Delhi High Court
Mr. Jairam Ramesh vs Union Of India And Ors on 28 February, 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment reserved on: February 27, 2019
Judgment delivered on: February 28, 2019
+ W.P.(C) 2042/2019, CM No. 9551/2019
MR. JAIRAM RAMESH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. P. Chidambaram, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Muhammad Ali Khan,
Mr. Abhishek Jebaraj,
Mr. Vikramaditya Singh,
Mr. Omar Hoda, Mr. Jaspal Singh,
Ms. Namrah Nasir, Mr. Sparsh Prasad
and Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Maninder Acharya, ASG with
Mr. Amit Mahajan, CGSC,
Ms. Mallika Hiramath, Mr. Sahil Sood,
Mr. Harshul Choudhary & Mr. Viplav
Acharya, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
JUDGMENT
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
CM No. 9551/2019 (for exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 2042/2019
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, a
Member of Rajya Sabha, with the following prayers:-
"In light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and in
the interest of justice, it is most humbly prayed that this
Hon'ble Court kindly be pleased to:-
a. Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction so as to declare and
set aside sections 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 and 151
of the Finance Act, 2015, Section 232 of the Finance
Act, 2016 and Section 208 of the Finance Act, 2018 as
ultra-vires the Constitution of India;
b. Pass any other directions or orders as deemed fit by
this Court.
2. It was the submission of Mr. P. Chidambram, learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Prevention of
Money Laundering Act, 2002 ('PML Act' in short) was enacted
on January 17, 2013 for the purposes of preventing the offence of
money laundering and the confiscation of property derived from
such offence. Before the year 2015, the Act was amended on
various occasions through Ordinary Bills as defined under Article
109 of the Constitution of India. However, from the year 2015
most amendments to the PML Act have been enacted via Finance
Acts as 'Money Bills', defined under Article 110(1) of the
Constitution.
3. According to him, a Money Bill is deemed to be such if it
contains only provisions dealing with all or any of the matters
under (a) to (g) of Article 110(1). In other words, a Money Bill is
restricted only to the specified matters and cannot include within
its ambit any other matter. In support of his submission, he had
drawn our attention to page 62 of the petition, which is an
information given to the applicant, who sought information under
Right to Information Act.
4. It was his submission that the amendments were made in
the years 2015, 2016 and 2018 and per-se unconstitutional and
liable to be set aside. On a specific query from the Court about
the justiciability of the issue raised by the petitioner in the present
petition, Mr. Chidambram submitted that the Constitution Bench
in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. v. Union of India
and Ors. W.P(Civil) No. 494/2012, wherein a similar issue was
raised with regard to the Adhar Act as the same was passed as a
Money Bill, has settled the issue, wherein the Supreme Court in
para 405 held that the decision of the Speaker on whether a Bill is
a Money Bill or not, is justiciable.
5. That apart, on a 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, Mr. Chidambram submitted that the petitioner was
not aware that such Bills were passed as Money Bills. It is only,
after the information was taken under Right to Information Act,
the picture became clear that the amendments of 2015, 2016 and
2018 were passed as Money Bills. That apart, it is only recently
that Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr.
(supra) has decided a similar issue. According to him, there is no
issue of limitation in challenging a parliamentary enactment,
more so when the amendments are unconstitutional. It was also
his submission that this Court may exercise its discretionary
jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner as the amendments are
unconstitutional.
6. On the other hand, Ms. Maninder Acharya, learned
Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India stated that the
present petition challenging the amendments effected in the years
2015, 2016 and 2018, that too at the behest of a person, who is
not affected by the amendments, must not be entertained. She
relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case reported
as (2004) 6 SCC 254 Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of
India and Anr.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
considered the record, there is no dispute 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.
8. 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. Ms. Acharya is justified
in relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kusum
Ingots & Alloys Ltd. (supra) wherein, in para 21 the Supreme
Court held as under:-
"21. A parliamentary legislation when receives the
assent of the President of India and published in an
Official Gazette, unless specifically excluded, will
apply to the entire territory of India. If passing of a
legislation gives rise to a cause of action, a writ
petition questioning the constitutionality thereof can be
filed in any High Court of the country. It is not so done
because a cause of action will arise only when the
provisions of the Act or some of them which were
implemented shall give rise to civil or evil
consequences to the petitioner. A writ court, it is well
settled would not determine a constitutional question in
vacuum."
9. 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.
10. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
CHIEF JUSTICE
FEBRUARY 28, 2019/ak
