Section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, empowers subordinate courts in India to refer cases to the High Court when they involve substantial questions of law concerning the interpretation of the Constitution. This provision ensures that complex constitutional issues receive authoritative and consistent adjudication by the higher judiciary, maintaining uniformity in legal interpretations across the country.

MEANING, DEFINITION & EXPLANATION

Section 113 CPC states:

“Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, any Court may state a case and refer the same for the opinion of the High Court, and the High Court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit.”

The proviso to this section adds:

“Provided that where the Court is satisfied that a case pending before it involves a question as to the validity of any Act, Ordinance or Regulation or of any provision contained in an Act, Ordinance or Regulation, the determination of which is necessary for the disposal of the case, and is of opinion that such Act, Ordinance, Regulation or provision is invalid or inoperative, but has not been so declared by the High Court to which that Court is subordinate or by the Supreme Court, the Court shall state a case setting out its opinion and the reasons therefor, and refer the same for the opinion of the High Court.”

In essence, when a subordinate court encounters a substantial question regarding the interpretation of the Constitution or doubts the validity of a legislative provision, it can seek the High Court’s opinion to ensure accurate and consistent legal interpretations.

ESSENTIALS / ELEMENTS / PRE-REQUISITES

For a valid reference under Section 113 CPC, the following conditions must be satisfied:

• Pending Suit or Appeal: There must be an ongoing case before the subordinate court.
• Question of Law: The case should involve a substantial question of law, particularly concerning the interpretation of the Constitution.
• Reasonable Doubt: The subordinate court must entertain a reasonable doubt regarding the legal question.
• Necessity for Disposal: The determination of the question must be essential for the resolution of the case.
• Absence of Prior Declaration: The validity of the Act, Ordinance, or Regulation in question should not have been previously declared invalid by the High Court or the Supreme Court.

LEGAL PROVISIONS / PROCEDURE / SPECIFICATIONS / CRITERIA

The procedure for making a reference under Section 113 is elaborated in Order XLVI of the CPC:

1. Statement of Facts: The subordinate court drafts a statement outlining the facts of the case and the specific question of law.
2. Formulation of Doubt: The court clearly formulates the legal doubt or question requiring the High Court’s opinion.
3. Submission to High Court: The statement is forwarded to the High Court for its consideration.
4. High Court’s Opinion: The High Court examines the referred question and provides its opinion.
5. Transmission of Judgment: A copy of the High Court’s judgment, signed by the registrar, is sent back to the referring court.
6. Final Disposal: The subordinate court disposes of the case in accordance with the High Court’s opinion.

CASE LAWS / PRECEDENTS / OVERRULING JUDGMENTS

Several landmark judgments have elucidated the scope and application of Section 113 CPC:

• Banarsi Das v. Kanshi Ram, AIR 1963 SC 1165:
  The Supreme Court held that a subordinate court could refer a case to the High Court when there is a reasonable doubt regarding the constitutional validity of an Act.

• A. Sreenivasa Rao and Ors. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1970 AP 209:
  The Andhra Pradesh High Court emphasized that subordinate courts are not empowered to decide the validity of any Act, Ordinance, or Regulation. Instead, they must refer such questions to the High Court under Section 113.

• Ashok Kumar v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, AIR 1980 P&H 205:
  The Punjab and Haryana High Court clarified that no revision petition is maintainable against an order of a subordinate judge dismissing an application under Section 113, as it is the trial court’s discretion to state a case and refer it to the High Court.

DOCTRINES / THEORIES

The application of Section 113 CPC aligns with the doctrine of “constitutional supremacy”, ensuring that any substantial question regarding constitutional interpretation is addressed by the higher judiciary, thereby maintaining the Constitution’s authority and uniformity in its application.

COMPARISON WITH OTHER COUNTRIES

In contrast to India’s provision under Section 113 CPC, many other jurisdictions do not have a similar mechanism for subordinate courts to refer constitutional questions directly to higher courts. For instance:

• In the United States, lower courts interpret the Constitution as part of their regular duties, and cases reach the Supreme Court through the appeals process rather than direct reference.

FUTURE IMPLICATIONS

The mechanism provided by Section 113 CPC ensures that complex constitutional questions are interpreted consistently by the higher judiciary. As legal challenges evolve with societal changes, this provision will continue to play a crucial role in upholding constitutional integrity and uniformity in legal interpretations across India.

CRITICISM / APPRECIATION

While Section 113 CPC serves as a vital tool for maintaining uniformity in constitutional interpretation, it has faced criticism for:

• Potential delays in the judicial process due to the time taken for references to be answered by High Courts.

However, this mechanism is appreciated for:

• Preventing contradictory interpretations of constitutional provisions by different subordinate courts, thereby ensuring legal certainty and stability.

REFERENCES

1. Banarsi Das v. Kanshi Ram, AIR 1963 SC 1165.
2. A. Sreenivasa Rao and Ors. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1970 AP 209.
3. Ashok Kumar v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, AIR 1980 P&H 205.
4. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
5. Order XLVI, The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.