Supreme Court Asks NALSA To Look Into Plea Of Permanent Lok Adalat Members For Better Remuneration

A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana told the members that the issue involves practical difficulties in passing such judicial directions.

CJI Kant said there are restrictions governing the use of funds allocated to legal services authorities and, therefore, the Apex Court cannot simply direct an increase in payments.

"We cannot simply direct payments without considering these restrictions. It would be better to approach the respective high courts, which can examine the issue based on the grants received from the states," he said.

The Apex Court was hearing a plea by 14 Lok Adalat members, who contended that Rule 3 of the Permanent Lok Adalat (Other Terms and Conditions of Appointment of Chairman and Other Persons) Rules, 2003 was discriminatory, in so far as different salary structures were prescribed for the chairman and other members of such bodies.

Senior Advocate Karuna Nundy, appearing for petitioners, pointed out that the issue had already been taken up earlier before the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Delhi High Court.

She submitted that the high courts simply referred the matter back to the respective state legal services authorities.

"The authorities subsequently came back with slightly enhanced amounts. There was also consultation with the Chief Justice in a different capacity.

"That is the second barrier. The high court will not independently consider the issue," Nundy added.

She highlighted that permanent Lok Adalat members were currently receiving approximately Rs 2,500 per sitting and pointed out that these bodies had earlier primarily dealt with disputes concerning public utility services.

However, they now also handle matters relating to banking and non-banking financial companies (NBFCs), housing and education, she said, adding that their pecuniary jurisdiction has increased as well to Rs 1 crore compared to Rs 50 lakh for District Consumer Forums.

CJI Kant, however, maintained that this was not an issue in which the Supreme Court could readily intervene.

"Even if I want to accept your submission, I cannot issue such a direction because it involves changes in the allocation of funds. That is a major challenge.

"Sometimes there are surplus funds under one head and insufficient funds under another. These are challenges that have to be resolved on the administrative side," the CJI said.

The bench then directed that the petition be treated as a common representation on behalf of the petitioners and other similarly placed members and asked the petitioners that a copy of the petition be sent to the member secretary of the NALSA, who would place it before the NALSA governing council.