LexPAREENA SWARUP versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
) [2008] 13 S.C.R. 1217 PAREENA SWARUP A V. UNION OF INDIA (Writ Petition No. 634 of 2007) SEPTEMBER 30, 2008 8 [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ] Constitution of India, 1950: Article 32 - Provisions of Prevention of Money-launder- c ing Act, 2002 and the Rules framed thereunder regarding con- stitution of Adjudicating Authorities and Appellate Tribunal - Challenged as violative of constitutional scheme of separa- tion of powers and constitutional guarantee of independent ;udiciary - Union of India filing amended/proposed provisions D incorporating the required safeguards - HELD: Independence and impartiality are to be secured not only for courts but also for tribunals and their members entrusted with judicial powers - Amended/proposed provisions of the Act and the Rules approved - Judicial Review - Administration of justice - Tri- E bunals entrusted with judicial powers- Independence of- Pre- vention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 - ss. 28 and 32 - Pre- vention of Money-laundering (Appointment and Conditions of Service of Chairperson and Members of Adjudicating Au- thorities) Rules, 2007 - r. 3 - Prevention of Money-launder- F ing (Appointment and Conditions of Service of Chairperson and Members of Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 2007 - rr. 4 and 6 - Public Interest Litigation. Basic structure theory - Doctrine of separation of pow- ers, and independence of judiciary - Applicability of, to tribu- G nals entrusted with judicial powers - Explained. The petitioner filed the instant writ petition under Ar- tic le 32 of the Constitution of India, by way of public inter- 1217 H 1218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R. A est litigation, challenging the provisions of Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002, Prevention of Money-laun- dering (Appointment and Conditions of Service of Chair- person and Members of Adjudicating Authorities) Rules, 2007 and Prevention of Money-laundering (Appointment B and Conditions of Service of Chairperson and Members of Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 2007 in so far as they related to constitution of the Adjudicating Authorities and the Appellate Tribunal. It was contended that the Adjudicat- ing Authorities and the Appellate Tribunal under the Act c were to perform judicial functions, but their Members and Chairperson were to be selected by a Selection Commit- tee headed by the Revenue Secretary and, thus, the rel- evant provisions of the Act and the Rules were violative of the Constitutional scheme of separation of powers and D constitutional guarantee of a free and independent judi- ciary. During the course of hearing, amendment to the Act and the Rules were suggested and, accordingly, the Union of India filed amended/proposed provisions of the Act and E the Rules, which were approved by the Court. Disposing of the writ petition, the Court HELD: 1.1 The Independence in judicial function and impartiality are to be secured not only for courts but also t F for tribunals and their members, entrusted with judicial , powers, though they do not belong to the 'Judicial Ser- vice'. [para 8) [1224,C] 1.2 While creating new avenue of judicial forums, it is the duty of the Government to see that they are not in G breach of basic constitutional scheme of separation of powers and independence of the judicial function. There is substance in the apprehension of the petitioner that ~ the provisions of Prevention of the Money-laundering Act, 2002 are so provided that the Members and the Chairper- H son of the Adjudicating Authorities and Appellate Tribu- ) PAREENA SWARUP v. UNION OF INDIA 1219 nal would be selected by the Selection Committee headed A by Revenue Secretary and, that there may not be inde- pendent adjudicatory machinery to decide the cases un- der the Act. [para 8] [1223,F-H] 1.3 Power of judicial review over legislative action vested in the High Courts under Article 226 as well as in 8 this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution is an inte- gral and essential feature of the Constitution constitut- ing part of its structure. The Constitution guarantees free and independent judiciary and the constitutional scheme of separation of powers can be easily and seriously un- C dermined, if the legislatures were to divest the regular courts of their jurisdiction in all matters and entrust the same to the newly created Tribunals which are not en- titled to protection similar to the constitutional pro
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.