Supreme Court strikes down rules framed under Sec 184 of Finance Act, 2017

A five-judge Constitution bench of Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down rules framed under Section 184 of Finance Act, 2017 by which Central government sought to control terms of services of members of Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals. apex court also referred challenge to pass of said Act as a Money Bill to a larger, seven-judge bench. This bench shall w decide wher Finance Act passed by Modi government in 2017 could have been passed as a money bill or t.

RE | BIG: Supreme Court Upholds Disqualification Of 17 Karnataka MLAs

Delivering verdict, Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi neless upheld validity of Section 184 and directed Centre to reframe rules in consonance with top court's judgment in R Gandhi v. Union of India case. 5-judge bench also comprised Justices DY Chandrachud, Sanjiv Khanna, NV Ramana, and Deepak Gupta. Justice Chandrachud observed that re is bar on judicial review of a Speaker's decision to certify a bill as a Money Bill.

RE | Lawyers Continue To Boycott Work In Delhi District Courts

What is case about?

A batch of petitions, led by Revenue Bar Association, h challenged validity of Finance Act, 2017 and Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal, and or Authorities (Qualifications, Experience, and Or Conditions of Service of Members) Rules, 2017 (Rules). main bone of contention was Part XIV of Finance Act. Part XIV of Finance Act repealed substantive provisions relating to ministration of 26 Tribunals established and codified under 26 different Central laws. As a substitute, by virtue of Section 184, Centre was given powers to frame rules in this regard.

RE | Supreme Court To Prounce Verdict On Rafale Review Petitions On Thursday

petitioners contended passing of such a law as a Money Bill. Money Bills are those Bills that exclusively contain provisions for appropriation of money out of Consolidated Fund of India and imposition of taxes. Such bills can only be introduced in Lok Sabha while Rajya Sabha can only suggest amendments. In this case, all recommendations me by Upper House regarding bill passed in Lok Sabha were ditched, and Act came into force on April 1, 2017. Petitioners say this pass of Act as a Money Bill was entirely inappropriate and unconstitutional. provisions affecting ministration of tribunals can hardly qualify as a purely fiscal measure or enacted purely on financial considerations, petitioner argued. This basically means that Centre can't use excuse of utilisation of public funds to take greater control of way judicial bodies like National Green Tribunal and National Company Law Tribunal work.

RE | MASSIVE: SC Brings CJI's Office Under RTI, Upholds Delhi HC's 2010 Order