VakashaSBig decisions coming up in Supreme Court now. CJI- led benches to pronounce judgments on:
➡️ Is the office of the Chief Justice of India a public authority under the RTI Act?
➡️ Was the Finance Act 2017 unconstitutional?
CJI office and RTI: This case could have major implications as it will determine whether documents relating to the work of the CJI's office - including communications with the Centre on appointment of judges, details of assets - can be asked for in RTI applications.
@[email protected]
@[email protected]
Finance Act 2017: Challenge is primarily based on provisions in this Act which dealt with changes to tribunals.
FA is a Money Bill, but, it is argued, these tribunal amendments don't fit the definition of a Money Bill under Article 110 of the Constitution.
@[email protected]
This is similar to the argument used against the Aadhaar Act 2016. If a Bill is termed a Money Bill, Rajya Sabha can only suggest amendments. The argument is therefore that designating a Bill dealing with other matters as a MB is a 'fraud on the Constitution'
@[email protected]
@[email protected]
In Aadhaar judgment, majority held that non-Money Bill provisions could be severed, rest of Act was constitutional. Justice DY Chandra his, who is on this bench as well, held it couldn't be severed and the move was a "fraud on the Constitution" to avoid RS scrutiny.
@[email protected]
@[email protected]
Majority Judgment:
Issue of whether Finance Act 2017 could be passed as a Money Bill referred to a larger bench.
Section 184 on tribunals upheld BUT Rules framed under this have been struck down.
Centre to frame new Rules in accordance with precedent. @[email protected]
Justice DY Chandrachud Dissent:
"Rajya Sabha represents pluralism in our Constitution."
There is no bar on judicial review of a decision of Speaker to certify a Bill as a Money Bill.
Non-Money Bill section of Finance Act 2017 to be excised.
@[email protected]
Justice Chandrachud holds that the provisions of the Finance Act 2017 allowing Centre to decide Tribunal members is unconstitutional, not just the Rules. @[email protected]
To clarify, Justice Chandrachud's judgment is a separate judgment, not a dissent per se. He has agreed to the reference to a larger Bench to determine whether or not Supreme Court can review certification of Money Bill by Speaker of house, despite his views.
@[email protected]
@[email protected]
Justice Deepak Gupta also has a separate opinion on issue of excessive delegation. @[email protected]
Iмгaп@VakashaS Not expecting any good.