‘Provide statutory status to Law Commission’

The Madras High Court asked the Union government to provide the Law Commission either with a statutory or a constitutional status similar to the one provided for SC/ST and Backward Classes Commission.

It was very difficult to maintain the separation of powers between judiciary, executive and legislature because the legislature consistently failed to take notice of courts’ suggestions, a division bench comprising Justice

N Kirubakaran (since retired) and Justice B Pugalendhi said it. It was worse with regard to acceptance of the Law Commission’s recommendations to enact law, the bench added.

The recommendations and suggestions by the courts were made in public interest, it said. “If it is not acted upon for decades together by legislature or Parliament, this court has to necessarily rise up to the occasion and give appropriate directions in policymaking and enactment of laws. It is the constitutional responsibility of this court to safeguard public interest. It may be criticised as judicial adventurism or judicial activism. But it is a necessary duty,” the court said.

The bench asked the Centre to elevate the Commission’s status to a statutory body or Constitutional body within six months, appointment of its chairman and members in three months and also nodal officers for each department to bring the courts’ recommendations to the notice of policymakers. If the order was not complied within that time, the Union Law and Justice

Secretary and other senior officials would be summoned, the bench warned.

The bench was passing orders on a plea seeking to direct the Centre to propose a comprehensive legislation in the field of “Torts and State Liability” as per the directions of the Supreme Court. Though the first Law Commission had made a recommendation in 1956 and despite the apex court falling for comprehensive legislation to deal with violations of fundamental rights by the State, they were not acted upon.