Supreme Court asks Law Commission to examine problems of statutory appeals, tribunalisation

The Supreme Court yesterday shared deep concern while deciding a case relating to the interpretation of a Power Purchase Agreement. A Bench of Justices Anil R Dave and AK Goel made no efforts to hide the problems faced by the Supreme Court in view of the increasing number of appeals filed before the apex court..The judgment was rendered by the court in an appeal against a ruling of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity in a dispute between Gujarat Urja Vikas Limited and Essar Power..The Court in its judgment set aside the ruling of the APTEL before proceeding to write an “Epilogue” touching upon the issues for tribunalisation and the increasing statutory appeals to the apex court..The ‘Epilogue’.The Epilogue begins with the following:.“Before we part with this judgment, it appears to be necessary to draw attention of all concerned to a vital issue of composition and functioning of Tribunals and statutory framework thereof especially its impact on working of this Court and in turn on the rule of law.”.The Court then wrote about the impact of statutory appeals from various tribunals to the Supreme Court which has bypassed the jurisdiction of High courts. After quoting from the cases of L Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Madras Bar Association v. Union of India, the Court has called for a review of composition of tribunals..“The above resume of law laid down by this Court may call for review of composition of Tribunals under the Electricity Act or other corresponding statutes. Appeals to this Court on question of law or substantial question of law show that Tribunals deal with such questions or substantial questions. Direct appeals to this Court has the result of denial of access to the High Court. Such Tribunals thus become substitute for High Courts without manner of appointment to such Tribunals being the same as the manner of appointment of High Court Judges.”.The Court has also questioned the location of tribunals (many of which are in Delhi) thus inconveniencing the litigants. The Court has then proceeded to discuss another important issue – that of statutory appeals clogging the court..“…further question is whether providing appeals to this Court in routine, without there being issues of general public importance, is not a serious obstruction to the effective working of this Court.”.Quoting extensively from article written by Senior Advocate TR Andhyarujina, the Court while conceding that Parliament has the legislative competence to make provisions for direct appeals to Supreme Court, said that legislative competence alone should not be the parameter for Constitutionality..“It can hardly be gainsaid that routine appeals to the highest court may result in obstruction of the Constitutional role assigned to the highest court as observed above. This may affect the balance required to be maintained by the highest court of giving priority to cases of national importance, for which larger Benches may be required to be constituted. .Routine direct appeals to the highest court in commercial litigation affecting individual parties without there being any issue of national importance may call for reconsideration at appropriate levels. Further question is composition of Tribunals as substitutes for High Courts and exclusion of High Court jurisdiction on account of direct appeals to this Court. Apart from desirability, constitutionality of such provisions may need to be gone into. We are, however, not expressing any opinion on this aspect at this stage.”.Article 136.Interestingly, the court has clarified that the pendency in Supreme Court due to Article 136 jurisdiction is something which it will not comment upon..“We make it clear that as far as heavy pendency in this Court on account of liberal exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India is concerned, we do not wish to make any comment as this is a matter in the discretion of the Court and it is for the Court to address this issue.”.Calling on the Law Commission.The Court has now tasked the Law Commission to examine the following questions, and to submit a report within a year..Whether any changes in the statutory framework constituting various Tribunals with regard to persons appointed, manner of appointment, duration of appointment, etc. is necessary in the light of judgment of this Court in Madras Bar Association (supra) or on any other consideration from the point of view of strengthening the rule of law?Whether it is permissible and advisable to provide appeals routinely to this Court only on a question of law or substantial question of law which is not of national or public importance without affecting the constitutional role assigned to the Supreme Court having regard to the desirability of decision being rendered within reasonable time?Whether direct statutory appeals to the Supreme Court bypassing the High Courts from the orders of Tribunal affects access to justice to litigants in remote areas of the country?Whether it is desirable to exclude jurisdiction of all courts in absence of equally effective alternative mechanism for access to justice at grass root level as has been done in provisions of TDSAT Act (Sections 14 and 15).Any other incidental or connected issue which may be considered appropriate..The case has now been listed for November next year when the Central government will have to inform the Court about the action taken by it pursuant to the Law commission’s report..Read the judgment below.