The Madras High Court has Instructed to the union government to make the Law Commission of India as a statutory or constitutional body, within six months
The Union government shall allot more funds and provide infrastructural facilities to the Commission for research and appoint a Chairman and members to it within three months, failing which the principal secretary and the secretary of the Implementation Cell of the department of Legal Affairs attached to the Union Ministry of Law and Justice shall appear before it, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court said.
A Nodal Officer, who is well qualified in law, shall be appointed within six months in each department to note down the courts’ recommendations to bring to the knowledge of the policy makers of each department by way of periodical reports, so that a policy decision would be taken, the bench of Justices N Kirubakaran and B Pugalendhi added.
Taking into consideration the excellent work done by the Law Commissions by way of revolutionary recommendations, it is appropriate for the government to make it a statutory or a constitutional body, like National Commission for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes, so that its recommendations are binding upon the government.
To do research work, sufficient funds have to be allocated for the functioning of the Law Commission, the judges said.
“In view of the above, this Court directs the government to consider the suggestions made by this Court to provide either statutory status, after enacting Central Act or give constitutional status like the Commission for SC/ST, Backward Classes by amending the Constitution.
The whole exercise done by the Law Commission with research and also consulting various stakeholders and making recommendations would become futile, if the recommendations are not acted upon,” the bench added.
The bench was allowing recently, a public interest writ petition from K Pushpavanam of Athalai village in Madurai district, which prayed for a direction to the authorities concerned to propose a comprehensive legislation in the field of “Torts and State Liability” as per the earlier directions of the Supreme Court in 2014.
The petitioner contended that the Legislature had consistently failed to enact laws on the suggestions and recommendations of the courts, which have been in the interest of the society.
It was still worse with regard to acceptance of the recommendations of the Law Commission, which after getting inputs from various stakeholders and discussions on various issues, made the recommendations to the government to enact law.
They were neither accepted nor acted upon but were kept in cold storage for decades together, petitioner added.