State of M.P. & Anr. v. M.P. Transport Workers Federation
Background
In 1981, Madhya Pradesh had shifted the trial of certain criminal offences connected with labour disputes (under about 16 labour statutes) from regular criminal courts to Labour Courts. In 2002, the state reversed this through an amendment, sending such offences back to the regular criminal courts, reasoning that Labour Courts were already overburdened. The Madhya Pradesh High Court struck down this 2002 amendment as unconstitutional, holding it violated the right to a speedy trial under Article 21. The State appealed to the Supreme Court; since no one appeared for the respondents, the Court appointed a senior counsel as amicus curiae to argue the other side.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that courts can strike down legislation passed by an elected legislature only on the narrow grounds of lack of legislative competence or violation of fundamental rights: it is not the court's role to second-guess the legislature's policy wisdom. Finding no issue with legislative competence, and noting that the system of trying these offences in criminal courts had already been functioning without complaint for over a decade (while the High Court's order was stayed pending appeal), the Court found no basis to conclude the amendment violated the right to speedy trial. The amendment was upheld and the High Court's order striking it down was set aside.
Lesson Learnt
Courts give legislatures wide latitude on policy choices about how to organize the justice system, and will only strike down a law if it clearly exceeds the legislature's power or violates a specific constitutional right: disagreement with the wisdom of a policy is not enough to have it invalidated.