Supreme Court Upholds Amendments to Civil Procedure Code to Expedite Justice Delivery

Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India, Validated Section 89 on Alternative Dispute Resolution, clarifies summons timelines, and constitutes committee for smooth implementation

In a significant ruling dated October 25, 2002, the Supreme Court of India in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India, upheld the constitutional validity of the amendments made to the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) by the Amendment Acts of 1999 and 2002. The judgment, delivered by Chief Justice B.N. Kirpal along with Justices Y.K. Sabharwal and Arijit Pasayat, addressed key concerns raised by the legal fraternity while emphasizing the objective of these amendments - to expedite the disposal of civil cases and reduce the burden on courts.

The petitions challenging the amendments were dismissed, with the Court affirming that the changes did not violate the Constitution and fell within legislative competence. However, the Court acknowledged the need for clarifications on certain provisions and practical difficulties in their implementation.

One of the pivotal amendments discussed was to Section 27 of the CPC, which deals with the issuance of summons to defendants. The Court interpreted the amendment as setting a maximum time frame of 30 days from the institution of a suit within which summons should be issued, provided the plaintiff has completed all procedural formalities such as furnishing correct addresses and process fees. The Court clarified that delays caused by the court in issuing summons beyond this period would not be attributed to the plaintiff, thus protecting litigants from procedural lapses on the part of courts.

The introduction of new Section 89 was hailed as a progressive step to promote settlement of disputes outside the courtroom, through modes such as arbitration, conciliation, judicial settlement (including Lok Adalats), and mediation. The Court highlighted that while arbitration cases would proceed outside the judicial system, conciliation, mediation, and judicial settlement efforts would remain within the court’s supervisory framework. This measure aims to alleviate the judiciary’s caseload by encouraging Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms to resolve conflicts amicably and expeditiously.

To ensure effective implementation of Section 89 and other amendments, the Court constituted a high-powered Committee comprising sitting or retired judges nominated by the Chief Justice of India and eminent senior advocates, including Mr. Kapil Sibal, Mr. Arun Jaitley, and Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, along with the Chairman of the Bar Council of India. The Committee is tasked with ironing out operational challenges, devising model case management formulas, and framing procedural rules, especially for mediation, and is expected to submit its report within four months.

Further clarifications were provided on Section 100A, which bars further appeals beyond a Single Judge’s decision in certain cases. The Court reasoned that High Courts could designate appeals involving higher-value claims to Division Benches, thereby balancing judicial workload and safeguarding litigants’ rights without expanding intra-court appeals unnecessarily.

The Court also addressed procedural aspects under Order 7 Rule 11 relating to the rejection of plaints for non-compliance or filing defects. It stressed that courts must provide opportunities for rectification before rejecting plaints, emphasizing a fair and pragmatic approach.

Regarding the examination of witnesses, amendments to Order 18 Rule 4 mandate that examination-in-chief be conducted by affidavit in cases where witnesses are produced without summons. However, where witnesses are summoned, courts retain discretion to either accept affidavits or record oral evidence, offering flexibility to accommodate varying circumstances.

The Court dismissed concerns about the role of Commissioners in recording evidence, clarifying that courts retain discretion to record evidence themselves or delegate to Commissioners, including through audio or audiovisual mechanical recording, to prevent future disputes about authenticity.

Lastly, the deletion of Rule 17A of Order 18, which previously permitted adducing additional evidence under special circumstances, was interpreted as restoring the pre-1976 position. The Court observed this would prevent frivolous applications intended to prolong trials, preserving judicial efficiency.

The Court’s directions included circulating the judgment to all High Courts for wider compliance and disposal of pending petitions related to these amendments. The Committee is empowered to seek further directions to ensure smooth transition and implementation.

This landmark judgment reflects the Supreme Court’s commitment to modernizing civil procedure, promoting ADR, and enhancing judicial efficiency without compromising fairness to litigants.

Statutory provisions: Civil Procedure Code Section 27, Section 89, Section 100A; Order 7 Rules 9 and 11(e), (f); Order 16 Rules 1 and 1A; Order 18 Rules 4(1), 4(2), 4(3), 17A (deleted); Order 41 Rule 9

Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2362