Summary of the Judgement
Case Name: Sanjeevkumar Harakchand Kankariya v. Union of India & Ors.
Date of Judgement: 19th December 2024
Judges: Hon'ble Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Hon'ble Justice Sanjay Karol
Advocates: Mr. Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh (Appellant), Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee (Additional Solicitor General), Ms. Rukmini Bobde (Respondents)
Acts and Sections:
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Section 89)
Court Fees Act, 1870 (Section 16)
Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (Section 21)
Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959 (Section 43, Section 16A introduced by Act X of 2018)
Cited Judgements:
Salem Advocates Bar Association v. Union of India
Pushpabai Shankerlal Sura v. Official Liquidator
Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P) Ltd.
Jamshed N. Guzdar v. State of Maharashtra
Introduction
This judgment by the Supreme Court of India highlights the nuanced interplay between state and central legislations on the refund of court fees in cases resolved through Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms. The appellant sought a 100% refund of court fees after a dispute was resolved via mediation under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. However, the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959 (MCFA, 1959) provided only a 50% refund at the time of the settlement.
Key Issues Addressed
Refund of Court Fees under ADR Mechanisms
The appellant argued for a full refund of court fees based on Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (CFA, 1870). The respondents countered that the CFA, 1870 had been repealed in Maharashtra and replaced by the MCFA, 1959, which allowed only partial refunds.
The Court reiterated that court fees are a matter of state legislation under Entry 3 of List II (State List) of the Constitution. It rejected the appellant’s argument that the settlement of disputes through ADR, being a matter of "administration of justice" (Entry 11A of List III - Concurrent List), required uniformity with central laws like the CFA, 1870.
Doctrinal Interpretations
Doctrine of Pith and Substance: The Court emphasized that while "administration of justice" is a concurrent subject, the specific aspect of "fees taken in courts" falls squarely under the State List.
Doctrine of Harmonious Construction: The Court interpreted the conflicting provisions to give effect to both central and state laws without rendering either redundant.
Central Observations
1. Distinction Between Lok Adalats and Mediation
The appellant sought parity in treatment between disputes settled through Lok Adalats (governed by the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987) and mediation under Section 89 CPC. However, the Court noted the critical differences:
"Lok Adalats operate through conciliation, with no adjudicatory powers. Mediation, though also a form of ADR, does not equate to the quasi-judicial function of Lok Adalats."
This distinction meant that refund provisions applicable to Lok Adalats could not automatically extend to mediation.
2. Legislative Evolution in Maharashtra
The Court observed that Maharashtra had already amended its legislation to align with Section 16 of the CFA, 1870. Section 16A of the MCFA, introduced in 2018, now provides for a 100% refund in cases resolved under Section 89 CPC.
3. Retrospective Relief
While acknowledging the appellant's claim, the Court ruled that retrospective application of this amendment was untenable. However, it directed a refund as a special case under Article 142 of the Constitution:
"In the peculiar facts of this case, the refund of Rs. 5 lakhs in court fees is granted to the appellant as an exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction."
Doctrine of Repugnancy and Legislative Competence
The Court discussed the interplay between central and state laws under the doctrine of repugnancy, emphasizing that state laws prevail in their respective domains unless explicitly overridden by central legislation. The judgment relied on M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India, which established:
"In cases of inconsistency between a state law and a central law on a Concurrent List matter, the state law may prevail if it has received the President's assent under Article 254(2)."
However, in this case, Entry 3 of the State List (pertaining to court fees) clearly provided legislative authority to Maharashtra, rendering arguments of inconsistency moot.
Encouraging ADR Mechanisms Through Legislative Uniformity
While the Court recognised the unique role of mediation in dispute resolution, it highlighted the necessity for legislative amendments to encourage ADR adoption. The High Court's earlier recommendation to the Maharashtra government to introduce parity in court fee refunds across ADR mechanisms was reiterated:
"A uniform refund policy across ADR methods will eliminate discrepancies and encourage litigants to resolve disputes efficiently."
The subsequent amendment of Section 16A in the MCFA, 1959, which aligns with Section 16 of the CFA, 1870, reflects progress in this direction. However, the Court clarified that such amendments cannot be applied retrospectively to cases predating their enactment.
This case reinforces the judiciary's role in shaping legislative intent and aligning statutory provisions with constitutional objectives, particularly in enhancing access to justice through ADR mechanisms.
Broader Implications of the Judgement
1. Impact on ADR Mechanisms
The judgement reinforces the importance of ADR in reducing judicial pendency. However, it also underscores the need for legislative uniformity to avoid disparities across states. The Court encouraged Maharashtra to align its refund provisions with the CFA, 1870 to promote ADR adoption.
2. Federalism and Legislative Competence
The decision reiterates the principle of federalism, where state legislations prevail in areas exclusively under their domain unless overridden by central laws in case of repugnancy. It highlights the constitutional balance between central and state powers in List II and List III matters.
3. Encouragement of Legislative Amendments
The Court lauded Maharashtra for amending the MCFA to include full refunds for ADR settlements, setting a precedent for other states. This aligns with the broader objectives of Section 89 CPC and Article 39A of the Constitution to ensure access to justice.
Conclusion
This case underscores the complexity of harmonising central and state legislations in India’s federal structure. The judgement is a significant step in clarifying the legal framework around court fee refunds and ensuring ADR mechanisms are effectively utilised. By balancing legal principles and practical considerations, the Court has reinforced the objectives of promoting justice through ADR while respecting state autonomy in legislative matters.
Comments