March 04, 2019:

On Thursday, the Bench of Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Rajendra Menon and Justice V. Kameswar Rao holds that being ignorant of amendments been carried out as Money Bills, is no reason to challenge the amendments.

Mr. Jairam Ramesh, being a member of Rajya Sabha, has prayed in this case before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi to issue a Writ 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.

It is submitted by Mr. P. Chidambram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 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.

It is contended that before the year 2015, the aforesaid 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.

According to him, a Money Bill is restricted only to the specified matters and cannot include within its ambit any other matter.

The Hon'ble Bench observes, ".....the plea of the petitioner that he 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."

While placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. vs. Union of India and Anr, (2004) 6 SCC 254, it was held,

"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."

The Bench therefore holds that it is not a case where the Supreme Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Read Judgment @ LatestLaws.com

JAIRAM RAMESH Vs UOI 28.02.2019(Downloadable PDF)

Share this Document :

Picture Source :