Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2022 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (10) TMI 690 - HC - Indian LawsConstitutional validity of of amendment to LIC Act - Money Bill of not - Sections 128 to 146 of the Finance Act, 2021 - Section 5(9) of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 and Sections 128 to 130 and Sections 132 to 146 of the Act of 2021- case of petitioner is that every participating policyholder was entitled to a minimum of 90% of the surplus arising from non-participating policies, but the amendment under challenge has reduced their entitlement to nil and, therefore, being a policyholder, she has challenged Sections 128 to 146 of the Act of 2021, apart from Section 5(9) of the Act of 1956. Whether the amendments fall within the realm of the subject-matters under Article 110 of the Constitution of India? HELD THAT:- The issue in this regard was considered by the Apex Court in the case of Justice K.S.Puttaswamy (Retd.), [2018 (9) TMI 1733 - SC ORDER], and ROJER MATHEW VERSUS SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. & OTHERS [2019 (11) TMI 716 - SUPREME COURT]. It was held that Money Bill cannot be construed in a restrictive sense and that the wisdom of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha must be valued, save where it is blatantly violative of the scheme of the Constitution - It is now settled law that mere reference to a Larger Bench does not stop operation of the judgment till it is reversed by the Larger Bench and, thereby, the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Justice K.S.Puttaswamy (Retd.), and ROJER MATHEW, remain operational and binding on this court. The view aforesaid is fortified by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of ASHOK SADARANGANI & ANR. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [2012 (3) TMI 587 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it has been held that a mere reference of an issue to a Larger Bench would not make the judgment inoperative. The judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Justice K.S.Puttaswamy (Retd.), and Rojer Mathew, can be applied to the present case. It is, however, necessary to deal with this case even independent to the judgments, cited supra, because the Notes on Clauses to the amendments elaborates the reason to bring in the amendment. It has been stated that the amendment is brought in to allow the Central Government to float the IPO and receive the money into the Consolidated Fund of India. In view of the above, the reason for amendment is to bring the money into the Consolidated Fund of India and all other amendments were required as a consequence thereof and are saved by Article 110(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, because payment of moneys into the Consolidated Fund or the Contingency Fund of India is covered by Article 110(1)(c) of the Constitution of India - it is opined that the amendment in the case on hand falls within the purview of Article 110 of the Constitution of India. The word "only" used in the definition of Money Bills given under Article 110 of the Constitution of India has to be read along with Article 110(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. If the word "only" is meant to govern only the subject-matters falling in any of the categories given under sub-clauses (a) to (f) of clause (1) of Article 110 of the Constitution of India, then it would make Article 110(1)(g) of the Constitution of India redundant, as Article 110(1)(g) of the Constitution of India provides for any matter incidental to any of the matters specified in sub-clauses (a) to (f) of clause (1) of Article 110 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the word "only" has to be read in conjunction with Article 110(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has challenged the amendment in reference to Article 110 of the Constitution of India without challenging the certificate issued by the Speaker of the House of the People, though his decision is taken as final as per Article 110(3) of the Constitution of India. Moreover, as recorded in the previous paragraphs, when the petitioner was asked as to whether he would challenge the certificate issued by the Speaker of the House of the People, he answered in the negative and this shows that the challenge is made to the amendment ignoring the constitutional mandate under Article 110(3) of the Constitution of India. There are no merits in the writ petition to challenge the Act of 2021 in reference to the amendment in the Act of 1956 - petition dismissed.
|