2016 (12) TMI 1016 - SC - Indian Laws

Demonetization - Undisclosed income disclosure - petitioner submitted that the Union of India could have come with a better scheme regard being had to the Statement of Objects and Reasons behind the scheme - Held that - Appreciating the submission of Mr. Kapur, we are disposed to think that he is suggesting a different scheme to be implemented by the Union of India. Needless to say, this Court cannot enter into or encroach upon the policy making arena and suggest a different policy on the foundation that the policy framed by the Union of India could have been better. That is not within the domain of the Court. There is a distinction between assailment of the constitutional validity of a policy and conception of framing of a better policy. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we do not find any justification to issue notice in the present writ petition and it is, accordingly, dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Bill, 2016 under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought relief under Article 32 of the Constitution, requesting the quashing of penalties and provisions related to undisclosed income under the Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Bill, 2016. The petitioner argued that a better scheme could have been devised by the Union of India, highlighting the objectives of the scheme to allow individuals to declare their income with penalties. The Court noted the representations made post-demonetization and the intent to bring black money into the formal economy for welfare schemes. The petitioner contended that a different scheme would have encouraged more deposits by honest taxpayers. However, the Court clarified that it cannot interfere with policy decisions or propose alternative policies, as it falls outside its jurisdiction. The Court distinguished between challenging the constitutionality of a policy and suggesting policy improvements. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no grounds to issue notice, as it lacked justification.

This judgment emphasizes the limited role of the Court in policy matters, stating that the Court cannot dictate policy changes based on perceived shortcomings. It underscores the separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive, highlighting that policy formulation is the prerogative of the government. The Court's decision reaffirms the principle that judicial review is not a tool to critique policy choices but is reserved for assessing the constitutionality and legality of laws. The judgment reiterates the importance of respecting the boundaries of each branch of government and upholding the rule of law in interpreting legal provisions.