ROJER MATHEW versus SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 16 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 13-11-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 17 judgment(s) · cites 29 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
ROJER MATHEW
v.
SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 8588 of 2019)
NOVEMBER 13, 2019
[RANJAN GOGOI, CJI, N. V. RAMANA,
DR D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, DEEPAK GUPTA
AND SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.]
Tribunals – Finance Act, 2017 – Finance Act, 2017, a
‘money bill’ or not u/Art.110 – Validity of the Act, 2017 – Held:
The majority in K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5) pronounced the
nature of the impugned enactment without first delineating the
scope of Art.110(1) and principles for interpretation or the
repercussions of such process – The majority dictum in K.S.
Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5) did not substantially discuss the effect of
the word ‘only’ in Art.110(1) and offers little guidance on the
repercussions of a finding when some of the provisions of an
enactment passed as a ‘Money Bill’ do not conform to Art. 110 (1)
(a) (b) – Without expressing a firm and final opinion, the analysis
in K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5) made its application difficult to
the present case and raises a potential conflict between the
judgments of Coordinate Benches – Being a Bench of equal
strength as that in K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5), the batch of
matters directed to be referred to the Larger Bench.
Tribunals – Finance Act, 2017 – S. 184 – Constitutionality
of s. 184 on account of excessive delegations – Held s.184 does
not suffer from excessive delegations of legislative functions as
there are adequate principles to guide framing of delegated
legislation, which would include the binding dictums of the
Supreme Court – The objects of the parent enactments as well as
the law laid down by the Supreme Court in R.K. Jain, L. Chandra
Kumar, R. Gandhi, Madras Bar Association and Gujarat Urja
Vikas undoubtedly bind the delegate and mandatorily requires the
delegate u/s. 184 to act strictly in conformity with these decisions
and the objects of delegated legislation stipulated in the statutes.
   [2019] 16 S.C.R. 1
1
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 16 S.C.R.
Tribunals – The Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and other
Authorities (Qualifications, Experience and other Conditions of
Service of Members) Rules, 2017 – Conformity of the Rules with
the judicial principles inherent in the Constitutional scheme as
established by the Supreme Court – Held: The composition of the
search-cum-Selection Committees under the Rules amounts to
excessive interference of the Executive in appointment of members
and presiding offices of statutory Tribunals and it is detrimental
to the independence of Judiciary – In addition to this, there has
been a blatant dilution of judicial character in appointments
whereby candidates without any judicial experience are prescribed
to be eligible for adjudicatory posts such as that of the presiding
Officer – Therefore, the Rules have an effect of dilution of the
judicial character in adjudicatory positions – Further, earlier
removal of members or presiding officer was done after an enquiry
by the Supreme Court Judges and with necessary consultation with
the Chief Justice of India, under the present Rules it is permissible
for the Central Government to appoint an enquiry Committee for
removal of any presiding officer or member on its own – The
Members and Presiding Officers of Tribunals cannot be removed
without either the concurrence of the Judiciary or in the manner
specified in the Constitution for Constitutional Court Judges – Also,
there must be uniform age of superannuation for all members in
all the Tribunals, the Rules demonstrate disparity in age of
superannuation of Members and Chairpersons/Presiding Officers
of different Tribunals – Furthermore, there is inconsistency within
the Rules with regard to the tenure prescribed for the Members of
Tribunals insofar as a fixed tenure of three years for both direct
appointments from the Bar and appointment of retired judicial
officers or judges of High Court or Supreme Court – It is also
discriminatory to the extent that it attempts to create equality
between unequal classes – Therefore, the Rules suffer from various
infirmities and are contrary to the Parent enactment and the
principles envisaged in the Constitution, resultantly, directed to be
struck down in entirety.
Tribunals – Finance Act, 2017 – Whether there should be a
single Nodal Agency for administration of all Tribunals – Held: It
may not be very crucial as to which Ministry or Department
performs the duties of Nodal Agency for a Tribunal, but what is
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
3
of utmost importance is that the Tribunal shoul

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.