DEPARTMENT
RELATED PARLIAMENTARY STANDING COMMITTEE ON PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES, LAW
AND JUSTICE
TWENTY SECOND REPORT
ON
THE GRAM
NYAYALAYAS BILL, 2007
________________________________________________________________________
(PRESENTED TO THE RAJYA SABHA ON 6TH SEPTEMBER, 2007)
(LAID ON THE TABLE OF THE LOK SABHA ON 6TH
SEPTEMBER, 2007)
RAJYA SABHA SECRETARIAT
C O N T E N T S
1. Composition of the Committee
2. INTRODUCTION
3. Report
4*. OBSERVATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS AT A GLANCE
5*. RELEVANT MINUTES OF THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMITTEE
6*. Annexure
–
A.
The Gram
Nyayalayas Bill, 2007.
B.
List of
persons who submitted memoranda on the bill.
C.
Comments of
the Ministry of Law and Justice (Legislative Department) on the
views/suggestions contained in memoranda submitted by
individuals/organisations/experts on the provisions of the Bill.
(Constituted on
5th August, 2006)
1. Dr. E.M. Sudarsana Natchiappan ¾ Chairman
RAJYA SABHA
2.
Dr.
Radhakant Nayak
3. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi
4. Shri Balavant alias Bal Apte
5. Shri Virendra Bhatia
6. Shri Tariq Anwar
7. Shri Ram Jethmalani
8. Dr. P.C. Alexander
9. Shri Tarlochan Singh
10. Shri Suresh Bhardwaj
LOK
SABHA
11. Dr. Shafiqur Rahman Barq
12. Shri Chhattar Singh Darbar
13.
14. Shri Shailendra Kumar
15. Dr. C. Krishnan
16. Shri Harin Pathak
17. Shri Dahyabhai Vallabhbhai Patel
18. Shri Varkala Radhakrishnan
19. Prof. M. Ramadass
20. Shri Vishvendra Singh
21. Shri Bhupendrasinh Solanki
22. Shri Raj Babbar
23. Shri S.K. Kharventhan
24. Shri A. Krishnaswamy
25. Shri Anirudh Prasad alias Sadhu Yadav
26. Shri N.S.V. Chitthan
27. Vacant
28. Vacant
29. Vacant
30. Vacant
31. Vacant
COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE (2007-08)
(Constituted on 5th
August, 2007)
1. Dr. E.M. Sudarsana Natchiappan ¾ Chairman
RAJYA SABHA
2.
Dr.
Radhakant Nayak
3. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi
4. Shri Balavant alias Bal Apte
5. Shri Suresh Bhardwaj
6. Shri Virendra Bhatia
7. Shri Tariq Anwar
8. Shri Ram Jethmalani
9. Dr. P.C. Alexander
10. Shri Tarlochan Singh
LOK SABHA
11. Shri Raj Babbar
12. Dr. Shafiqur Rahman Barq
13. Shri N.S.V. Chitthan
14. Shri Chhattar Singh Darbar
15.
16. Shri S.K. Kharventhan
17. Shri A. Krishnaswamy
18. Dr. C. Krishnan
19. Shri Shailendra Kumar
20. Shri Harin Pathak
21. Shri Dahyabhai Vallabhbhai Patel
22. Shri Varkala Radhakrishnan
23. Prof. M. Ramadass
24. Shri Bhupendrasinh Solanki
25. Shri Vishvendra Singh
26. Shri Anirudh Prasad alias Sadhu Yadav
27. Vacant
28. Vacant
29. Vacant
30. Vacant
31. Vacant
SECRETARIAT
Shri
Sham Sher Singh, Joint Secretary
Shri
K.P. Singh, Joint Director
Smt. Sasilekha Nair, Deputy Director
Shri Vinoy Kumar Pathak, Assistant Director
(ii)
I, the Chairman of the Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice, having been authorised by the Committee to submit this Report on its behalf, do hereby present its Twenty Second Report on the Gram Nyayalayas Bill, 2007. The Bill seeks to establish Gram Nyayalayas for the purpose of providing access to justice, both civil and criminal, to the citizens at the grass-roots level and to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of social, economic or other disabilities.
2. In pursuance of the rules relating to the Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee, the Hon’ble Chairman, Rajya Sabha referred§ the Bill,as introduced in the Rajya Sabha on the 15th May, 2007 and pending therein, to this Committee on the 17th May, 2007 for examination and report.
3. Keeping in view the importance of the Bill, the
Committee decided to issue a press communiqué to solicit views/suggestions from
desirous individuals/organisations on the provisions of the Bill. Accordingly,
a press communiqué was issued in response to which memoranda containing suggestions were received by the Committee.
4. The Committee considered
the Bill in six sittings and heard the oral evidence of the
Secretary, Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice in its meetings
held on 7th and 14th June, 2007.
5. While considering the
Bill, the Committee took note of the following documents/information placed
before it: —
(i)
Background
note on the Bill; and
(ii)
The
comments of the Legislative Department on the views/suggestions contained in
the memoranda received from various
organisations/institutions/individuals/experts on the provisions of the Bill.
(iii)
Suggestions given by some State Governments with whom the
Committee held discussion on the Bill.
(iv)
Suggestions
of the Secretary, Ministry of Panchayati Raj.
6. The Committee held clause- by- clause consideration of the Bill on the 16th August, 2007.
7. The Committee adopted the Report in its meeting held on the 29th August, 2007.
8. For the facility of reference and convenience, the observations and recommendations of the Committee have been printed in bold letters in the body of the Report.
|
29th August, 2007 |
E. M. SUDARSANA NATCHIAPPAN Chairman Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice |
1. The Gram Nyayalayas Bill, 2007 (Annexure-A) seeks to establish Gram Nyayalayas for the purpose of providing access to justice, both civil and criminal, to the citizens at the grass-roots level and to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of social, economic or other disabilities and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
2. The Gram Nyayalayas Bill, 2007 was introduced* in the Rajya Sabha on 15th May, 2007. It was referred§ by the Chairman, Rajya Sabha to the Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice on 17th May, 2007 for examination and report.
3. The background note, furnished by the Ministry of Law and Justice, on the Bill, stated as follows:
“Article
4. The Committee decided to invite
views/suggestions from desirous individuals/organisations on the Bill. It,
accordingly, authorised the Secretariat to issue a press release inviting
views/suggestions. In response to the press release published in major English
and Hindi dailies and vernacular newspapers all over
4.1. The Committee forwarded the memoranda so received from the individuals and organisations to the Ministry of Law and Justice (Legislative Department) for their comments thereon. The comments of the Ministry were received on 14th August, 2007(Annexure-C).
4.2. The major points raised in the memoranda are summarized as follows:
i. Clause 3(1) of the Bill envisages Gram Nyayalayas at intermediate level. This might reduce accessibility to justice through these Nyayalayas as the litigant would have to travel from the village to the block at the expense of time and money.
ii. Reservation should be made mandatory. The benefit of reservation may be extended to Backward Class of citizens also.
iii. If the Magistrate transfers the case to his own court as per Clause 25 at the last stage, the trial will get delayed resulting in pendency of cases.
iv. Since lawyers are not barred, the same procedures will creep in as in the case of formal judicial set up.
v. One of the conciliators provided in Clause 30(3) should be a woman.
vi. Clause 32 would bring in the same rigidity and procedural aspects which exist in the formal judicial set up.
vii. Practical difficulties as to availability of legally qualified persons, their dependability as to being stationed in a rural location, the heavy burden to be borne by the exchequer will be faced. Expenditure will have to be incurred to hold mobile courts and court proceedings in villages and for providing accommodation to Nyayadhikaris and other staff.
viii. Gram Nyayadhikari may be treated a part of the cadre of State Subordinate Judicial Service and it may be the first point of entry in that service. This would ensure their career progression and would attract good talent.
ix. Provision should be made insisting that there should be at least one sitting of Gram Nyayadhikari at each head quarters of Gram Nyayalayas in every month.
x. The recruitment of Nyayadhikaris of
Gram Nyayalaya may be made through Union Public Service Commission. After
recruitment, the qualified candidate may be provided extensive training at the
xi. Instead of setting up Gram Nyayalayas at the intermediate panchayat level, the need of the hour is to strengthen the existing system of subordinate judiciary, which forms the major chunk of our judicial system, by creating additional courts at the Distt./Tehsil/Taluka level depending upon the extent of pendency of cases to ensure that the litigants get quick justice at reasonable cost. This can be done over a period of, say, five years. Simultaneously, the High Court need to effectively review and monitor the progress of disposal of cases by subordinate judiciary on regular basis. This will entail much less expenditure on the creation of additional infrastructure at the Distt./Tehsil/Taluka level than on the creation of Gram Nyayalayas. In addition, the strength of Judges in the High Courts and the Supreme Court must also be increased to ensure that the disposal of cases gets speeded up to a reasonable extent. Also, we must lay much greater emphasis on the creation of alternative redressal mechanism.
xii. In addition to the provision for appeal included in the Bill a provision for Revision may also be included. It may be noted that in spite of the fact that there is no provision of appeal from the Senior Civil Judge or Additional/Assistant Sessions Judge, High Court may exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
4.3. The highlights of the response of the Legislative Department on the comments/ suggestions contained in the memoranda are as under:
(i) Nyaya Panchayats established by various State Governments under the provisions of respective State Panchayati Raj Legislations are already functioning. The concept of establishment of Gram Nyayalayas are different from Nyaya Panchayats.
(ii) Gram Nyayalayas, like other subordinate judiciary will be under direct control of the respective High Courts.
(iii) The approach through this legislation is that simple and non-complicated disputes which could be resolved in a short time will be entrusted to the Gram Nyayalayas. Endeavor is made to make the Gram Nyayalayas to be effective forum for resolution of disputes emanating from rural areas and to dealing with such disputes, the Gram Nyayalayas will follow the summary procedure as laid down under the procedural codes.
(iv) Establishing Gram Nyayalayas at every Gram Panchayat level would involve a huge expenditure, which is very difficult for the Central Government as well as the State Government to meet. To manage the Gram Nyayalayas financially, it was felt not feasible to consider establishing Gram Nyayalayas at every Gram Panchayat level but only at intermediate Panchayat level. However, anticipating such difficulties, the concept of mobile courts has been incorporated in clause 11 of the Bill.
(v) Wide publicity about the objects and scope of the Gram Nyayalaya Bill, 2007 has already been given. The same course would be adopted by the Central Government/State Government after its enactment.
5. The Committee heard the views of the
State Governments of Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan and
I.
(i) Taking into
consideration the provisions of the said Bill, it appears that the State
Government will be required to constitute as many as
(ii) They have
submitted that they are enforcing the scheme of evening Courts, the system of
Alternative Dispute Resolution and the concept of Lok Adalats. It has also
submitted that a scheme called “Tirth Gram Yojna” has been implemented for
rural
II. Uttarakhand
(i) There are 95
Panchayats of medium-level in the State. Therefore,
(ii) As there are less number of criminal and civil disputes in the villages of Uttarakhand, it would be appropriate for every regional Panchayat Head Quarters, not to establish a Gram Nyayalaya compulsorily. Rather, it would be appropriate if the Himalayan States are given the option to establish a Gram Nyayalaya at every Tehsil level, if required.
(iii) The system of mobile courts seems suitable for the geographical conditions of Uttarakhand and this would create possibilities for timely justice to the villagers of inaccessible areas of the State. All appropriate facilities would be provided by the State Govt. to Gram Nyayalayas during mobile-courts.
(iv) This should also be provided in the proposed Bill as to how Gram-Nyayalayas will execute their verdict. Further this should be mentioned that whether the verdict given by Gram Nyayalayas would be made into decree or not.
(v) It has been provided in the proposed Bill that advocates can appear in Gram Nyayalayas with the permission of Nyayadhikari. This should also be mentioned clearly that such permission would be granted in exceptional cases, only. The purpose of Gram Nayalayas should be to ensure that common people can state directly to Courts. The words “or through their advocates or authorised agents” given in Section 33(3), be deleted.
(vi) In order to attract talented persons to the post of Nyayadhikari, it is necessary that the service conditions of the post are good. As per the present Bill, person appointed to the post of Nyayadhikari would remain on the same post till his retirement. Therefore, it is necessary to give them the opportunity of promotion on 25% posts of “Civil Judge (Junior Division)” in Judicial Services of the State, so that deserving persons may progress in future according to his merit.
(vii) A sufficient budget for Gram Nyayalayas is needed in such circumstances, so that Nyayalayas should not lack resources. Therefore, a provision for cent per cent budgeting by the Central Government should be made. Otherwise, the State Governments would not be enthusiastic about the Gram Nyayalaya scheme with their limited resources.
III. NCT of
(i) In this context it is submitted that in
the National Capital Territory of Delhi, the Panchayati Raj is not operational
since 1990. Since the Panchayat Raj system is not in existence in
(ii) Beside the above, it is also submitted that under the Delhi Panchayat Raj Act, 1954, Act No. 3 of 1955 passed by the erstwhile Delhi State Legislative Assembly to establish and develop Local Self Government in the rural areas of the then Delhi State and to make better provision for village administration and development, which has not been repealed, provision is already made in chapters VI, VII and VIII thereof to establish Circle Panchayats and Panchayati Adalats to deal with certain offences (including offences under the IPC and to impose penalties). Even these bodies are, at present, defunct and have not been revived.
IV. Madhya Pradesh
(i) The Gram Nyayalaya Adhiniyam, 1996 came
into force on 26th January, 2001 and extends to all of the State of
(ii) The Central Government has agreed to bear the total non-recurring expenditure and has expressed its desire to share the recurring expenditure with the State Government for three years. Looking to the financial conditions of the State, the Central Government is requested to bear the recurring expenditure also along with the non-recurring expenditure.
V.
(i) With regard to giving powers to the State Government to add to or omit any item from the schedules to the Gram Nyayalayas Bill, 2007 on par with the Central Government, it was submitted that any such addition or omission shall be subject to the concurrence of the Central Government.
(ii) So far as the suggestion regarding the power of the Gram Nyayalayas (in clause 28 of the Bill) to take cognizance of any offence punishable with a imprisonment for more than one year i.e. upto three years is concerned, it is pointed out that, it is regarding the power of the Gram Nyayalayas to take cognizance of any such offence, and not the power which authorizes the Gram Nyayalaya to punish the person for such period.
6. The Committee also heard the presentation of the Secretary, Legislative Department on 7th June, 2007 and 14th June, 2007. The Secretary, Ministry of Panchayati Raj deposed before the Committee on the Bill on 1st August, 2007. The Committee held in house discussion on the Bill on 8th August, 2007 and took up clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill on 16th August, 2007. The draft Report on the Bill was adopted on 29th August, 2007.
CHAPTER II
Deliberations/ Recommendations of the
Committee on various provisions of the Bill
7. The Committee took into consideration the recommendations in the Report of Justice Sohani Committee constituted by the Government of Madhya Pradesh on Gram Nyayalayas and that of the Law Commission of India on ‘Alternative forum for resolution of disputes at grass-roots level’ contained in its 114th Report (1986), while examining this Bill.
8. While examining the Bill, the Committee took note of Article 39A of the Constitution of India providing for Equal justice and free legal aid.- The State shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice, on a basis of equal opportunity, and shall, in particular, provide free legal aid, by suitable legislation or schemes or in any other way, to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities.
9. The
Secretary, Legislative Department (Ministry of Law and Justice), while making a
presentation on the Gram Nyayalayas Bill, 2007 informed the Committee that the
Government has identified the States in which these Gram Nyayalayas would be
established at the intermediate Panchayat levels. Approximately 5,064 places
where the Gram Nyayalayas at intermediate Panchayat levels were proposed to be
set up. So far as financial implications
are concerned, there are two types of expenditures i.e., recurring expenditure and non-recurring
expenditure. The recurring expenditure
would be on the appointment of the Nyayadhikaris and of the pleaders, court
clerks, stenographers, etc. and their salaries. The issue of recurring
expenditure was also discussed in the Law Ministers’ Conference at
10. The Committee notes that the aim of this
legislation is to reduce the number of pending cases. It also notes that the system of Lok Adalats,
fast track courts and other methods were adopted and even the Criminal
Procedure Code was amended to reduce backlog of cases. The Committee also took note of
plea-bargaining as adopted in United
States of America, in order to speed up delivery of justice and consequently.
The Committee was told that 90 per cent of the cases are disposed of through
plea-bargaining. The Committee strongly feels for bringing in plea-bargaining in
this legislation.
11.1. The Committee feels that in the present scenario, rural poor are reluctant to approach the Courts because the process of litigation is expensive, formal, and highly technical. The Committee, during its discussions, could gather that setting up of Gram Nyayalayas at the level of Panchayat at intermediate level throughout the country will require huge funds both from the Central and the State exchequers in respect of buildings- for residential purposes and for the Headquarters of Gram Nyayalayas, salaries and allowances to the Nyayadhikaris and staff and other infrastructural expenses.
11.2. The Committee is also aware of the huge backlog of cases and inordinate delays in disposal of cases in courts at all levels. The Committee is of the opinion that people belonging to the underprivileged classes are the majority victims of this state of affairs of the judicial system and that it is high time that due consideration/attention is given to the reforms in judicial administration pertaining to such classes.
11.3. The Committee applauds the intention of the Government in bringing forward this Bill i.e.,ensuring access to justice to citizens at grass root level. It appreciates the earnestness of the Government to clear the backlog of cases. But, the Committee, during its deliberations, expressed doubts as to whether setting up of Gram Nyayalayas as proposed in this Bill alone will reduce pendency of cases. It is of the considered opinion that there are certain incongruencies in the Bill which would defeat the noble objective of the Bill, which is to render inexpensive, easily available, non-formal and substantial justice. In the view of the Committee, the following are the incongruencies:
Jurisdiction
of Gram Nyayalayas
12.0. Clause 3(3) of the Bill provides that a Gram Nyayalaya shall be the lowest court of subordinate judiciary in the State. However, the Committee takes cognizance of the fact that as per Section 29 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the Court of a Magistrate of the Second Class is the lowest court.
12.1. Further, as per clause 14(2)(i) of the Bill, Gram Nyayalayas will exercise jurisdiction over all offences under the Central Acts where the maximum punishment provided for is imprisonment not exceeding one year, whether with or without fine. At the same time, the Committee notes that a Second Class Magistrate has jurisdiction over cases wherein imprisonment is less than one year or fine is less than 5000 rupees.
12.2. This
would mean that as per the Bill, Gram Nyayalayas will have jurisdiction over
cases wherein maximum punishment is imprisonment for less than one year. As per
Section 29(3) of CrPC, a Court of Magistrate of the second class may pass a
sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year. Therefore, the Committee feels that there is overlapping of jurisdiction of Second
Class Judicial Magistrate Courts and the proposed Gram Nyayalayas.
12.3. Clause
14(1) of the Bill provides that Gram Nyayalayas
may take cognizance of all
offences specified in Part I of the first Schedule. Further, clause 28 of the
Bill provides that the Gram Nyayalayas shall not take cognizance of any offence
which is punishable with imprisonment for more than one year. However, the
Committee notes that many offences in Part I entail maximum punishment of
imprisonment of more than one year. Therefore,
it is of the opinion that these clauses are not in conformity with each other.
12.4. The Committee notes that a first class
magistrate court can grant sentence of maximum imprisonment of three years according to Section 29(2) of
CrPC. Hence it feels that if the Gram Nyayalayas are First Class Magistrate
Courts, this anomaly will in effect be rectified.
12.5. Moreover, clause 6(1) (a) of the Bill provides that a Nyayadhikari should be eligible to be appointed as a Judicial Magistrate of the first class.
12.6. The Committee finds no coherent reason as to why a person who is eligible to be appointed as a Magistrate of the first class would opt to be appointed as Nyayadhikari in the Gram Nyayalayas which, as proposed in the Bill, is subordinate to the Court of Magistrate of the first class.
12.7. Clause 25 of the Bill provides that if at any stage of the proceedings it appears to the Gram Nyayalaya that the case is one which ought to be tried by a Judicial Magistrate of the first class or any other superior court, or if at the close of a trial, the Gram Nyayalayas is of the opinion that the accused is guilty and that he ought to receive a punishment more severe than that which the Gram Nyayalayas is empowered to impose, it shall submit the case to the appropriate Magistrate having jurisdiction who shall transfer the case to his own court and proceed according to law.
12.8. Since the main objective of the Bill is
speedy and inexpensive justice, the Committee feels that this clause, if
accepted, would result in a situation wherein cases will be transferred from
Gram Nyayalayas to the courts for adjudication, and that too, even at the fag
end of the trial. The Committee is of the opinion that the true yardstick to
measure the effectiveness of a change proposed to be introduced is the benefits
that will be accrued to an average citizen who is the consumer of such change.
It is of the view that such uncertainty would create confusion in the minds of litigants regarding
the jurisdiction of Gram Nyayalayas in
criminal/civil cases. They will ultimately be pushed from pillar to post to get
relief and this will defeat the very noble objective of access to justice at
the grass root level.
12.9. Moreover, the Committee fears that such transfer of cases will eventually result
in greater pendency of cases. Thus, the ultimate cause of alleviating the
backlog of cases in Courts will not be fulfilled. The Committee is
apprehensive that inspite of incurring huge
expenditure for the setting up and functioning of Gram Nyayalayas, the
objective will not be achieved.
12.10. Clause 32(2) provides that the Gram Nyayalaya shall not be bound by the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or the rules of evidence as laid down in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and subject to the other provisions of this Act and any rule made by the High Court, the Gram Nyayalaya shall have the power to regulate its own procedure including the fixing of places and times of its proceedings.
12.11. The Committee is of the view that the Gram
Nyayalayas should not be exempted from the Code of Civil Procedure and the
Indian Evidence Act . Further, the issue
of exemption from CPC and Evidence Act will not arise if the
recommendation of this Committe that Judicial First Class Magistrate/ Munsiff
Courts should be Gram Nyayalayas is accepted.
Exclusion
of jurisdiction
12.12. The Committee notes that clause 18 of the Bill excludes disputes against the Government and revenue claims from the jurisdiction of Gram Nyayalayas.
12.13. The Committee is of the view that disputes
against Government and revenue disputes arise frequently at the grass root
level. They might even constitute the bulk of disputes. The Committee feels
that such exclusion would result in many disputes not coming under the
jurisdiction of Gram Nyayalayas. In such an event, the Committee is of the
opinion that this would defeat the purpose of the Bill, which is access to
justice at the grass root level.
Therefore, it recommends that there is no necessity for such exclusion.
Extension
of jurisdiction
12.14. The Government of NCT of
……..Since the Panchayat Raj
system is not in existence in
12.15. The Committee, during its deliberations on the
Bill, felt that the benefits of Gram Nyayalayas should be made available to the
people living in towns and cities more so in the urbanised villages also, so
that participatory justice is made available to the public, irrespective of
their place of residence. Since huge expenditure is anticipated to be incurred
for Gram Nyayalayas, the Committee is of the view that its fruits should be enjoyed by the maximum citizens.
Therefore, it recommends that such Nyayalayas
which would be mobile courts should be envisaged for urban areas also.
Career
prospects of Nyayadhikari
12.16. Furthermore, the Committee notes that as per the provisions of the Bill, there are no further career prospects for Nyayadhikaris. The Committee feels that this is a disincentive and that it would be a hindrance to attracting best talent to the arena of administration of justice. Moreover, the Committee notes that the maximum age limit for Nyayadhikaris is prescribed as 45 years. This would imply that a person below this age, who will be at the hey days of his career, will have to opt to be appointed as Nyayadhikari, when better avenues will be available to him at this age.
12.17. The Committee is constrained to note that as
per the provisions of this Bill, a person appointed in the post of Nyaydhikari
would remain in the same post till retirement. It is of the view that this
provision is a major dissuading factor in attracting best talent to the
subordinate judiciary.
12.18. Therefore, the Committee is of the opinion
that the Nyayadhikari should be entitled to the salaries and all the service
conditions as a Judicial first Class Magistrate. This will ensure their career
progression and thereby, better talent would be attracted into this cadre.
Execution
of decrees/ orders
12.19. The
Committee, while deliberating upon the Bill, observed that the strength of
police personnel in most of the States in the country is far from satisfactory.
Though the Bill provides that every police officer functioning within the local
limits of jurisdiction of a Gram Nyayalaya shall be bound to assist the Gram
Nyayalaya in the exercise of its lawful authority in clause 43(1), the Committee has a reasonable apprehension
that due to severe strain on human resources of the State police, this
provision may not be rendered fruitful.
The Committee feels that this would hamper the functioning of Gram
Nyayalayas in general and execution of its orders in particular. More so because the Gram Nyayalayas are not
armed with contempt jurisdiction. This can be resolved only if the Gram
Nyayalayas are first class magistrate courts.
Mobile Courts
12.20. The Secretary, Legislative Department while
deposing on the Bill, stated that the concept of mobile court is being
experienced in
12.21. The Committee is of the opinion that inorder
to ensure participatory system of justice, expeditious disposal of disputes and
access to justice at grass root level, mobile courts is a good mechanism. It is
of the view that mobile courts would be the best method to ensure delivery of
justice at the doorstep. Therefore, the Committee recommends that the Gram
Nyayalayas shall be Mobile Courts.
12.22. The Committee could gather that the Government
had extended the term of Fast Track Courts at the District level upto 31st
March, 2010 and that a sum of Rs. 509 crore had been provided for this
programme. It notes that its success rate has been commendable. Therefore, it recommends that the Government
should take a cue from this and establish
Gram Nyayalayas in the same line
as Fast Track Courts.
Reservation
12.23. Clause 6(2) of the Bill provides that while appointing a Nyayadhikari, representation shall be given, as far as practicable, to the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, women and any other classes or communities as may be specified by the State Government from time to time.
12.24. The Committee apprehends that the phrase ‘as
far as practicable’ will dilute the enforceability of reservation and
therefore, recommends that reservation should be made mandatory as per policy
of the Government.
Financial
Statement
12.25. The Committee, during its deliberations raised an apprehension regarding the financial implications as it would not be possible to work out the exact expenditure that would be required and how the Budgetary support would reach the State Governments. The Committee was worried as a District Munsif or a District Judge is not having sufficient funds for his day-to-day affairs.
12.26. The Committee also voiced its concern over the mode of sharing of expenditure to be incurred for the setting up and functioning of Gram Nyayalayas.
12.27. The Committee gathers from various State Governments that they are already reeling under severe resource crunch and that they would not be able to bear the expenditure of Gram Nyayalayas despite the fact that Central Government would bear the entire non recurring cost for three years. Most of the State Governments have submitted that they require cent percent funding from the Central Government to meet both recurring and non-recurring expenditure.
12.28. In this regard, the Committee however feels
that at least for five year period, these courts should be fully supported by
the Government of India rather than allowing the State Governments to have a
stake on it. Many States are saying that they cannot run even the present court
system due to financial disabilities. Therefore,
the Committee recommends that the Government of India should come forward and
bear, for five years, both the recurring and no-recurring expenses.
12.29. Meanwhile, an objective study should be
conducted to gauge the success rate of Gram Nyayalayas and if they are found to
have achieved the objective of speedy and inexpensive justice, the Gram
Nyayalayas should continue. The
Committee opines that the expenses incurred thereafter, should be met by the
State Government and Central Government on sharing basis. It feels that when
the litigants are satisfied with the functioning of Gram Nyayalayas and pendency of cases is reduced, it would be
rightful to expect that the State Governments which are benefited by the same,
should share the financial burden.
Plan expenditure
12.30. The Committee is of the view that a society which is peaceful and rife free is sine qua non for better human resources and enhanced productivity. If individuals/groups could solve disputes quickly and the acceptance of the dispute resolution is also ensured, then productivity of the individual/groups will be more.
12.31. The Committee is aware of the reality that in villages, people sell agricultural property and dwelling houses to conduct cases through the court system. If Gram Nyayalayas could deliver justice at their doorstep, they will be free of such shackles and their capacity to produce goods and assets will be enhanced. Moreover, it will make them dynamic and vibrant citizens. Thus the human productivity index of our nation will also increase.
12.32. If we apply this basic economic principle, the Committee feels that the expenditure in the Department of Justice on Gram Nyayalayas should be made as plan expenditure just as the Government is spending for roads, education, health, infrastructure etc. which are necessary for increasing the productivity of the nation. This thought may not have been considered by the international funding agencies or the Government of India.
12.33. Taking into account all the socio- political
issues, the Committee strongly feels that the expenditure incurred on Gram
Nyayalayas should also be treated as an investment on human resources and hence
be made as plan expenditure and that the Ministry of Finance should allot
specific amount under this head.
12.34.The
Committee is of the view that whenever a legislation is introduced in Parliament, the financial
statement accompanying the Bill should
be religiously looked into and scientific empirical calculation should be made
anticipating the expenses which are likely to be incurred. There should also be
specific budget allocation for enforcement of each enactment. Further, certain
percentage of budget allocation made to the respective Departments should also
be diverted for utilization for the implementation of the enactment through
that particular Department. Notionally, it can be said that atleast 5 to 10 % of budgetary allocation of the
nodal Department should automatically be allotted to the Department of Justice
so that they can have well equipped judicial system, right from the Gram
Nyayalayas to the highest forum. The
Committee has a reasonable apprehension that unless a specific dedicated
allotment is made from the budget for Gram Nyayalayas, it will
become yet another programme which is colorful in paper and not in action. Such
state of affairs will ultimately make the people lose faith in the democratic
process.
Conclusions
and recommendations of the Committee
12.35. Some Members of the Committee were of the opinion that this Bill should not be proceeded further. They felt that instead of having a parallel system of judiciary dealing with these categories of cases, the funds available should be made available for strengthening the existing infrastructure, to have more subordinate courts, have more number of magistrates, to create better infrastructure and other facilities and that the subordinate judiciary should be strengthened.
12.36. The Committee noted that bringing in the proposed legislation for
the creation of Gram Nyayalayas would only add another tier in the judicial
hierarchy, besides creating confusion in the minds of the common man, who might
be forced to run from pillar to post to seek justice, with no clear guidelines
laid down to guide him as to whom he should approach for a particular
offence/injustice committed against him.
This aspect should thoroughly be examined by the Government before proceeding
further with the Bill.
12.37.The Committee takes note of the fact that before the amendment of the Code of Criminal Procedure in 1973, the last tier in the hierarchy of criminal courts was the Magistrates of the Third Class. The Third Class Magistrate Courts could pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month or of fine not exceeding fifty rupees. Since it was felt that this resulted in pendency of cases, the Magistrates of the Third Class were abolished. Here it is pertinent to note that the Gram Nyayalayas are envisaged in the Bill as the lowest court of subordinate judiciary, thereby adding another tier. The Committee is of the strong view that adding another tier in the subordinate judiciary would eventually lead to the pre-amendment situation. Also, it will not have significant positive impact on the backlog of cases. This aspect also needs to be thoroughly examined.
12.38.The
Committee also feels that the Gram Nyayalayas
would face difficulties in executing their orders/decrees because the
local police personnel might not co-operate fully since Gram Nyayalayas are not
granted same powers as regular Courts and also because of shortage of staff in
the State police. Moreover, only if the orders/decrees of Gram Nyayalayas are
executed quickly, speedy and inexpensive justice can be delivered. In order to
ensure quick execution of powers the Committee is of the strong view that Gram
Nyayalayas should be armed with all the powers enjoyed by a
12.39.Further more, the litigants who approach Gram Nyayalayas should not have the feeling that the forum which they are approaching is in any way inferior to the regular Courts. A sense of confidence should be instilled in their minds that they will get the same justice in Gram Nyayalayas as they would get in regular courts, but with less wastage of time, money and efforts. The Committee was of the unanimous view that if the recommendations made in the foregoing paragraphs are implemented, Gram Nyayalayas just as Judicial first class Magistrate/Munsiff Courts are functioning at present, with the only distinction that they will be “ Mobile People’s Courts” in the true sense.
12.40.The Committee is of the opinion that rule of law cannot be achieved unless courts are created commensurate with the workload of courts. It feels that creation of more Courts, rather than creation of an additional tier would ease out the burden presently experienced by Courts. Therefore, it recommends that additional Courts of the Magistrate of the first class/ Munsiff should be created as Gram Nyayalayas which would function as mobile Courts.
12.41.The Committee wishes to place on record reservations regarding the setting up of Gram Nyayalayas as per the provisions of this Bill. Having said so, in the event of the Government being very keen to go ahead with this Bill in its present form, it should take into consideration the observations/recommendations of the Committee.
CLAUSE BY CLAUSE CONSIDERATION OF THE
BILL
Clause 2
13.0.The Committee considered the definitions provided in this clause.
13.1.During the deliberations of the Committee, it was felt that since huge expenditure is envisaged by the Government to set up and for the functioning of Gram Nyayalayas and since underprivileged classes exist in urban areas also, the benefits of this noble venture should not be restricted to the rural populace only.
13.2.This view was expressed by the Chairman of the Committee as follows:
……..You are very much clear that it is only for rural areas, but there is a suggestion that you can take up the urban areas also. There are many slums and other places, remote areas, inside the urban area itself.…
13.3.Therefore, the Committee recommends that
urban areas where people handicapped by social, economic or other disabilities
also reside should be included in the definition clause itself of the Gram
Nyayalayas Bill, 2007.
13.4.Subject to the above
observations/recommendations, the clause was adopted.
Clause 3
Clause 3(1)
14.0.Clause 3(1) of the Bill provides for establishment of one or more Gram Nyayalayas for every Panchyayat at intermediate level or group of contiguous Panchayats at intermediate level in a district or where there is no Panchyat at intermediate level in any State, for a group of contiguous Gram Panchyayats.
14.1.The
Committee felt that since the intermediate level Panchayats differ from State
to State, practical difficulties would arise at the implementation stage of
Gram Nyayalayas. Therefore, the
Committee recommends that the role of Gram Nyayalayas should be complementary to
the regular First Class Magistrate Courts. This would also allay any confusion
which might arise regarding the territorial jurisdiction of Gram Nyayalayas.
This needs to be clarified in this clause of the Bill.
14.2. Further
more, since Gram Nyayalayas are envisaged as Mobile Courts, the Committee was
of the considered opinion that they could have a complementary role alongwith
the regular subordinate Courts in reducing pendency of cases and enabling
better access to justice to the common man.
Clause 3(3)
15.0. Clause 3(3) of the Bill provides that a Gram Nyayalaya shall be the lowest court of subordinate judiciary in the State.
15.1. Taking into account various practical realities, the Committee opines that creating one more tier in the subordinate judiciary is not called for at this juncture. This opinion was voiced by the Committee as under:
……..If
you want to make additions and if you want that there should not be any pending
cases, and speedy justice should be given, there was a suggestion that you have
to contemplate that it should be equal to the present existing system. But it
should be an additional court, just like a
15.2. Moreover, since the main objective of
creating an additional tier is clearing the backlog of cases and ensuring that
justice is accessible to all irrespective of disabilities, the Committee recommends that envisaging
Judicial First Class Magistrate/Munsiff Courts as Gram Nyayalayas which would
be Mobile Courts, would achieve this objective.
15.3. Subject
to the above observations/recommendations, the clause was adopted.
Clause 4
16.0. Clause
4 of the Bill was adopted without suggesting any change.
Clause 5
Clause 5(2)
17.0. Clause 5(2) of the Bill provides that the Nyayadhikari shall be appointed by the Governor of the State in consultation with the High Court in accordance with the rules made in this behalf.
17.1. The Committee, while deliberating upon the appointment of Nyayadhikari, observed as follows:
………A sitting Magistrate or Munsiff may be appointed as the Nyayadhikari of the Gram Nyayalaya, instead of having a separate recruitment system without setting the service conditions, promotions, future aspects and all other things. You put a sitting District Munsiff or First Class district Magistrate as the Nyayadhikari………..
17.2. The
Committee recommends that the Gram Nyayalayas
should be Judicial First Class Magistrate/Munsiff Courts and that there
should be no separate recruitment rules for Nyayadhikari. It recommends that
the recruitment process of Nyayadhikari should be the same as that of the
Judicial First Class Magistrate/Munsiff. Since the eligibility to be appointed
as Nyayadhikari is same as that of Judicial Magistrate of the first class, they
should be appointed in the regular judicial stream.
17.3. Subject
to the above observations/recommendations, the clause was adopted.
18.0. Clause 6(1) of the Bill lays down the qualifications for appointment as Nyayadhikari.
18.1. In
this regard, the Committee recommends that in order to attract talented persons
to the post of Nyayadhikari, it is essential that the service conditions of the
post are good. As per this Bill, a person appointed in the post of Nyayadhikari
would remain in the same post till retirement. The Committee feels that this
will be a dissuading factor. Therefore, the Committee
recommends that the Nyayadhikaris should be made part of the State Judicial
Services. It was of the view that this would ensure that deserving persons will
progress in future based upon his merit.
Clause
6(2)
18.2. Clause 6(2) of the Bill provides for reservation in the appointment of Nyayadhikari.
18.3. This
clause was widely discussed. The Committee was of the
strong view that reservation should be made mandatory. Therefore the term ‘as
far as practicable’ may be deleted.
18.4. Subject
to the above observations/recommendations, the clause was adopted.
Clause
7
19.0. Clause 7 of the Bill provides for the constitution of the cadre of Nyayadhikari of Gram Nyayalayas.
19.1. Since the Committee’s
recommendation is that the Gram Nyayalayas should be Judicial First Class
Magistrate Courts, it was of the considered view that this clause is not
necessary.
19.2. The
clause may accordingly be deleted.
20.0. Clause 8 of the Bill lays down the grounds for removal of Gram Nyayalayas.
20.1. Since
the Committee’s recommendation is that the Gram Nyayalayas should be Judicial
First Class Magistrate Courts, the conditions of removal of Nyayadhikari from
his office should be the same as that of the Judicial First Class Magistrate. Therefore, the Committee was of the opinion that there is no need to
spell out the grounds for removal in the Gram Nyayalayas Bill, 2007.
20.2. The
clause may accordingly be deleted.
Clause
9
21.0. Clause
9 of the Bill lays down the terms and conditions of service of
Nyayadhikaris.
21.1. Since the recommendation of
this Committee is that the Gram Nyayalayas should be Judicial First Class
Magistrate Courts, the Committee is of the view that this clause is not needed.
21.2. Subject
to the above observations/recommendations, the clause was adopted.
Clause 10
22.0. Clause 10 of the
Bill was adopted without suggesting any change.
Clause 11
23.0. Clause 11 of the
Bill was adopted without suggesting any change.
Clause 12
24.0. Clause 12 of the
Bill was adopted without suggesting any change.
Clause 13
25.0. Clause
13 of the Bill defines the limits of the territorial jurisdiction of Gram
Nyayalayas.
25.1. The Committee was of the
opinion that this would unnecessarily bifurcate the present jurisdiction of
Judicial First Class Magistrate/Munsiff Courts. Therefore, it was felt that the
Gram Nyayalayas should be Judicial First Class Magistrate/Munsiff Courts.
25.2. Subject to the above
observations/recommendations, the clause was adopted.
Clause 14
26.0. Clause
14 of the Bill prescribes the criminal jurisdiction of Gram Nyayalayas.
26.1. While
deliberating upon this clause, the Committee noted that Section 29 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 lays down the hierarchy in the subordinate
judiciary. It felt that there is no need at present which warrants change in
this hierarchy. If Gram Nyayalayas are made the lowest Court in the subordinate
judiciary, it will necessitate redefinition of penal/pecuniary jurisdiction of
the Judicial first Class Magistrate/Munsiff Courts. The Committee felt that
this would give rise to practical difficulties. Moreover, this would arouse confusion/ ambiguity in the minds
of litigants as regards the powers/jurisdiction of Gram Nyayalayas.
26.2. This
view of the Committee was summarized by the Chairman as under:
…….The Committee had already suggested that there should not
be any ambiguity for a person who is a complainant, who comes forward with a
complaint before a Nyayadhikari; he cannot be expected to know that this
Magistrate is going to give only one year’s punishment and during the course of
the evidence if he finds that it is punishable for one year more, then he will
transfer the case to the District Judge or District Sessions Judge or the
appropriate authority. If that is so, the basic purpose of creating this system
itself fails. Therefore, if you give the First-Class Magistrate power for this
Nyayadhikari, then automatically, he gets the power to punish for a limit of three years and he has got the
power to punish for Rs. 10,000 fine also according to the definition given in
Section 29 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, here we want to suggest
those thing. Instead of creating doubts in the mind of the complainant to
search for the forum, we should be very clear in telling him that this is the
first level, the magisterial level or the civil court level, and you can have
that limit of powers; you can seek that remedy with that………..
26.3. Therefore, the Committee
recommends that the Gram Nyayalayas
should be the Judicial First Class Magistrate/Munsiff Courts, which
would ensure that the offences to be tried
by the Gram Nyayalayas will automatically be the same as that of
Judicial First Class Magistrate/Munsiff Courts.
Clause 14 (2)
27.0. The
Committee, while discussing this clause, noted that plea bargaining is provided
in Section 265 (A-L) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is of the
opinion that plea bargaining should be made applicable for litigants
approaching the Gram Nyayalayas also. Therefore, it
recommends that plea bargaining should also be included in 14(2) as 14(2) (iv).
27.1. Subject
to the above observations/recommendations, the clause was adopted.
Clause 15
28.0. Clause 15 of the Bill was
adopted without suggesting any change.
Clause 16
29.0. Clause
16 of the Bill lays down the powers of the Central Government to amend
Schedules of the Bill.
29.1. The Committee opined that
when Gram Nyayalayas are granted the
same powers and status as Judicial First Class Magistrate Courts, there is no
need for clause 16.
29.2. The
clause may accordingly be deleted.
Clause 17
30.0. Clause
17 of the Bill provides that Gram Nyayalayas shall have exclusive jurisdiction
in respect of certain disputes.
30.1. The Committee opined that
when Gram Nyayalayas are Judicial First
Class Magistrate Courts, there is no need for clause 17.
30.2. The
clause may accordingly be deleted.
Clause 18
31.0. Clause
18 of the Bill lays down certain disputes which are not to be tried by Gram
Nyayalayas.
31.1. The Committee
opined that when Gram Nyayalayas are
Judicial First Class Magistrate Courts, there is no need for clause 18.
31.2. The
clause may accordingly be deleted.
Clause 19
32.0. Clause
19 of the Bill prescribes the circumstances under which a case can be closed by
the Nyayadhikari.
32.1. The Committee opined that
when Gram Nyayalayas are Judicial First Class Magistrate Courts, there is no
need for clause 19.
32.2. The
clause may accordingly be deleted.
Clause 20
33.0. Clause 20 of the Bill was
adopted without suggesting any change.
Clause 21
34.0. Clause 21 of the Bill was
adopted without suggesting any change.
Clause 22
35.0. Clause 22 of the Bill was
adopted without suggesting any change.
Clause 23
Clause 23 (1) and (2)
36.0. The Committee
was of the opinion that since summary procedure is provided in the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 there is no need for specific reference to the same in
the Bill.
36.1. The
clause may accordingly be deleted.
Clause 24
37.0. Clause
24 of the Bill deals with pronouncement of Judgment by Gram Nyayalayas.
37.1. The Committee recommends
that since this is a procedural matter, the High Court can direct accordingly.
37.2. Subject
to the above observations/recommendations, the clause was adopted.
Clause 25
38.0. Clause
25 of the Bill prescribes the power of Gram Nyayalayas to transfer cases.
38.1. The
Committee is constrained to note that if the cases are referred in the manner
provided in this clause, it would lead to adding to the backlog of cases which
exists already. Furthermore, the litigants will be forced to run from one forum
to the other in search of justice. The Committee feels that such a situation is
against the very concept of speedy justice. Taking this into account, the
Committee feels that there is need for clarity as regards jurisdiction of Gram
Nyayalayas. It also observed that if Gram Nyayalayas are
Judicial first Class Magistrate, such anomalies can be rectified.
38.2. Subject
to the above observations/recommendations, the clause was adopted.
Clause 26
39.0. Clause 26 of the Bill was
adopted without suggesting any change.
Clause 27
40.0. Clause
27 of the Bill lays down the power of Gram Nyayalayas to compound cases.
40.1. The
Committee takes note of the fact that clause 14(2) (iii) of this Bill provides
for trial of compoundable offences by Gram Nyayalayas as well and therefore,
opines that it is repetitive.
40.2. The
clause may accordingly be deleted.
Clause 28
41.0. Clause
28 of the Bill specifies the classes of
offences, the cognizance of which cannot be taken by Gram Nyayalayas.
41.1. The
Committee, while deliberating upon this
Clause, observed that in the event of Gram Nyayalayas being Judicial First Class Magistrate Courts,
as per its recommendation, its jurisdiction will also be the same. Therefore,
the need for this clause does not arise.
41.2. The
Committee is constrained to note that this clause is in contradiction to clause
14(1)(a) of the Bill. The reason for this contradiction is that certain
offences classified in Part I of the Schedule entail maximum punishment of
imprisonment for three years and as per clause
41.4. The Committee recommends
that this clause may be deleted.
Clause 29
42.0. Clause 29 of the Bill was
adopted without suggesting any change.
Clause 30
43.0. Clause 30 of the Bill was
adopted without suggesting any change.
Clause 31
44.0. Clause 31 of the Bill was
adopted without suggesting any change.
Clause 32
Clause 32(2)
45.0. The
Committee notes that on the one hand, clause 32(1) provides that Gram
Nyayalayas shall be deemed to be a civil
court and on the other, clause 32(2) provides that Gram Nyayalayas shall not be
bound by the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is of
the opinion that contradictory procedures are given in the same clause.
45.1. Moreover,
the Committee is of the view that since Gram Nyayalayas are envisaged as the
lowest court of subordinate judiciary, the substantive and procedural laws
should be made applicable to them in the same manner as to regular courts. It
is of the opinion that granting exemption from such laws might result in
miscarriage of justice, which is antithesis to rule of law.
45.2. Therefore, it recommends
that this contradiction should be thoroughly analysed by the Government and
that this clause may be suitably amended.
45.3. Subject
to the above observations/recommendations, the clause was adopted.
Clause 33
Clause 33 (1)-(9) and (11)
46.0. The Committee while deliberating upon this
clause, takes note of the fact that the provisions (1)-(11) of the Bill are
already provided in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Since clause 32(1) of
the Bill provides that the Gram Nyayalayas shall be deemed to be a civil court,
the Committee feels that this clause is not needed. In view of the above, the Committee recommends that this fact should be
looked into by the Government.
Clause 33 (10)
46.1. An
apprehension was raised in the memoranda received by the Committee that though
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 stipulates the disposal of cases within a
period of ninety days, rarely cases are disposed within this time limit.
46.2. Taking this into account,
the Committee recommends that the time limit for disposal of cases may be
extended to six month.
Clause 33 (12)
46.3. This
clause provides that a copy of the order shall be delivered to both the parties
within three days on payment of such fees as may be prescribed by the State
Government.
46.4. The Committee
notes that clause 24(2) of the Bill
provides that the Gram Nyayalayas shall deliver a copy of its judgment immediately
to both the parties free of cost in criminal cases. Keeping in view the fact
that the Bill is proposed for the benefit of citizens suffering from social,
economic or other disabilities, the
Committee is of the opinion that exemption from payment of fees to procure a
copy of the order should be given in civil cases also.
46.5.
Subject to the above
observations/recommendations, the clause was adopted.
Clause 34
47.0. Clause 34 of the
Bill was adopted without suggesting any change.
Clause 35
48.0. Clause 35 of the Bill was
adopted without suggesting any change.
Clause 36
49.0. Clause 36 of the Bill was
adopted without suggesting any change.
Clause 37
50.0. Clause 37 of the Bill was
adopted without suggesting any change.
Clause 38
51.0. Clause 38 of the Bill was
adopted without suggesting any change.
Clause 39
52.0. Clause 39 of the Bill was
adopted without suggesting any change.
Clause 40
Clause 40(1)
53.0. Clause
40(1) of the Bill provides that an appeal against any order or sentence passed
by a Gram Nyayalaya in a criminal matter shall lie to the Court of Sessions
exercising jurisdiction over the area within which the Gram Nyayalaya is
situated, within thirty days or the passing of such order or sentence.
53.1. The
Committee, while discussing this clause, found no valid reason as to why the
period of limitation provided in the CrPC in this regard should not be made
applicable to Gram Nyayalayas also. Moreover, it goes against the statutory
right granted to litigants in this regard.
53.2. Therefore, the
Committee recommends that the time limit for filing an appeal against any order
or sentence passed by a Gram Nyayalayas
in a criminal matter should be the same as that in CrPC.
53.3. Subject
to the above observations/recommendations, the clause was adopted.
Clause 41
Clause 41(1)
54.0. Clause
41(1) provides that an appeal against any final order or judgment passed by a
Gram Nyayalaya in a civil matter shall lie to the District Court exercising
jurisdiction over the area within which the Gram Nyayalaya is situated within
thirty days of the passing of such order or judgment.
54.1. The Committee
recommends that period of limitation for appeal in civil cases should be the
same as that provided in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
54.2. Subject to the above
observations/recommendations, the clause was adopted.
Clause 42
55.0. Clause 42 of the Bill was
adopted without suggesting any change.
Clause 43
56.0. Clause
43 of the Bill deals with the assistance to be given to Gram Nyayalayas by the police.
56.1. The
Committee, while deliberating upon this clause, took note of the apprehensions
raised by majority of Members of the Committee that in the present scenario,
the strength of the State police personnel is not satisfactory and that their
co-operation in issuing summons, warrants etc. as part of the adjudicatory
process by courts is far from satisfactory. Taking serious note of such
constraints, the Committee has reasonable apprehensions as to how far a police
officer functioning within the local limits of jurisdiction of a Gram
Nyayalayas will assist be in a position
to assist it. Such apprehensions are reinforced by the fact that the Gram
Nyayalayas do not have powers to punish
for contempt.
56.2. In view of the above, the
Committee recommends that if Gram Nyayalayas are Judicial First Class
Magistrate/Munsiff Courts, it will give them more teeth.
56.3. Subject
to the above observations/recommendations, the clause was adopted.
Clause 44
57.0. Clause 44 of the Bill was
adopted without suggesting any change.
Clause 45
58.0. Clause 45 of the Bill was
adopted without suggesting any change.
Clause 46
59.0. Clause 46 of the Bill was
adopted without suggesting any change.
Clause 47
60.0. Clause 47 of the Bill was
adopted without suggesting any change.
Clause 48
61.0. Clause 48 of the Bill was
adopted without suggesting any change.
Clause 1
Clause 1(2)
62.0. While
deliberating upon this clause, the Committee was of the opinion that instead of
exempting tribal areas, the entire
62.1. Subject
to the above observations/recommendations, the clause was adopted.
63.0. The
enacting formula of the Bill was adopted without suggesting any change.
Long Title
64.0. During
the discussions of the Committee, it was felt that since huge expenditure is
envisaged by the Government to set up and for the functioning of Gram
Nyayalayas, the benefits of this venture should not be restricted to the rural
population only. Therefore, it recommends that
urban areas/slums in urban areas where people handicapped by social, economic
or other disabilities also reside should be included under the purview of the
Gram Nyayalayas Bill, 2007.
64.1. Keeping in view this
recommendation, the long title of the Bill
should be suitably modified.
Short Title
65.1. During the deliberations of the Committee, it could gather that a Bill on the Nyaya Panchyayats is also under active consideration of the Government. It felt that confusion could arise in the minds of the public because the nomenclature of that Bill and the Gram Nyayalayas Bill, 2007 are similar, especially since the beneficiaries of both the Bills are as envisaged at present, the rural population.
65.2. Since
the recommendation of this Committee is that Gram Nyayalayas may be the Courts
of Magistrate of the First Class/ Munsiff Courts, a suggestion was put
forwarded that the title may be the
“Fast Track Gram/Nagar Nyayalayas Bill,
65.3. Therefore,
the Committee recommends that the title of this Bill may suitably be amended so
as to remove confusion.
--------------