State Of Karnataka v. Parmjit Singh And Others, Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

The Karnataka High Court, on a writ petition, examined the constitutional validity of Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The petitioners contended that the District Forum, State Commission and National Commission were empowered to impose civil imprisonment and monetary penalties without any procedure being prescribed, allegedly infringing Article 21 of the Constitution.

The High Court declared the proviso to Section 27 unconstitutional for creating an offence and prescribing penalties without any procedural safeguards, though it upheld the main part of Section 27. It held that any punishment under Section 27 must follow the procedure in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The State of Karnataka and the Union of India appealed to the Supreme Court. During pendency of the appeals, the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002 (effective 15-3-2003) omitted the impugned proviso and inserted sub-sections (2) and (3), expressly conferring Judicial Magistrate First Class powers on the consumer Fora and permitting summary trials of offences. The Supreme Court, therefore, treated the controversy as academic.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the proviso to Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as it stood prior to the 2002 amendment, was unconstitutional for want of procedural safeguards under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution.

Whether, in light of the 2002 amendment deleting the proviso and prescribing procedure, any substantive controversy survived for adjudication.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants (State of Karnataka and Union of India)

After the High Court upheld the main body of Section 27, the proviso—which merely allowed imposition of a lesser term of imprisonment or fine—could not by itself be unconstitutional.

The District Forum, State Commission and National Commission already possessed the power to impose penalties; the proviso did not expand that power but only provided flexibility.

Respondent 1

Contended that the matter had become purely academic after Parliament deleted the proviso and inserted procedural safeguards by the 2002 amendment.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court noted that Parliament had already removed the contested proviso and inserted sub-section (2), which vests the consumer Fora with the powers of a Judicial Magistrate First Class, and sub-section (3), allowing summary trials of offences. These amendments directly addressed the High Court’s concerns about absence of procedure. Consequently, the Court found that the constitutional question posed in the appeals no longer required resolution. Given the legislative change, the dispute had become academic.

Holding and Implications

APPEALS DISPOSED OF without costs.

Because the impugned proviso has already been deleted and a procedural framework has been legislatively supplied, the Supreme Court refrained from adjudicating the merits. The ruling has no prospective doctrinal impact; it merely brings the pending litigation to an end.

State Of Karnataka v. Parmjit Singh And Others

Arijit Pasayat, J.— Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in a writ petition which was filed challenging the validity of Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). One of the two appeals is by the State of Karnataka and the other by the Union of India. The basis of the challenge was that the District and the State Commission and the National Commission and the Forum created under the Act have been clothed with blanket powers to pass orders including an order of civil imprisonment for the breach that may be committed by the party against whom the order is passed under the Act. As Section 27 does not prescribe any procedure for trial therefore, it was prayed that it should be declared as unconstitutional, being violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. The High Court held that an offence has been created without prescribing any procedure for the Forums or the Commissions created under the Act to impose the punishment provided in Section 27. Therefore, it was of the view that the proviso to Section 27, as it stood then, authorised the Forums and the Commissions to impose a punishment without providing any procedure, resulting in deprivation of rights conferred upon the persons under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution and, therefore, the same was liable to be struck down, being unconstitutional. It was, however, held that the striking of the proviso to Section 27 did not render the whole provision unconstitutional. Finally, it was observed that the proviso to Section 27 was violative of the fundamental rights, as enshrined under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution and, thus, was liable to be quashed. It was further held that but for the proviso, there was no unconstitutionality in the main provision. It was observed that the offence created and penalties provided under Section 27 can be tried and imposed only in accordance with the observations made in the judgment relating to the trial of offences under the Penal Code, 1860 (in short “IPC”) and other laws, as contained in Section 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short “the Code”). It was held that by filing a complaint before the criminal court in accordance with the procedure prescribed, the offence created and the penalty provided under Section 27 can be tried and imposed.

2. The State of Karnataka and the Union of India have questioned the correctness of the view expressed by the High Court. Learned counsel for the Union of India and the State of Karnataka contended that after having been held that the main part of Section 27 was not unconstitutional, the proviso which only permitted imposition of lesser fine or sentence of imprisonment, cannot by any stretch of imagination, be held to be unconstitutional. It was submitted that the District Forum, the State Commission and the National Commission were conferred with a power to sentence any person who has failed or omitted to comply with the order passed by the District Forum or two Commissions. Therefore, the proviso, in no way, dilutes the power for such imposition or levy. Learned counsel for Respondent 1 on the other hand submitted that the questions have really become academic after the amendment to Section 27.

3. Section 27, prior to its amendment in 2003 read as follows:

“27. Penalties.—Where a trader or a person against whom a complaint is made or the complainant fails or omits to comply with any order made by the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, such trader or person or complainant shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month but which may extend to three years, or with fine which shall not be less than two thousand rupees but which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both:

Provided that the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, may, if it is satisfied that the circumstances of any case so require, impose a sentence of imprisonment or fine, or both, for a term lesser than the minimum term and the amount lesser than the minimum amount, specified in this section.”

4. After amendment, Section 27 reads as follows:

1. Penalties.—(1) Where a trader or a person against whom a complaint is made or the complainant fails or omits to comply with any order made by the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, such trader or person or complainant shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month but which may extend to three years, or with fine which shall not be less than two thousand rupees but which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, shall have the power of a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class for the trial of offences under this Act, and on such conferment of powers, the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, on whom the powers are so conferred, shall be deemed to be a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class for the purpose of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).

(3) All offences under this Act may be tried summarily by the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be.”

5. It is to be noted that by the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002 (62 of 2002), as contained in Section 23 of the amending Act, the proviso which was struck down as unconstitutional by the High Court has been omitted. Sub-section (2) has been introduced which provides that the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, shall have the power of a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class for the trial of offences under the Act and on such conferment of powers, the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, on whom the powers are so conferred, shall be deemed to be a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class of the Code. The amendments have been made effective with effect from 15-3-2003. The controversy has, therefore, become academic. The appeals are, accordingly, disposed of but without any order as to costs.

Civil Appeals No. 3482 of 2000 with No. 3483 of 2000, decided on March 2, 2006

State Of Karnataka v. Parmjit Singh And Others

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants (State of Karnataka and Union of India)

Respondent 1

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

State Of Karnataka v. Parmjit Singh And Others

Comments