Back
MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
V. Vasanthakumar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Revenue, New Delhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Declaration to declare Section 9 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (Act 45 of 1988, as amended by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016) pertaining to qualification of appointment of Judicial Member and Section 32(2)(a) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (Act 45 of 1988 as amended by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016) as unconstitutional as it runs counter to the doctrine of Separation of Powers, which is the basic structure and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J.
1. This writ petition challenges Sections 9 and 32(2)(a) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 [for brevity, "the Act of 1988"], as amended by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016.
2. The petitioner, appearing in person, and learned counsel for the respondent submit that so far as the challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 9 of the Act of 1988 is concerned, the writ petition has become infructuous, as Section 9 of the Act of 1
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of appointing a Judicial Member from the judiciary or the bar to maintain the independence of the judicial system.
The Rules of 2020 were arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as they did not provide for a uniform pattern and transparency in selection, did not prescribe ....
The absence of a defined selection process for judicial appointments undermines fairness and violates constitutional rights to equality and transparency in public employment.
Pension benefits for Members (Judicial) of the Railway Claims Tribunal are governed strictly by applicable statutory rules, and prior legal practice cannot be included as qualifying service.
The court established that the Adjudicating Authority under the PMLA, while exercising powers that may appear judicial, operates primarily as an administrative body, and its composition does not nece....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
