9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 50 - HC - Money LaunderingAmendments to the PML Act - amendments were made in the years 2015, 2016 and 2018 and per-se unconstitutional and liable to be set aside - specific query from the Court why the petitioner, being a Parliamentarian is challenging the amendments effected in the years 2015, 2016 and 2018 now in the year 2019 - HELD THAT - The petitioner herein is a Member of Rajya Sabha. The plea of Mr. Chidambram that the petitioner was not aware that such amendments have been carried out as Money Bills, is no reason to challenge the amendments, at least of the years 2015 and 2016 in the year 2019. In any case, merely because the petitioner came to know recently that such amendments have been carried out as Money Bills, would not justify the delay. Even otherwise, his submission that it was only after the judgment was rendered by the Supreme Court, on a similar issue, did the petitioner thought it fit to challenge the amendments of 2015, 2016 and 2018 by filing this petition, does not answer the submission made by Ms. Acharya that the challenge, apart from being hit by delay and laches, is by a person who has no locus, being not aggrieved by the amendments. Case followed KUSUM INGOTS ALLOYS LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA 2004 (4) TMI 342 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA . We do not think that it is a case where this Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Issues:
Challenge to the constitutionality of amendments made via Finance Acts as Money Bills - Justiciability of the issue - Delay and locus standi in challenging the amendments. Analysis: 1. The petitioner, a Member of Rajya Sabha, filed a writ petition seeking to declare certain sections of Finance Acts as ultra vires the Constitution of India. The petitioner argued that most amendments to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act after 2015 were enacted via Finance Acts as Money Bills, which, according to the petitioner, was unconstitutional. The petitioner contended that Money Bills are restricted to specific matters under Article 110(1) of the Constitution. The petitioner cited a previous judgment regarding the justiciability of such issues. 2. The petitioner claimed that the amendments made in 2015, 2016, and 2018 were unconstitutional and should be set aside. The petitioner, being a Parliamentarian, stated that the challenge was raised in 2019 after learning through Right to Information Act that the amendments were passed as Money Bills. The petitioner argued that there was no issue of limitation in challenging a parliamentary enactment, especially when it is unconstitutional. The petitioner requested the court to exercise discretionary jurisdiction in their favor due to the unconstitutional nature of the amendments. 3. On the other hand, the Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India argued against entertaining the petition, stating that the challenge to the amendments made in 2015, 2016, and 2018 by a person not directly affected should not be entertained. The ASG relied on a Supreme Court judgment to support this argument. The court noted that the petitioner, being a Member of Rajya Sabha, should have been aware of the amendments and that the delay in challenging them in 2019 was not justified. The court also emphasized the importance of locus standi in such challenges and cited the Supreme Court's position on parliamentary legislation and cause of action. 4. Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner's delay in challenging the amendments, lack of locus standi, and the absence of a valid cause of action were key factors in their decision. The court concluded that there was no basis for exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this case.
|
