9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (12) TMI 292X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the "Regulations 2003"); circular being No.SEBI/MIRSD/DSP-1/CIR-31/2004 dated 26-8-2004 and the circular dated 12-5-2005 making the same applicable to the members of the recognized Stock Exchanges operating through the subsidiaries of such recognized Stock Exchanges. By the Regulation 2003, only stock brokers will issue direct contracts to the investors of their sub-brokers and the sub-brokers shall not issue confirmation memos and the delivery of securities and the payment of funds shall be made directly between stock brokers and the clients of sub-brokers. 3. The case on behalf of the petitioners in nutshell is as under : "SEBI had come into force on 30-1-1992. Section 30 of the said Act empowers SEBI to make regulations with the previous approval of Central Government by notification, consistent with the Act and the Rules made thereunder, to carry out the purposes of the Act. Section 13 of the Securities Contracts (Regulations) Act, 1956 (for short "the Act, 1956") deal with the contracts in notified areas, which are held to be illegal in certain circumstances. That a member of a Stock Exchange is entitled to enter into a contract on pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bai Stock Exchange terminals to cities other then Mumbai on the terms and conditions stipulated therein. Pursuant to the said permission granted by SEBI a Memorandum of Understanding between Stock Exchange, Mumbai and the Regional Stock Exchanges was entered into. By circular dated 3-4-1998, the requirement for approval of setting up of terminals at Ahmedabad were laid down. Subsequently, it was realized that the trading volumes in the Regional Stock Exchanges were considerably declining, which raised the question of survival of the Regional Stock Exchange and the same became a matter of concern for all concerned. A group was formed by SEBI and a meet- ing of the said group was held on 8-9-1999 to discuss the suggestion/revival plans forwarded by small exchanges for their survival. The said group considered the suggestion/revival plans submitted by small Stock Exchanges and made certain recommendations, one of which was permission to be granted for promotion of a subsidiary which can acquire membership right of larger Stock Exchanges viz., NSE/BSE/CSE/DSE or any other Stock Exchanges subject to the usual conditions applicable to other members. SEBI, therefore, decided that small ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs to members of other Stock Exchanges, definition of sub-broker contained in rule 2( f ) of SEBI Rule, 1992 needs to be changed. Vide circular dated 2-6-2003, it was emphatically reiterated by SEBI that "para 2 as per the conditions mentioned in the circular, the subsidiary/company can register only the members of parent Stock Exchange as sub-brokers of the subsidiary/company and no other client/sub-broker can be entertained by the subsidiary/company.....". The notification dated 23-9-2003 in respect of amended Regulations, 2003 came to be issued in exercise of powers conferred upon the SEBI by section 30 of SEBI Act, 1992. By notification dated 23-9-2003, SEBI made requirement stated therein to amend Regulations of 1992 having resultant effects as under : ( a )One sub-broker shall be affiliated to one member of the exchange. There shall be a privity of contract between the members and a client introduced to the members by the sub-broker affiliated to such member. A tripartite agreement has been directed to be entered into by any and between the subsidiary, sub-broker and the end client of the sub-broker; ( b )No Director of a cooperate member shall act as a sub-broker to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 read with section 10 of the Act, 1956 and the same has, till date, never been withdrawn and/or modified in any manner whatsoever. 5. According to the petitioners, the status of subsidiary/company of a Regional Stock Exchange is very peculiar in nature and following are the main characteristic of the same. ( a )Such subsidiary/company of a Regional Stock Exchange is directed by SEBI virtually like an extension of Stock Exchange and its member while dealing with investors operates like stock broker and not like sub-broker. ( b )Such subsidiary company of a Regional Stock Exchange has been established pursuant to the revival package formulated by the second respondent for Regional Stock Exchanges in November, 1999. ( c )As directed by the second respondent such subsidiary/company is a subsidiary of the Regional Stock Exchange and it cannot undertake any proprietary trade. It can deal with only members of Regional Stock Exchange who are further registered as sub-brokers with the second respondent. It cannot deal with other sub-brokers or any other client. The board of directors of such subsidiary consists of majority publ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oners, the aforesaid circular having been issued, they were assured that SEBI was making special provisions for the petitioners in the SEBI Regulations, 1992 which were to be notified shortly. While the petitioners were awaiting such notification of separate provisions for them, all of sudden without stating any reason whatsoever, SEBI issued another circular dated 12-5-2005 just within 42 days and intimated its decision that the sub-sidiaries of the registered Stock Exchange who are registered as stock brokers and their registered sub-brokers shall also comply with the provisions of Regulations, 2003 and it was further stated in the said circular that considering the changes that are required in the existing system of the subsidiaries for implementation and compliance with the said regulations, it has also been decided to allow the said subsidiaries of Stock Exchanges and their sub-brokers, to comply with the said regulations from 1-6-2005. 7. According to the petitioners, the implications of making Regulation, 2003 applicable to the subsidiaries floated by different Regional Stock Exchanges and their intermediaries are as under : 1.The Regulations, 2003 would eliminate over ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ability of the said amendment and conditions thereof to the petitioners and the difficulties to be faced by the petitioners upon such applicability. However, SEBI did not take into consideration the same and proceeded with making the said regulations applicable to the petitioners also. 8. It is submitted by Shri Soparkar, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners that sub-brokers of subsidiary/company of Regional Stock Exchange are class by themselves and the amendment is contrary to earlier direction issued by SEBI vide circular dated 26-9-1999. It is also further submitted by him that even by circular dated 31-3-2005, it was stated by SEBI that for the petitioners, special provisions are being made in the SEBI Regulations, 1992 which would be notified shortly and, therefore, the Amendment Regulations, 2003 were not made applicable to the sub-brokers of subsidiaries like the petitioners. Therefore, it is submitted that now it is not open for the SEBI to apply the Amendment Regulations, 2003 to the petitioners and directing to apply tripartite agreement. 9. It is also further submitted by Shri Soparkar that as per section 10 of the Act, 1956, all the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecision dated 31-3-2005 was taken not to enforce the said Regulation. Thereafter, having considered the representation received from various interests, it was resolved to enforce regulation uniformly without providing special to the petitioners. The Regulations have been amended after thorough study as reflected from the concept paper. It was recommended that in the absence of privity of contract between the brokers and client some time client face difficulty in the court of law in enforcing his claim, when sub-brokers have absconded and/or failed to satisfy the dues of the clients. The concept paper, therefore, recommended that there should be tripartite agreement between the broker, sub-broker and the client and that contract note is to be issued by the broker through sub-broker in favour of the client. The object for amending Regulation is that the client is sufficiently assured that he can make claim against the broker in spite of the failure of sub-broker in view of the tripartite agreement between the brokers, sub-brokers and client and the contract note executed by the stock-brokers through the sub-broker in favour of the client. The amendments are in the interest of the inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... curities market as a stock broker. Permission to deal as a stock broker would necessarily mean permission to trade as a stock broker at respective Regional Stock Exchange, of which the petitioners are members and not a permission to trade as a stock broker on BSE and/or NSE, as they are merely a registered sub-broker. 4.The proposed amendment is not inconsistent with the policy as reflected from the circular dated 26-11-1999, wherein it is indicated that subsidiary shall not undertake any dealing in securities on its own account. 12. Shri Shelat, learned Advocate General while opposing the present Special Civil Applications, has submitted that prayer 6( a ) seeks exemption from implementation of Securities and Exchange Regulations, 2003, through instrumentality of article 226 of the Constitution of India on the basis of the Model Bye-laws, which have not come in force. It is submitted that the Memorandum of Understanding executed between the Stock Exchange, Mumbai and the Stock Exchange, Ahmedabad on 26-6-1997, is not in force today and therefore, there is no need to consider the contents of the so called Agreement particularly when the petitioners were registered as a sub-br ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing to the impugned amendment Regulation, 2003 and submitted that NSE was established in 1994-95 with nationwide electronic trading terminals. The BSE also expanded its trading platform into nationwide electronic BOLT terminals. As a result, a drastic decline was seen in the turnovers of the various smaller Regional Stock Exchanges and consequently in the business of their members. In order to revive these small Stock Exchanges and protect their members, an Expert Committee on revival of smaller Stock Exchanges was constituted by SEBI. Based on the recommendations of the Committee, SEBI had by its circular dated 26-11-1999, permitted these exchanges to form wholly owned subsidiaries which could then obtain membership of larger Stock Exchanges such as NSE and BSE. The members (stock brokers) of the small exchanges were allowed to become sub-brokers of such subsidiaries to enable them to trade on the BSE/NSE in their capacity. It is submitted that for such members of smaller exchanges to otherwise obtain trading rights as members in the BSE and NSE in view of the huge deposit required to be made for the same high cost of the membership card etc., was difficult, therefore, the SEBI ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er clients both in payment and delivery. When sub-brokers defaulted in giving confirmation memos, the client cannot even move for arbitration in case of dispute/default, as he has no document evidencing sale or purchase. Sub-brokers at time issued bogus confirmation memos, which were not backed by trades on the system of the exchange. The clients had no means of knowing that his trades were not actually put through the exchange system. It was also found by the SEBI that at times, even where the broker had terminated his relationship with the sub-broker, the sub-broker had held forth to the client as if he continued to be the sub-broker and issued confirmation memos etc. It is submitted that in view of the above and after detailed internal deliberations, Regulations, 2003 were notified on September 23, 2003 and the main changes brought about, were the following ( a )Agreement with sub-broker, client of the sub-broker and main broker: a sub-broker shall enter into a Tripartite Agreement with the main stock specifying the scope of rights and obligations of the stock broker, sub-broker and such client of the sub-broker, to establish privity of contract between the stock broker and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s uniformly with other stock brokers and sub-brokers and the said decision was conveyed vide circular dated 12-5-2005. 20. Meeting with the contention on behalf of the petitioners that earlier a subsidiary was prohibited from entering into contracts with the clients, however, by way of amendment, such subsidiary is compelled to enter into contract with the client directly and, therefore, the amendment is con- trary to the direction issued by SEBI vide circular dated 26-9-1999, Shri Shelat has submitted that a subsidiary of a Regional Stock Exchange which is a broker on the NSE/BSE, cannot undertake any proprietary business or any business on behalf of its direct clients. It is submitted that prohibition upon the subsidiary/company from "dealing in securities on its own account" only refers to proprietary business i.e., the stock broker buys or sells shares or securities in his own name. It is further submitted that the obligation to register only the members of the Stock Exchange which is promoting the subsidiary/company as its sub-brokers and no other client/sub-broker to be entertained by the subsidiary/company, only prohibits business on behalf of his direct clients, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idiary to enable them to trade through the subsidiary. It is submitted that all the petitioners were registered as a sub-broker of a subsidiary to trade on NSE and/or BSE, through subsidiary as a sub-broker and till date they have acted as a sub-broker and they are required to follow and comply with the regulations applicable to the sub-broker. It is submitted that the provisions of SEBI (Stock Broker Sub-broker) Regulations, 1992 were not applicable to the petitioners. This being so SEBI (Stock Broker Sub-broker) (Amendment) Regulations, 2003 would not be applicable to the petitioners as it is only an Amendment to Regulations, 1992. 22. It is submitted that there is no differentiation between a sub-broker of a regular stock broker or a sub-broker of a subsidiary of Regional Stock Exchange and, therefore, it cannot be stated that the petitioners being sub-brokers of subsidiary are a class by themselves. Meeting with the submissions on behalf of the petitioners that the SEBI accepted that the petitioners are not a normal sub-broker and are a class by themselves and that it was stated by the SEBI vide circular dated 31-3-2005 that for the petitioners, special provisions a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent the model bye-laws, it is submitted that such model bye-laws are only model and do not have any statutory force till they are adopted by a Stock Exchange in accordance with section 9 of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 and notified both in the Gazette of India and the Official Gazette of the respective State. It is submitted that till today, no such model bye-laws of any recognized Stock Exchange have attained statutory force by notification in the Gazette of India. It is further submitted that model bye-laws are not implemented by BSE and NSE for many reasons. It is also submitted that as such implementation of the model bye-laws by other exchanges is not the subject-matter of the present Special Civil Application. It is submitted that the SEBI advised the exchanges to amend the bye-laws in line with the model bye-laws vide circular dated 28-10-2003. However, the same are to be implemented after following the procedure and, therefore, this being so, if BSE and NSE have suggested any changes in the model bye-laws, they cannot be compelled to adopt the same without modification, through the instrumentality of article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... if the same amounts to policy decision. He has also relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of the State of J K v. Triloki Nath Khosa AIR 1974 SC 1 (paras 22, 24, 26, 35, 37 and 38), in the case of E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh JT 2005 (11) SC 482 (paras 10, 32, 33, 34 and 39), in the case of Ashutosh Gupta v. State of Rajasthan AIR 2002 SC 1533 (para 6) and in the case of Pradip Chandra Parija v. Pramod Chandra Patnaik AIR 2003 SC 4506 in support of his submission and has submitted that while considering classification, the judicial scrutiny can extend only to the consideration whether the classification rests on a reasonable basis and whether it bears nexus with the object in view and it cannot extend to embarking upon a nice or mathematical evaluation of the basis of classification. Relying upon the judgments of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishan Kakkanth v. Govt. of Kerala AIR 1997 SC 128 and in the case of Pradip Chandra Parija v. Pramod Chandra Patnaik AIR 2003 SC 4506, it is submitted that a mere hardship cannot be a ground for striking down the valid legislation. Relying upon the judgments of the H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble to sub-brokers of subsidiaries/companies of Regional Stock Exchanges also. It is also further, prayed by the petitioners that NSE and BSE be directed to implement the directions given by the SEBI by circular dated 28-10-2003 to amend their bye-laws as per the model bye-laws. The sum and substance of the reliefs, sought by the respective petitioners are (1) not to implement the Regulations, 2003 so far as the sub-broker of subsidiaries/companies of Regional Stock Exchange (2) to direct the BSE and NSE to amend their bye-laws as per the model bye-laws (3) to amend the regulations in such a manner that sub-brokers of subsidiaries/companies of Regional Stock Exchanges be treated as a separate class and to legislate the regulations accordingly. 29. At the outset, it is required to be noted that none of the petitioners have challenged either the provisions of SEBI (Stock Broker and Sub-broker) Regulations, 1992 and/or SEBI (Stock Broker and Sub-broker) (Amendments), Regulations, 2003. For the aforesaid reliefs, the respective petitioners have mainly relied upon the recommendations of the committee constituted by SEBI issued vide circular dated 26-11-1999; the provisions of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nfirmation memo) to the client and the sub-broker will make payment/collect moneys to/from clients and shall also make delivery/receive securities to/from clients in respect of its clients transaction. It is the case of the petitioners that in light of the fundamental changes undergone in the capital market, SEBI constituted an Internal Group to inter alia review provisions relating to capital adequacy, reporting and supervision of sub-brokers and the group came out with a concept paper. The group identified certain areas of concern relating to Client Agreement, Inspection of the books and records, brokers acting as unregistered sub-broker and cessation of sub-brokership etc., and considering the report of the group and the different comm.- ents received, SEBI found many infirmities in the operation of then existing regulatory system and it was found that in case of any default by a client, the sub-brokers may default to other clients both in payment and delivery; when sub-brokers defaulted in giving confirmation memos, the client cannot even move for arbitration in case of dispute/default; as he has no document evidencing sale or purchase. Sub-brokers at time issued bogus confir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esent" to sub-brokers subsidiaries of recognized Stock Exchanges which are registered as stock-brokers and through registered sub-brokers. It appears that such a decision was taken at the relevant time as some changes were under contemplation and the SEBI was considering the status of sub-brokers of the subsidiaries of the recognized Stock Exchanges. It appears that, thereafter, SEBI took a conscious decision to apply and implement the requirements of Amendment Regulations, 2003 relating to changes in role of sub-brokers and their main broker including format of model tripartite agreement to the sub-brokers of subsidiaries/companies to Regional Stock Exchange also. It also appears that prior thereto SEBI proposed model bye-laws and to amend the definition of subsidiaries trading member and direct and advise all the Stock Exchanges vide circular dated 28-10-2003 to amend the respective bye-laws of concerned Stock Exchanges inclusive of BSE and NSE accordingly. The petitioners have heavily relied upon the said circular dated 28-10-2003 in support of their relief directing the BSE and NSE to amend their respective bye-laws so far as the same are inconsistent with the model bye-laws. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ify the information contained therein and also certified that the applicant is eligible for registration as per criteria specified in special Regulation 5. As per Regulation 18( b ), the stock broker shall not do any business with any person as a sub-broker unless such person has been granted certificate of registration by the Board. As per Form B, the proposed sub-broker was required to mention the name of the sub-broker and the Stock Exchange to which he is affiliated. Thereafter, registered as a sub-broker, he can trade in the respective Stock Exchange. Thus, for the purpose of trading in the BSE/NSE, the petitioners were required to get themselves registered as a sub-broker of stock broker of BSE/NSE. For the reasons as stated above, at the relevant time, a decision was taken to give certain benefits and exemption by virtue of which they were permitted to trade in the BSE/NSE as a sub-broker of subsidiaries of Regional Stock Exchange and the concerned subsidiaries/companies of the Regional Stock Exchanges were registered with the concerned Stock Exchange i.e., BSE and NSE. Meaning thereby, the subsidiaries of the Regional Stock Exchanges were the stock brokers of BSE and NSE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns and the requirements of Amended Regulations, 2003 by the sub-broker of the subsidiary Regional Stock Exchange also. 31. It is the contention on behalf of the petitioners that the amendment is contrary to the earlier direction issued by SEBI vide circular dated 26-9-1999. It is required to be noted that Rule 92 and Regulation 92 were already there and the provisions were already there as stated hereinabove. However, by aforesaid circular dated 26-9-1999, certain benefits were given to the sub-brokers of subsidiaries and it can be said that by the Amendment Regulations, 2003, Regulations, 1992 are made more explicit and clear and it can also be said that the benefit which were given in the year 1999 by the aforesaid circular are withdrawn. As stated above, as such the petitioners could not have trade in the NSE/BSE without any registration as per the Rules and Regulations of 1992. If the contention on behalf of the petitioners are accepted then it can be said that all the petitioners were permitted to trade in NSE/BSE without their names being registered as a sub-broker of stock broker of BSE/NSE, which is not permissible at all. They cannot be permitted to trade in BSE/NSE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Regional Stock Exchanges, equal to or at par with other sub-brokers as defined in rule 2( f ) of the SEBI (Stock Brokers and Sub-brokers), Regulation, 1992 cannot be granted. 34. Another prayer of the petitioners is to treat and consider the sub-brokers of the subsidiaries/companies of Regional Stock Exchanges as subsidiary trading member as defined and/or referred to in the model bye-laws published by the SEBI on 27-10-2003 is concerned, it is required to be noted that as on today, model bye-laws are proposed model bye-laws and they have not been accepted by the other exchanges like NSE and BSE. Therefore, on the basis of the model bye-laws, which are yet not become part of the bye-laws of the respective stock exchanges, the said prayer cannot be granted. The aforesaid model bye-laws are to be adopted by the respective stock exchanges in accordance with section 9 of the Act, 1956 and are required to be notified both in the Gazette of India and the Official Gazette of the respective State and the said eventuality has not taken place and, therefore, the prayer of the petitioners cannot be accepted. It appears from the record that the model bye-laws are not implemented by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Agreement, Tripartite Agreement etc., will have to be complied with by the sub-brokers of the subsidiaries/companies of the Regional Stock Exchanges also. It is to be noted that the aforesaid requirement is as per the Regulations, 2003 which are not under challenge. When a circular has been issued to implement the statutory provisions, it cannot be said that there is any illegality. By circular dated 12-5-2005, a policy decision has been taken to treat all the sub-brokers at par and to implement the Amended Regulations, 2003 and other requirements by all the sub-brokers. The decision has been taken by the SEBI after careful consideration. It is required to be noted that SEBI is an expert body constituted under the provisions of the Act consisting of experts and adviser. As held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Limited ( supra ), the Act assigns the power to the SEBI to regulate the system. It is further held by the Hon ble Supreme Court that the experimentation of the economic legislation can best be left to the executive unless it is found to be unrealistic or manifestly arbitrary. It is also held that even if a law is foun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bar on behalf of the petitioners are not of any assistance to them. 38. In the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education ( supra ), the Hon ble Supreme Court has observed that it would be wholly wrong for the Court to substitute its own opinion for that of the Legislature or its delegate as to what principle or policy would best serve the objects and purposes of the Act and to sit in judgment over the wisdom and effectiveness or otherwise of the policy laid down by the regulation making body and declare a regulation to be ultra vires merely on the ground that in view of the Court, the impugned provisions will not help to serve the object and purpose of the Act. So long as the body entrusted with the task of framing the rules or regulations acts within the scope of the authority conferred on it, in the sense that the rules or regulations made by it have a rational nexus with the object and purpose of the Statute, the court should not concern itself with the wisdom or efficaciousness of such rules or regulations. It is also observed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the said decision that it is exclusively within the province of the Legislatur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity of such a concession, however, cannot make the rules arbitrary or violative of article 14. 41. In the case of Ashutosh Gupta ( supra ), the Hon ble Supreme Court has considered the concept of equality. Para 6 of the said judgment reads as under: "The concept of equality before law does not involve the idea of absolute equality amongst all which may be a physical impossibility. All that article 14 guarantees is the similarity of treatment and not identical treatment. The protection of equal law does not mean that all laws must be uniformed. Equality before the law means that among equal the law should be equal and should be equally administered that the likes should be treated alike. Equality before the law does not mean that things which are different shall be treated as though they were the same. It is true that article 14 enjoins that the people similarly situated should be treated similarly but what amount of dissimilarity would make the people dis- entitle to be treated equally is rather a vexed question. A Legislature which has to deal with diverse problems arising out of an infinite verity of human relations must of necessity, have the power of making special law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cifically decided to meet all situations under which people from different walks of life could be recruited to the Rajasthan Administrative Service under the Emergency Recruitment Rules. The law making authority must be presumed to have examined pros and cons in making the aforesaid provision or seniority in the cadre which is in pari materia with similar provisions for recruitment to the Indian Administrative Service, and therefore, it is difficult for us to hold that the aforesaid provision is discriminatory in nature." 42. In the case of Prafulla Kumar Das ( supra ), the Hon ble Supreme Court has observed that a mere hardship cannot be a ground for striking down the valid legislation. In the case of Sukhpal Singh Bal ( supra ), relying upon the earlier decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhavesh D. Parish v. Union of India [2000] 5 SCC 471, the Hon ble Supreme Court has observed that while considering the scope of economic legislation as well as the tax legislation, the courts must bear in mind that unless the provision is manifestly unjust or glaringly unconstitutional, the courts must show judicial restraint in interfering with its applicability. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
