- (1.) Writ Petition (Civil) No. 267/2012 The prayers made in this writ petition are as follows:- '(i) A writ of mandamus, directing the Union of India, to implement the directions of this Hon'ble Court in Union of India v. R. Gandhi (2010) 11 SCC 1 and L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261, where Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India was ordered to take over the administration of all tribunals created by Parliament and streamline the functioning of the same; (ii) A writ of mandamus directing the Ministry of Law and Justice to promptly carry out a 'Judicial Impact Assessment' on all tribunals created by Parliament and submit a report on the same to this Hon'ble Court; (iii) A writ of declaration, declaring Sections 14C and 53D of the Competition Act, 2002; Section 12(5) of the Right to Information Act, 2005; Section 15M of the SEBI Act, 1999; Section 14C of the TRAI Act, 1997 and Section 6(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, as being contrary to the specific directions of the Constitution Bench of this Hon'ble Court in Union of India v. R. Gandhi (2010) 11 SCC 1;'
(2.) This reference to the larger Bench is primarily regarding non-implementation of the directions issued by this Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Ors., (1997) 3 SCC 261 and Union of India v. R. Gandhi, President, Madras Bar Association, (2010) 11 SCC 1, which inter alia, are to the effect that the Tribunals functioning in the country should be brought under one nodal agency, which this Court had identified to be the Ministry of Law and Justice. The operative directions in L. Chandra Kumar (supra) as contained in paragraph 96 are clear and categorical and are to the following effect:- 'We are of the view that, until a wholly independent agency for the administration of all such Tribunals can be set-up, it is desirable that all such Tribunals should be, as far as possible, under a single nodal Ministry which will be in a position to oversee the working of these Tribunals. For a number of reasons that Ministry should appropriately be the Ministry of Law. It would be open for the Ministry, in its turn, to appoint an independent supervisory body to oversee the working of the Tribunals. This will ensure that if the President or Chairperson of the Tribunal is for some reason unable to take sufficient interest in the working of the Tribunal, the entire system will not languish and the ultimate consumer of justice will not suffer. The creation of a single umbrella organisation will, in our view, remove many of the ills of the present system. If the need arises, there can be separate umbrella organisations at the Central and the State levels. Such a supervisory authority must try to ensure that the independence of the members of all such Tribunals is maintained. To that extent, the procedure for the selection of the members of the Tribunals, the manner in which funds are allocated for the functioning of the Tribunals and all other consequential details will have to be clearly spelt out.'
(3.) Tentatively, we are of the view that the said directions ought to have been implemented by the Government of India long back. In the course of hearing today, learned Attorney General for India relying on an affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India in the year 2013, had pointed out certain difficulties including the need for an amendment of the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961. Learned Attorney General has also pointed out that the Ministry of Law and Justice is overburdened and may not be able to act and function as the nodal agency, which the Court had in mind while issuing directions way back in the year 1997 in L. Chandra Kumar (supra).;