Salem Advocate Bar Association Tamil Nadu v. Union of India (2005)

Case Title: Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India

Citation: AIR 2005 SC 3353, (2005) 4 BOM CR 839

Name of the Court: Supreme Court of India 

Date of Decision: August 02, 2005 

Bench: Hon’ble Justice Y.K. Sabharwal, Justice D.M. Dharmadikhari andJusticeTarunChatterjee 

Bench Type: Constitutional Bench 

Parties Involved 

Petitioner : 

Salem Advocates Bar Association, a collective body of lawyers fromtheTamilNaduHigh Court (Salem), who challenged the implementation of certainreformsintheCivil Procedure Code (CPC) of 1999 and 2002, contending that the changescouldaffect judicial independence and the fairness of civil litigation.1 ∙

Respondent : 

Union of India, represented by the Central Government, which enactedthe1999and2002 amendments to the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and submittedtheassociatedreport on civil procedure reforms.2 

Facts of the Case 

Salem Advocates Bar Association v. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC3353 is afollow-uptoSalem Advocates Bar Association v. Union of India AIR 2003 SC 189. The caseconcernstheimplementation and constitutionality of amendments made to the 1908 Civil ProcedureCode(CPC) by the Amendment Acts of 1999 and 2002. 

The challenge made to the constitutional validity of amendments made intheCPCbytheAmendment Acts of 1999 and 2002 was rejected by the Court. 

Although the amendments were valid, the Court pointed out that clear modalitieswerenecessary for their practical implementation3. Accordingly, a Committee headedbyJusticeM. Jagannadha Rao was constituted to formulate model case management rules andprovideguidance for effective operation of the amendments, particularly Section 89 onADR. 

The Committee submitted a report in three parts: – 

Report 1: Consideration of various grievances 

It addressed procedural ambiguities in evidence recording, plaint filing, andsummonsservice, highlighting risks of malpractice and ex parte decrees, recommendingreasonable costs, prior government notice, and use of powers to enlarge time. ∙

Report 2 : Draft Rules for ADR and mediation 

It focused on Section 89 CPC and settlement of disputes outside court. Clarifiedinteraction with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, noting arbitrationappliesfromthe stage of reference and does not bar subsequent court proceedings.

Report 3 : Case management conferences 

It introduced case flow management and model High Court rules to improvejudicialefficiency, standardize procedures, and ensure better court administration. 

High Courts could implement the Committee’s recommendations to guaranteemorerapidand effective administration of justice. 

Issues Raised 

The following main issues were raised in Salem Advocate Bar Associationv. UnionofIndia: 

Whether the omission of clause (b) in Section 115 of the CPC (which affectstheHighCourt’s revisional powers) restricts or affects the constitutional powers of theHighCourtsunder Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 

Affidavits (Section 26(2) & Order 6 Rule 15(4)) 

4: Whether affidavits submittedunder

these provisions are admissible in court. Written Statements (Order 8 Rules 1 & 10)

5: The limitation period for filingwritten statements and the Court’s authority to extend it in extraordinary circumstances. ∙ Execution of Decrees (Section 39 & Order 21 Rules 3, 48)

6: Whether courtscan execute decrees outside their territorial jurisdiction.  Sale of Attached Property (Sections 64(1) & 64(2))

7: Protectionof salesunder registered versus unregistered contracts prior to attachment. Notice to Government (Section 80) 

8: Obligation of government officerstoreplytonotices and consequences for failure or evasive replies. Alternative Dispute Resolution / Arbitration (Section 89 &ArbitrationAct)

9:Compatibility of ADR provisions with the Arbitration Act and the authorityofjudgesafter referring a case to ADR. 

Arguments of the parties 

1. Argument by the petitioner (Salem Advocates Bar Association) : 

The Salem Advocate Bar Association argued that Order V Rules 9 and9A, allowingsummonses via plaintiff or courier, risked abuse and false reports, potentiallyleadingtoex parte decrees and undermining defendants’ fair hearing rights. Theystressedthatproper implementation required adequate judicial infrastructure andfundingforsubordinate courts. 

The petitioners (Salem Advocate Bar Association) cited SangramSinghv. ElectionTribunal, Kotah & Anr.10to argue CPC amendments should not let proceduraltechnicalities override the substantive right to a fair hearing, as codes of proceduremustbe applied with reasonable flexibility to ensure justice for both sides. In addition, the petitioners relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in SuryaDevRaiv.Ram Chander Rai & Ors.11, where this issue has been settled, whichheldthatHighCourts’ powers under Articles 226 and 227 remain intact despite Section115, withconstitutional jurisdiction fully exercisable subject to judicial discipline andpractice.12

2. Argument by the Respondent (Union of India) : 

Based on the Committee’s findings, the Union of India (respondent) maintainedthattheadministrative and procedural safeguards in place were sufficient to guaranteeappropriatejudicial operation. In particular: 

∙ They emphasized that subordinate courts have the legal authority to carryout lawsthatare passed by State Legislatures (Entries in List II & III) or Parliament (EntriesinListI & III).13 

∙ The Respondent noted that appointing State Legal Aid counsel or amicuscuriaeincriminal appeals ensures protection for accused individuals lackinglegalrepresentation. 

∙ In civil cases, the respondent stressed that in order to ensure procedural fairnessandthat no party is at a disadvantage during the appeal process, Writ Appeals/Letters Patent Appeals resulting from orders issued by a single judge must beservedontheopposing counsel simultaneously. 

They cited State of Gujarat v. Dilipbhai Nathjibhai Patel, (1998) 14toemphasizethat

procedural laws are meant to facilitate justice, not to obstruct it, and that amendmentsimproving efficiency do not infringe upon rights when judicial safeguards exist. 

Judgement 

In Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India, the Supreme Court issuedahistoricruling that aimed to promote efficient judicial administration and prompt justice. TheCourtmaintained the constitutionality of the CPC Amendment Acts of 1999 and2002, including clauses like Order XVIII Rule 4 (admission of evidence by affidavit) and Order VRules9and 9-A (service of summons by courier or plaintiff). The Court dismissed the petitions contesting these provisions, stating that procedural reforms were intendedtoimprovejudicial efficiency, expedite litigation, and cut down on delays without infringingon fundamental rights. 

∙ No Denial of Justice on Procedural Grounds : In order to ensure that justiceisservedrather than being denied because of stringent procedural formalities, the Courtpermitted the adduction of evidence at a later stage if it became availableafterfiling.

∙ Deterrence from Misuse of Court Proceedings : The ruling required undertakingsfromparties in situations where a summons was not delivered by courier, along with awarning of perjury and contempt for making false statements. Inorder toavoidpointless litigation, it also promoted the fair awarding of costs. 

∙ Case Flow Management : The Court established case management guidelines,allocating judges the authority to oversee and move cases between the three tracksa ccording to complexity and anticipated duration. The goal of this measurewastoreduce procedural bottlenecks and expedite disposal. 

∙ Improvisation in Cause List Management : In order to address ineffectivecaselisting,the Court authorized listing based on a reasonable daily hearing capacity and suggested senior court officers review the listing prior to the cause list’s final release,reducing administrative inefficiencies and delays. 

∙ Constitutional Safeguards : In accordance with Surya Dev Rai v. RamChanderRai(2003 6 SCC 675), the Court reiterated that High Courts maintained their authority under Articles 226 and 227 even though Section 115 CPC had been modified. Toavoidabuse and guarantee prompt justice, procedural reforms must be put intoplaceunder judicial supervision. 

Legal Reasoning 

Before the CPC amendments, affidavits weren’t required with pleadings. Now, underSection26(2) and Order VI Rule 15(4), plaints must be accompanied by affidavits attestingtotheirtruth, with new affidavits needed for amended pleadings. Witnesses are still cross-examinedin court or before Commissioners, but Order XVIII Rule 4 allows examination-in-chiefbyaffidavit. 

The Court upheld this, especially for complex cases, balancing judicial discretionwithefficiency. Commissioners, often less costly than court appearances, observewitnesses,protect documents, and return files after adjournments. High Courts may set qualificationsfor advocates serving as Commissioners, and courts can impose costs or withdrawcommissions to prevent misuse, with Section 154 of the Evidence Act requiringpriorpermission for hostile witness declarations. 

∙ The Committee has also suggested that : Similar to the practice in the UnitedStates,ajudicial impact assessment should be conducted whenever newlegislationisintroduced in Parliament or State Legislatures. The financial memorandumofeachBill should estimate not only staff requirements but also the costs of additionalcaseslikely to arise, including the number of courts, judges, staff, andnecessaryinfrastructure. The Committee noted that, in India, such assessments havenotbeencarried out by any legislature or Parliament in the past fifty years.15 

Acknowledging its duty to ensure fair and efficient justice, the Court directedtheCentralGovernment to review the Committee’s recommendations within four months. If conciliationunder Rule 1A fails, the presiding officer must refer the matter back to Court andsetahearing date. Commissioner appointments to record evidence are optional, usedmainlyforlengthy or special cases, with fixed timelines to prevent delays. Commissionersmustsafeguard records, limit access when the other party isn’t present, and returnfilestoCourtifdelays exceed a month. 

Conclusion 

In Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India (2005), the Supreme Court upheldthe1999 and 2002 CPC amendments, emphasizing that they aimed to improvejudicialefficiency without infringing fundamental rights. The Court confirmed that HighCourtsretain powers under Articles 226 and 227 despite changes to Section 115andrecognizedprocedural innovations like affidavits for pleadings, courier service of summons, ADRunderSection 89, and optional appointment of Commissioners. Suggestions includedrevisingtheplaint-filing deadline, granting judicial discretion beyond 90 days, thoughthe253rdLawCommission Report (2015) recommended a stricter 120-day limit16. AComplianceCommittee under the Chief Judge was also proposed to monitor reformimplementation,ensuring efficient administration while balancing procedural modernizationwithconstitutional safeguards. 

Reference(S): 

1. Salem Advocate Bar Ass’n, T.N. v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC344, (accessedOct.21, 2025). 
2. Id. 
3. Salem Advocates Bar Ass’n v. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 3353, para. 12).
4. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order VI, Rule 15(4), Sec. 26(2) (India).
5. 16253 Law Commission Report, 2015 available at http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/Report_No.253_Commercial_Divisi
6. Id at Order 8 Rules 1&10 
7. Id at Section 39 & Order 21 Rules 3, 48 
8. Id at Sections 64(1) & 64(2) 
9. Id at Section 80 
10. Id at Section 89 
11. [AIR 1955 SC 425] 
12. [(2003) 6 SCC 675] 
13. (Salem Advocates Bar Ass’n v. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC3353, para. 40)13. Constitution of India, Schedule VII, Lists I, II, III. 
14. [(1998) 3 SCC 234 ]
15. 15.Report of the Task Force on Judicial Impact Assessment, August 02, 2005, availableat https://indiankanoon.org/doc/342197/ 
16. 253 Law Commission Report, 2015 availableathttp://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/Report_No.253_Commercial_Divisi on_and_Commercial_Appellate_Division_of_High_Courts_and_Commercial_CourtsBill. 2015.pdf.

1 Salem Advocate Bar Ass’n, T.N. v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344, (accessed Oct. 21, 2025).

2id.

3 (Salem Advocates Bar Ass’n v. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 3353, para. 12).

4 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order VI, Rule 15(4), Sec. 26(2) (India). 

5 Id at Order 8 Rules 1&10 

6 Id at Section 39 & Order 21 Rules 3, 48 

7 Id at Sections 64(1) & 64(2) 

8 Id at Section 80 

9 Id at Section 89

10 [AIR 1955 SC 425] 

11 [(2003) 6 SCC 675] 

12 (Salem Advocates Bar Ass’n v. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 3353, para. 40) 

13 Constitution of India, Schedule VII, Lists I, II, III.

14 [(1998) 3 SCC 234 ]

15 Report of the Task Force on Judicial Impact Assessment, August 02, 2005 , available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/342197/