Delhi High Court seeks response from Central government, State on challenge to Court Fees (Delhi Amendment) Act of 2010

The Delhi High Court issued notice to the Central and Delhi governments on a public interest litigation (PIL) petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Court Fees (Delhi Amendment) Act, 2010 [Amendment Act] by which the Court Fees Act, 1870 was amended in its applicability to the National Capital Territory of Delhi [Parveen Kumar Aggarwal vs. Union of India & Anr.]..The Court was dealing with a PIL by lawyer Parveen Kumar Aggarwal challenging Section 16A of the Court Fee Act which was inserted by the 2010 amendment.The amendment effectively provides that only half of the court fee will be refunded in cases where the parties settle their cases on their own or with the intervention of the Court.A Division Bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad sought responses from the Department of Law, Justice & Legislative Affairs and the Ministry of Law & Justice in this regard and posted the case for further consideration on September 8, 2022..The petition filed through advocates Abhishek Grover, Kajal Subodh Gupta and Kunal Sharma assailed Section 16A of the Act as unconstitutional on the ground that Article 239AA of the Constitution does not empower the Delhi Legislative Assembly to effect an amendment of the Court Fees Act, 1870, which is a Central legislation.The plea said that despite the introduction of Article 239AA, which provides for constitution of a Legislative Assembly for Delhi, the national capital continues to be a Union Territory. Hence, parliament remains supreme so far as competence to make laws for Delhi is concerned.Consequently, the subject-wise separation of powers into Union, State and Concurrent Lists in Schedule VII of the Constitution is of no consequence as far as Delhi is concerned, the plea contended."The expression 'Union Territory' under Article 239AA(3)(b) refers to 'Delhi' and therefore, Parliament alone has the competence to legislate with regard to any matter concerning Delhi, in terms of the mandate of Article 246 (4) which provides for the Parliament's lawmaking powers with respect to any matter for any UT, even if its falls under List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution," the petition said.Further, the amendment is against Article 14 of the Constitution since Section 16A creates two classes of people i.e. one seeking refund under Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 and the other seeking refund under section 16A of the Court-Fees Act, 1870."The sole reason for such distinction is that in former the Court refers the parties to a suit to any mode of settlement of dispute referred to in Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and in the latter the parties settle their cases on their own or with the intervention of the court," the petition pointed out.Such a classification, the petitioner contended, does not meet the criteria of reasonable classification based on Intelligible Differentia under Article 14 and could also lead to a situation where parties who had settled their dispute through a mediation centre or other alternative dispute resolution methods under Section 89 of Code of Civil procedure could claim full refund of their court fees, while parties who settled their disputes privately by themselves or with the intervention of the court would only be refunded half the court fees."Such differential treatment between two similarly situated persons would constitute a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and is, therefore, unconstitutional," the plea said.