NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday underlined the need for periodic review of laws to assess their effectiveness and identify deficiencies, if any.
“For every law, there should be a legislative review. Reviews should not only be confined to judicial reviews. There should be legislative reviews of laws from time to time. You may have it every 20 years, 25 years or 50 years,” Justice Surya Kant, presiding over a two-judge bench, said.
The bench, which also comprised Justice N K Singh, was hearing two pleas filed by former Union minister Maneka Gandhi—a writ petition challenging section 81 of the Representation of the People Act 1951, and an appeal challenging the Allahabad High Court judgment dismissing her plea against the election of Samajwadi Party MP Ram Bhuwal Nishad from the Sultanpur constituency.
Section 81 of the Act says that an election petition must be filed within 45 days from the date of the election of the candidate.
Justice Kant said there ought to be an “expert body to find out whether a law has worked well, what was the object for which it was enacted, and has it really succeeded in achieving that object”. “If not, what are the deficiencies, bottlenecks and grey areas which need to be taken care of?” he added.
The Allahabad High Court had dismissed Gandhi’s petition, which alleged that Nishad had not disclosed four criminal cases against him in his election affidavit, on the grounds that it was filed beyond the 45-day period prescribed in section 81 of the Representation of the People Act.
The bench initially expressed unwillingness to intervene, saying that if it started interfering in such matters, the consequence would be that no one would file election petitions.
“In your entire petition, you want us to legislate. Look at the prayers,” said Justice Kant.
Senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Maneka Gandhi, denied this and contended that the law should be revisited in the context of a person who has suppressed material facts.
The bench said he could raise some of his arguments regarding the interpretation of the Act in a civil appeal challenging the high court’s order. The court accordingly issued a notice on the appeal.
Luthra finally withdrew the writ petition challenging section 81 and the court granted him the liberty to raise his arguments on the interpretation of the Act in the civil appeal.
Agencies