Aims and Objects of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was a
landmark legislation enacted by the Parliament of India to address consumer
grievances and provide comprehensive protection to consumers in the
marketplace. The Act has since been replaced by the Consumer Protection Act,
2019, but its foundational principles remain crucial.
Primary Aims and Objects:
The concepts of judicial activism and access to justice are integral to the Indian legal system. While judicial activism ensures that the judiciary steps in to uphold constitutional values, access to justice guarantees that every individual can seek redressal of grievances irrespective of socio-economic barriers. Together, they form the bedrock of a just and equitable society.
This landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India established "access to justice" as a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Below is the analysis of the case using the IRAC method.
The primary issue in this case was:
Whether "access to justice" is a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution, and if so, what are its essential components?
The judiciary in India, particularly the Supreme Court, plays a pivotal role in fostering social change by interpreting and enforcing constitutional principles. Through landmark judgments, judicial activism, and public interest litigation (PIL), the judiciary has emerged as a powerful agent of transformation, addressing societal issues and promoting justice, equality, and human rights.
Section 63 of BSA, 2023 deals with the admissibility of electronic records. Sub-section (4) of the said provision is as follows :
“(4)In any proceeding where it is desired to give a
statement in evidence by virtue of this section, a certificate doing
any of the following things shall be submitted along with the
electronic record at each instance where it is being submitted for
admission, namely:—
(a) .....
(b) ...
(c)....
and purporting to be signed by a person in charge of the
computer or communication device or the management of the
relevant activities (whichever is appropriate) and an expert shall
be evidence of any matter stated in the certificate; and for the
purposes of this sub-section it shall be sufficient for a matter to be
stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it
in the certificate specified in the Schedule.”
The effect of the above provision is that filing of the certificate is mandatory along with the electronic record. The certificate is to be signed by the person in charge of the computer system and an expert. The sub-section itself refers to a schedule annexed to the Act which is in two parts, Part A and Part B.Part A is to be filled by the party and Part B is to be filled by the expert. Section 39 of the BSA, 2023 deals with opinions of experts. Section 39(2) deals with experts in relation to electronic evidence. Section 39(2) is as follows :
“(2) When in a proceeding, the court has to form an opinion on
any matter relating to any information transmitted or stored in any
computer resource or any other electronic or digital form, the opinion of the Examiner of Electronic Evidence referred to in section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, is a relevant fact.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, an
Examiner of Electronic Evidence shall be an expert .”
The above provision takes us to Section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. It reads as follows :
“79A.Central Government to notify Examiner of Electronic Evidence.–The Central Government may, for the purposes of providing expert opinion on electronic form evidence before any court or other authority specify, by notification in the Official Gazette, any Department, body or agency of the Central Government or a State Government as an Examiner of Electronic Evidence.
Explanation.–For the purposes of this section, -electronic form evidence? means any information of probative value that is either
stored or transmitted in electronic form and includes computer
evidence, digital audio, digital video, cell phones, digital fax
machines.”
In the light of the above three provisions, namely, Section 63 and Section 39 of BSA, 2023 and Section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, one can conclude that a person desirous of relying on any electronic record as a document in evidence must submit a certificate at the time of filing the electronic record. The certificate must be in two parts, Part A and Part B. Part B must be filled up by the expert notified under Section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
6.It is admitted by the Central Government that only a handful of entities have been notified till date as experts under Section 79A of the Act. It is surprising to note that no expert has been notified in the State of Tamil Nadu. It is beyond dispute that Tamil Nadu has good I.T infrastructure and skilled manpower. Since BSA has already come into force, very soon there will be need for certificates under Section 63(4) of BSA for securing admission of electronic records. If experts are not available in Tamil Nadu, that would result in denial of the right of access to justice which is a fundamental right. I,therefore, direct the second respondent to expeditiously notify sufficient number of persons/bodies/entities as experts in the State of Tamil Nadu.The number to be so notified will have be commensurate with the possible demand. It would be advisable to have such experts in each district in Tamil Nadu. This exercise of assessment and notification shall be carried out within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Since the position as on date is that meeting the statutory requirement is not possible of compliance, the learned amicus wanted me to read down the Section so that any person who is specially skilled in computer science can be recognised as an expert for the purpose of filling up Part B of the certificate. I do not want to travel that far as that would amount to re-writing Section 79A of the I.T Act. But such an occasion may arise if the notification directed to be issued under Section 79A of the I.T Act, 2000 is not issued by the Central
Government.
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
CRP(MD)No.2362 of 2024
R..... ... Petitioner/Petitioner/Respondent
vs.
1.B..... ...Respondent/Respondent/Petitioner
2.The Secretary to Government,
Ministry of Electronics and
Information Technology
(MEITY), Government of India,
New Delhi. ... 2nd respondent
CORAM
MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
Pronounced on : 30.10.2024.
Print Page30. Four main facets that, in our opinion, constitute the essence of access to justice are:
i) The State must provide an effective adjudicatory mechanism;
ii) The mechanism so provided must be reasonably accessible in terms of distance;
iii) The process of adjudication must be speedy; and
iv) The litigant's access to the adjudicatory process must be affordable.
(i) The need for adjudicatory mechanism: One of the most fundamental requirements for providing to the citizens access to justice is to set-up an adjudicatory mechanism whether described as a Court, Tribunal, Commission or Authority or called by any other name whatsoever, where a citizen can agitate his grievance and seek adjudication of what he may perceive as a breach of his right by another citizen or by the State or any one of its instrumentalities. In order that the right of a citizen to access justice is protected, the mechanism so provided must not only be effective but must also be just, fair and objective in its approach. So also the procedure which the court, Tribunal or Authority may adopt for adjudication, must, in itself be just and fair and in keeping with the well recognized principles of natural justice.
(ii) The mechanism must be conveniently accessible in terms of distance:
The forum/mechanism so provided must, having regard to the hierarchy of courts/tribunals, be reasonably accessible in terms of distance for access to justice since so much depends upon the ability of the litigant to place his/her grievance effectively before the court/tribunal/court/competent authority to grant such a relief. (See D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal MANU/SC/0799/2015 : (2015) 8 SCC 744.
(iii) The process of adjudication must be speedy.
"Access to justice" as a constitutional value will be a mere illusion if justice is not speedy. Justice delayed, it is famously said, is justice denied. If the process of administration of justice is so time consuming, laborious, indolent and frustrating for those who seek justice that it dissuades or deters them from even considering resort to that process as an option, it would tantamount to denial of not only access to justice but justice itself. In Sheela Barse's case (supra) this Court declared speedy trial as a facet of right to life, for if the trial of a citizen goes on endlessly his right to life itself is violated. There is jurisprudentially no qualitative difference between denial of speedy trial in a criminal case, on the one hand, and civil suit, appeal or other proceedings, on the other, for ought we know that civil disputes can at times have an equally, if not, more severe impact on a citizen's life or the quality of it. Access to Justice would, therefore, be a constitutional value of any significance and utility only if the delivery of justice to the citizen is speedy, for otherwise, the right to access to justice is no more than a hollow slogan of no use or inspiration for the citizen. It is heartening to note that over the past six decades or so the number of courts established in the country has increased manifold in comparison to the number that existed on the day the country earned its freedom. There is today almost invariably a court of Civil Judge junior or senior division in every taluka and a District and Sessions Judge in every district. In terms of accessibility from the point of view of distance which a citizen ought to travel, we have come a long way since the time the British left the country. However, the increase in literacy, awareness, prosperity and proliferation of laws has made the process of adjudication slow and time consuming primarily on account of the over worked and under staffed judicial system, which is crying for creation of additional courts with requisite human resources and infrastructure to effectively deal with an ever increasing number of cases being filed in the courts and mounting backlog of over thirty million cases in the subordinate courts. While the States have done their bit in terms of providing the basic adjudicatory mechanisms for disposal of resolution of civil or criminal conflicts, access to justice remains a big question mark on account of delays in the completion of the process of adjudication on account of poor judge population and judge case ratio in comparison to other countries.
(iv) The process of adjudication must be affordable to the disputants:
Access to justice will again be no more than an illusion if the adjudicatory mechanism provided is so expensive as to deter a disputant from taking resort to the same. Article 39A of the Constitution promotes a laudable objective of providing legal aid to needy litigants and obliges the State to make access to justice affordable for the less fortunate Sections of the society. Legal aid to the needy has been recognized as one of the facets of access to justice in Madhav Hayawadanrao Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/0119/1978 : (1978) 3 SCC 544 where this Court observed:
If a prisoner sentenced to imprisonment, is virtually unable to exercise his constitutional and statutory right of appeal, inclusive of special leave to appeal, for want of legal assistance, there is implicit in the Court Under Article 142, read with Articles 21, and 39A of the Constitution, power to assign counsel for such imprisoned individual for doing complete justice. This is a necessary incident of the right of appeal conferred by the Code and allowed by Article 136 of the Constitution. The inference is inevitable that this is a State's duty and not government's charity. Equally affirmative is the implication that while legal services must be free to the beneficiary, the lawyer himself has to be reasonably remunerated for his services. Surely, the profession has a public commitment to the people but mere philanthropy of its members yields short mileage in the long run. Their services, especially when they are on behalf of the State, must be paid for. Naturally, the State concerned must pay a reasonable sum that the court may fix when assigning counsel to the prisoner. Of course, the court may judge the situation and consider from all angles whether it is necessary for the ends of justice to make available legal aid in the particular case. In every country where free legal services are given it is not done in all cases but only where public justice suffers otherwise. That discretion resides in the court.
31. Affordability of access to justice has been, to an extent, taken care of by the State sponsored legal aid programmes under the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Legal aid programmes have been providing the much needed support to the poorer Sections of the society in the accessing justice in Courts.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Transfer Petition (C) No. 1343 of 2008,
Decided On: 19.07.2016
Anita Kushwaha and Ors. Vs. Pushap Sudan and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
T.S. Thakur, C.J.I., F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, A.K. Sikri, S.A. Bobde and R. Banumathi, JJ.
Author: T.S. Thakur, C.J.I.
Citation: MANU/SC/0797/2016,AIR2016SC3506,(2016)8SCC509.
Print PageConversely, the offence may be committed in one State, the FIR may be lodged in another State and the Accused may reside in a third State. In which of the Courts of the three States would the Accused approach for grant of anticipatory bail? We feel that having regard to the salutary concept of access to justice, the Accused can seek limited transit anticipatory bail or limited interim protection from the Court in the State in which he resides but in such an event, a 'regular' or full- fledged anticipatory bail could be sought from the competent Court in the State in which the FIR is filed. {Para 39}
40. We are conscious that this may also lead the Accused to choose the Court of his choice for seeking anticipatory bail. Forum shopping may become the order of the day as the Accused would choose the most convenient Court for seeking anticipatory bail. This would also make the concept of territorial jurisdiction which is of importance under the Code of Criminal Procedure pale into insignificance. Therefore, in order to avoid the abuse of the process of the Court as well as the law by the Accused, it is necessary for the Court before which the plea for anticipatory bail is made, to ascertain the territorial connection or proximity between the Accused and the territorial jurisdiction of the Court which is approached for seeking such a relief. Such a link with the territorial jurisdiction of the Court could be by way of place of residence or occupation/work/profession. By this, we imply that the Accused cannot travel to any other State only for the purpose of seeking anticipatory bail. The reason as to why he is seeking such bail from a Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the FIR has not been filed must be made clear and explicit to such a Court. Also there must be a reason to believe or an imminent apprehension of arrest for a non-bailable offence made out by the Accused for approaching the Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the FIR is not lodged or the inability to approach the Court where the FIR is lodged immediately.
41. Having regard to the vastness of our country and the length and breadth of it and bearing in mind the complex nature of life of the citizens, if an offence has been committed by a person in a particular State and if the FIR is filed in another State and the Accused is a resident in a third State, bearing in mind access to justice, the Accused who is residing in the third State or who is present there for a legitimate purpose should be enabled to seek the relief of limited anticipatory bail of transitory nature in the third State.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Criminal Appeal Nos. ... of 2023 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 11423-11426 of 2023 (Arising out of Diary No. 7943 of 2023))
Decided On: 20.11.2023
Priya Indoria Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.
Author: B.V. Nagarathna, J.
Citation: MANU/SC/1246/2023.
Read full Judgment here: Click here
