Finance Bill 2017 Rules on tribunals challenged

The Finance Bill 2017, which empowers the Centre to shut down tribunals and make rules relating to appointment, qualification, terms of office and removal of chairperson and members of tribunals, suffered a setback with the HC holding that any step taken pursuant to the Finance Bill 2017, which had come into effect from April 1, will be subject to the orders to be passed by it on a public interest litigation moved by the Madras Bar Association.

The first bench comprising Chief Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice V Bhavani Subbaroyan, while granting the injunction, said, “Prima facie,  the impugned Rules are in contravention of the directives of the SC and that of a division bench of this HC passed in 2014. Hence, any step taken pursuant to the impugned Rules in the meanwhile, shall abide by the result of the writ petitions.” 

The petitioner represented by senior advocate Arvind Datar had contended that the Centre, in an unprecedented manner, introduced the Bill, proposing to make amendments to various Acts, inter alia, aiming to reform a total of 27 tribunals on Feb 1. Of these, the Bill sought to shut down 8 tribunals by merging them with the remaining 19 tribunals. 

The petitioner further contended that the Money Bill process was abused to make amendments to the functioning of the tribunals that were set up under 17 Acts, including Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, many of which are non-fiscal by nature. The Rajya Sabha alone can recommend amendments to Money Bills. In this case, the Bill was not placed before the RS0.  Moreover, the Supreme Court had already held that abusing ordinance making power and deliberate use of Article 110 to circumvent the need of Rajya Sabha approval, would amount to playing a fraud on the Constitution, the petitioner said. The matter posted for final hearing on July 24.