With the help of decided case law, comment on the constitutional validity of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.

The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 was passed by the Parliament of India to provide for the speedy adjudication of matters relating to recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions. The Act provides a procedure that is distinct from the existing Code of Civil Procedure in order to ensure a speedy adjudication. The Act also provides for the setting up of a separate set of tribunals to hear such matters and these tribunals are termed as Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs). In case of Union of India v. Delhi High Court Bar Association, (2002) 4 SCC 275 , the petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 on the ground that the Act is unreasonable and is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution and that it is beyond the legislative competence of the Parliament to enact such a law. This Act had been challenged for depriving a person of legal remedies in ordinary civil courts. However, the Supreme Court held that there is no such right that the dispute should be adjudicated only by a civil court, and the replacement of the jurisdiction of civil courts by independent and specialized tribunals is completely legal and constitutional.