9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (9) TMI 558 - SC - Money LaunderingBreach of scheme of the Constitutional provisions and power of judiciary - Held that - Inasmuch as the amended/proposed provisions, as mentioned in para 9, are in tune with the scheme of the Constitution as well as the principles laid down by this Court, we approve the same and direct the respondent-Union of India to implement the above provisions, if not so far amended as suggested, as expeditiously as possible but not later than six months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. This Court records its appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel and Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, learned Addl. Solicitor General.
Issues Involved:
1. Qualifications of members from the field of finance or accountancy in the Adjudicating Authority Rules, 2007. 2. Method of Appointment of Chairperson in the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2007. 3. Selection Committee for recommending appointment of Members of the Tribunal in the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2007. 4. Safety of tenure of the Chairperson/Members of the Tribunal under Rule 32(2) of PMLA. 5. Vagueness in Rule 6(2) of Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2007 regarding recommending names for appointments. 6. Eligibility criteria for the Chairperson of the Tribunal under Section 28(1) of PMLA. 7. Qualifications for Legal Member of the Adjudicating Authority and appointment of Chairperson of the Adjudicating Authority. Detailed Analysis: 1. Qualifications of Members from the Field of Finance or Accountancy: The petitioner highlighted that Rule 3(3) of the Adjudicating Authority Rules, 2007 did not explicitly specify the qualifications for members from the field of finance or accountancy. The Court noted that Rule 3(3) has been amended to specify academic qualifications for the Member from the field of finance and accounting, including qualifications in chartered accountancy, finance, economics, or accountancy, and relevant experience in finance or revenue departments. The Court approved this amendment as it aligns with the constitutional scheme. 2. Method of Appointment of Chairperson: The petitioner argued that Rule 4 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2007 did not provide adequate control to the judiciary over the appointment of the Chairperson. The Court observed that Rule 4 has been amended to ensure that the appointment of the Chairperson is made on the recommendation of the Chief Justice of India. This amendment was approved by the Court. 3. Selection Committee for Recommending Appointment of Members: The petitioner contended that Rule 6(1) of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2007 undermined the constitutional scheme of separation of powers by not adequately involving the judiciary. The Court noted that Rule 6(1) has been amended to include a Judge of the Supreme Court, nominated by the Chief Justice of India, as the Chairperson of the Selection Committee. The Court approved this amendment. 4. Safety of Tenure of Chairperson/Members: The petitioner claimed that Rule 32(2) of PMLA did not provide adequate safety to the tenure of the Chairperson/Members of the Tribunal. The Court was informed that an appropriate amendment is being proposed to ensure that Chairperson/Members appointed in consultation with the Chief Justice of India cannot be removed without mandatory consultation with the Chief Justice of India. The Court directed the respondent to expedite this amendment. 5. Vagueness in Rule 6(2) Regarding Recommending Names: The petitioner argued that Rule 6(2) of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2007 was vague as it allowed for recommending names after "inviting applications thereof by advertisement or on the recommendations of the appropriate authorities." The Court noted the proposal to delete the words "or on recommendation of the appropriate authorities" and endorsed this amendment. 6. Eligibility Criteria for Chairperson of the Tribunal: The petitioner suggested that Section 28(1) of PMLA, which allows a person "qualified to be a judge of the High Court" to be the Chairperson, should be amended to require the Chief Justice of India to nominate a person who is or has been a Judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court. The Court observed that several Acts allow for judges and those qualified to be judges to be eligible for such positions and that the appointment of the Chairperson is made on the recommendation of the Chief Justice of India, ensuring independence. The Court found no need to amend the Statute or the Rules. 7. Qualifications for Legal Member of the Adjudicating Authority: The petitioner argued that only serving or retired District Judges should be appointed as Legal Members and that the Chairperson should be the Legal Member. The Court noted that persons "qualified to be a District Judge" are treated at par with District Judges for similar appointments under various Acts. The Court found that the Adjudicating Authority, being a body of experts from different fields, does not require amendment to the Statute or the Rules. Conclusion: The Court approved the amended/proposed provisions as they align with the constitutional scheme and directed the respondent-Union of India to implement these provisions expeditiously, within six months from the date of receipt of the judgment. The writ petition was disposed of with no costs, and the Court appreciated the assistance rendered by the senior counsel and the Additional Solicitor General.
|
