CASE TITLE:
V. Vasanthakumar v. Union of India
DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
1 April, 2022
JUDGES:
Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D. Bharata Chakravarthy
PARTIES:
V. Vasanthakumar (Petitioner)
Union of India (Respondent)
SUBJECT
This writ petition challenged Sections 9 and 32(2)(a) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
- Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016; Section 32(2)(a) - Member of Indian Legal Service cannot be appointed as judicial member.
- Section 9 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 - Qualifications for appointment of Chairperson and Members. of Joint Secretary or equivalent post in that Service.
- Section 32(2)(a) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 - Qualifications for appointment of Chairperson and Members of Appellate Tribunal
- Article 14 of the Constitution of India - provides for equality before law.
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India - empowers the Hon'ble High Courts to exercise power through issuance of writs – habeas corpus, mandamus, quo warranto, prohibition and certiorari or any appropriate writ.
BRIEF FACTS
- • The petitioner, Mr V Vasanthakumar, filed a writ petition by appearing in person challenging the validity of Section 9 and Section 32(2)(a) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 as amended by the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONER
- The petitioner argued that the provision was invalidated by the Apex Court's decision in Union of India v. R. Gandhi, President, Madras Bar Association (2010), in which the Apex Court stated unequivocally that the post of a Judicial Member should only be filled by a person who has served as a Judge or a member of the Bar, not by a member of the Indian Legal Service. He also cited the Supreme Court's decisions in Shamnad Basheer v. Union of India and others (2015) and Revenue Bar Association vs. Union of India (2019), in which the Apex Court considered the appointment of Judicial Members to the Intellectual Property Appellate Board and the Goods and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT
- The court evaluated the idea of Separation of Powers and concluded that the Legislature's exercise of authority should be limited to its sphere of influence, leaving the judicial system independent. The court also emphasised that the concept of judicial independence is a critical problem, emphasising the importance of separation of powers.
- Union of India v. R. Gandhi, President, Madras Bar Association, to address this issue. A specific direction had also been issued in R. Gandhi's case in this regard. Because the position of a judicial member differs from that of an executive member, such a person cannot be requested to perform the duty, particularly as a Judicial Member, without prior experience. The issue can also be viewed from a different perspective. Section 85(4) treats even an experienced lawyer with specialised knowledge and expertise as a technical member (b). If that is the case, a person's eligibility to be appointed as a Judicial Member without experience cannot be granted just because he works for the government. A person like him cannot be treated equally to a Judicial Officer. The court didn’t understand how an Officer working with the Executive would satisfy the requirement of legal training and experience. In other words, when such an Officer cannot become a judge, he cannot also act in the said capacity. The court reiterated the reasoning assigned by the Supreme Court in this regard. Therefore, the Court held that there is no hesitation in holding that Section 85(3)(a) is unconstitutional, particularly, in the light of the directions (i) and (ii) rendered in Union of India v. R. Gandhi, President, Madras Bar Association, 2011. The court stated that as Section 85(3)(b) is concerned, there is neither any challenge nor does it find any unconstitutionality in it.
- The court went on to say that the Apex Court had stressed the significance and importance of a judicial member who served as a Judge or a member of the bar in Shamnad Basheer's case as well. This is due to the fact that before the establishment of the Tribunal, adjudication was handled by courts. As a result of the tribunal's formation, they will be completing work that was previously completed by the courts.
CONCLUSION
The reasoning by the Court in the present case is appropriate and therefore logical to hold that Section 32(2) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 is unconstitutional.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC, Indian Evidence At, CPC, Family Laws and many others HERE
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
