C.A. No. 8588/2019

ROJER MATHEW VS SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD AND ORS CHIEF MANAGER

The Constitution Bench (five judges) of the Supreme Court referred the question of whether the Finance Act, 2017 qualifies as a money bill to a larger bench of seven judges. The Court struck down the Tribunal Rules framed by the Union Government as unconstitutional because the Rules interfered with the independence of the tribunal members. Chief Justice Gogoi authored the majority opinion on behalf of himself, Justice Ramana and Justice Khanna. Justice Chandrachud and Justice Gupta wrote separate, partly dissenting, partly concurring opinions.The Supreme Court also recommended the Union Government frame new rules ensuring uniform and non discriminatory conditions of service for tribunal members. The majority held that Section 184 of the Finance Act has adequate guiding principles to inform the creation of new rules and thus did not constitute excessive delegation of legislative powers to the Union Government.In their separate dissenting opinions, both Justice Chandrachud and Justice Gupta held that defining the qualifications and terms of service of the members of a tribunal is at the heart of a tribunal’s functioning. They held that these conditions must be laid down by Parliament and cannot be delegated to the Union Government who is often one of the parties before the tribunal.Justice Chandrachud also directed the government to establish a National Tribunal Commission and establish an All India Tribunal Service for the selection of non adjudicatory personnel in tribunals.