (Para 4 )
ORDER :
B.N. Kirpal, CJI.
We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The challenge is to the validity of the Legal Services Authority (Amendment) Act, 2002 (in short the 'Act') whereby a new Chapter 6(A) has been inserted relating to pre-litigation conciliation and settlement. It is quite apparent that this chapter has been enacted as being complementary to Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the 'Code') which is a new provision enacted and implemented with effect from 1st July, 2002.
2. We have gone through the provisions of the said Chapter which contemplate the setting up of permanent Lok Adalats for deciding disputes in which public utility services is one of the matters involved. It is quite obvious that the effort of the legislature is to decrease the work load in the Courts by resorting to alternative disputes resolution. Lok Adalat is a mode of dispute resolution which has been in vogue since over two decades. Hundreds of thousands of cases have been settled through this mechanism and is undisputedly a fast means of dispensation of justice. The litigation is brought to a quick end with no further appeals or anguish to the litigants. The constitution of the permanent Lok Adalats mechanism comtemplate the judicial officer or a retired judicial officer being there alongwith other persons having adequate experience in the public utility services.
3. We do not find any constitutional infirmity in the said legislation. The Act ensures that justice will be available to the litigant speedily and impartially. We do emphasis that the persons who are appointed on the Permanent Lok Adalats should be persons of integrity and adequate experience. Appropriate rules, inter alia in this regard, no doubt will have to be framed, if not already in place.
4. We upheld the validity of the said Act and hope the Permanent Lok Adalats will be set up at an early date. The Lok Adalats are enacted to primarily bring about settlement amongst the parties. The parties are normally required to be present in person and since the impugned provisions are in the interest of the litigating public, the Lok Adalats shall perform their duties and will function, even if members of the Bar choose not to appear.
5. Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Copies of the order to be sent to the High Courts and also to the Attorney General.
