The Apex Court at first sight expressed the view that the central government is also obliged under Article 247 of the Indian Constitution to create additional courts for an effective administration of the laws passed by parliament.
The Bank believed that the power under this article was linked to the obligation of the central government to set up additional courts directly.
According to Article 247, Parliament has the power to issue orders to set up additional courts for matters on the Union list.
This prima facie view of the bank was observed in a Suo Moto case taken to formulate measures to expedite trails under Section 138 of the Tradable Instruments Act dealing with check bounce cases.
The Apex court has viewed the Suo Moto finding as a disgrace of checks that are part of nearly 30% of pending cases at the lead stage.
Previously, when the central government requested the central government to comment on the matter, the Additional Attorney General made a note along with the alternative measures to be taken to address the issue.
However, the Supreme Court did not support the inclusion of proposals from the Union’s Ministry of Finance.
The bank passed a resolution stating that it would set up a committee made up of secretaries from various ministries to investigate the issue. Said committee would be chaired by a retired judge with a broad knowledge of trail matters.