Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

J U D G M E N T (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6928 of 1999) MARKANDEY KATJU, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal furnishes a typical instance of a widespread malady which has infected the judicial system in India, namely, the tendency in some courts of not exercising judicial restraint and crossing their limits by encroaching into the legislative or executive domain, contrary to the broad separation of powers envisaged under our Constitution.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as Shri Amarendra Sharan, learned Additional Solicitor General and Shri M.N. Krishnamani, Sr. Advocate.

34. Thus the above decision clearly lays down that in the garb of affirmative action or judicial activism this Court cannot amend the law as that would be a naked usurpation of legislative power. This Court must exercise judicial restraint in this connection.

35. We regret to say that the directions of the High Court (which have been quoted in this judgment) are really an encroachment into the legislative and executive domain. Whether there should be one State Consumer Forum or five or more State Consumer Fora is entirely for the legislature and executive to decide. The High Court has directed that the State Government should constitute at least five State Consumer Forums at the State level by making necessary amendments in the Act. In our opinion such a direction was clearly illegal. The Court (including this Court) cannot direct amendment of an Act made by the legislature. The establishment of the District, State and National level Consumer Fora is done under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act by the authorities mentioned in that Act. The composition of these Fora is also prescribed in that section, and so are the salaries and allowances and other conditions of service of the members. It is only the authorities mentioned in the Act who can do the needful in this connection, and this Court cannot arrogate to itself the powers given by the Act to the said authorities.

43. In this connection, this Court in Asif Hameed & Ors. Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. AIR 1989 SC 1899 observed (vide para 17 to 19) :

"Before adverting to the controversy directly involved in these appeals we may have a fresh look on the inter se functioning of the three organs of democracy under our Constitution. Although the doctrine of separation of powers has not been recognized under the Constitution in its absolute rigidity but the constitution makers have meticulously defined the functions of various organs of the State. The Legislature, executive and judiciary have to function within their own spheres demarcated under the Constitution. No organ can usurp the functions assigned to another. The Constitution trusts to the judgment of these organs to function and exercise their discretion by strictly following the procedure prescribed therein. The functioning of democracy depends upon the strength and independence of each of its organs. The Legislature and executive, the two facets of the people's will, have all the powers including that of finance. The Judiciary has no power over the sword or the purse, nonetheless it has power to ensure that the aforesaid two main organs of the State function within the constitutional limits. It is the sentinel of democracy. Judicial review is a powerful weapon to restrain unconstitutional exercise of power by the legislature and executive. The expanding horizon of judicial review has taken in its fold the concept of social and economic justice. While exercise of powers by the legislature and executive is subject to judicial restraint, the only check on our own exercise of powers is the self imposed discipline of judicial restraint.

"We do not pause to consider whether a statute differently conceived and framed would yield results more consonant with fairness and reason. We take this statute as we find it".

50. Judicial restraint is consistent with and complementary to the balance of power among the three independent branches of the State. It accomplishes this in two ways. First, judicial restraint not only recognizes the equality of the other two branches with the judiciary, it also fosters that equality by minimizing interbranch interference by the judiciary. In this analysis, judicial restraint may also be called judicial respect, that is, respect by the judiciary for the other coequal branches. In contrast, judicial activism's unpredictable results make the judiciary a moving target and thus decreases the ability to maintain equality with the co-branches. Restraint stabilizes the judiciary so that it may better function in a system of interbranch equality.