Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
The Court also discussed the scope of judicial review over decisions of the Speaker of the House of People under Article 110(3), referencing the judgment in Rojer Mathew and noting that some observations in the judgment have been doubted or clarified in subsequent proceedings ["WING COMMANDER SHYAM NAITHANI vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS - Delhi"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
In the realm of Indian constitutional law, few issues have sparked as much debate as the certification of bills as Money Bills under Article 110 of the Constitution. A common query from legal enthusiasts and practitioners alike is: Give me a summary of the Rojer Mathew judgment. This landmark case, Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd. (2020), delved into the heart of legislative processes, questioning the Speaker's authority and the scope of judicial oversight. This blog post provides a comprehensive breakdown, drawing from the core judgment and related cases, to help you understand its implications.
Disclaimer: This article offers general information on the Rojer Mathew judgment and is not intended as legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for specific guidance.
The case originated as a challenge to amendments introduced via Part-XIV of the Finance Act, 2017, which altered the functioning of tribunals, including the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Petitioners argued that these changes bypassed the Rajya Sabha by being certified as a Money Bill, raising questions about the Speaker's certification under Article 110(3). The Supreme Court's Constitution Bench examined whether this certification is subject to judicial review and if prior rulings shielding it were correct. MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION VS UNION OF INDIA - 2020 6 Supreme 65
The judgment, delivered in 2020, marked a pivotal shift, asserting that the Speaker's decision is not immune if it breaches constitutional norms. It referred the specific validity of the Finance Act's certification to a larger bench, underscoring the issue's gravity. MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION VS UNION OF INDIA - 2020 6 Supreme 65
The core holding was clear: the Speaker's certification of a bill as a Money Bill under Article 110 is subject to judicial review if it violates constitutional provisions. The Court overruled aspects of earlier decisions that deemed it final and unreviewable. Key quote: The obligation placed on the Speaker of the Lok Sabha to certify whether a Bill is a Money Bill is not a mere matter of 'procedure' contemplated under Article 122. It is a constitutional requirement, which has to be fulfilled according to the norms set out in Article 110.MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION VS UNION OF INDIA - 2020 6 Supreme 65
Article 122, which bars inquiry into parliamentary procedures, does not protect certifications contrary to Article 110. The majority emphasized a non-restrictive interpretation of Money Bill, ensuring substantive compliance. MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION VS UNION OF INDIA - 2020 6 Supreme 65
These points highlight the judgment's role in balancing legislative autonomy with constitutional checks.
The Court clarified that while the Speaker holds significant power, it is a constitutional function subject to norms. Article 122 will not save the action of the Speaker if it is contrary to constitutional norms provided under Article 110. This opens doors for courts to intervene in cases of procedural or substantive breaches. MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION VS UNION OF INDIA - 2020 6 Supreme 65
The judgment revisited the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, certified as a Money Bill. Relying on Section 7, the Court questioned if non-money provisions tainted the whole. This doubt influenced the referral, signaling potential scrutiny for similar certifications. MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION VS UNION OF INDIA - 2020 6 Supreme 65
Recognizing conflicting precedents, the Bench referred the Finance Act issue to resolve: Was Part-XIV truly a Money Bill? This procedural step ensures a authoritative precedent. MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION VS UNION OF INDIA - 2020 6 Supreme 65
The Rojer Mathew ruling has rippled through jurisprudence, particularly on tribunal oversight. In cases involving the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), courts have cited it to affirm writ jurisdiction under Article 226 while barring Article 227 petitions per Article 227(4). For instance: Learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Rojer Mathew vs. South Indian Bank Ltd... In fact, it was pursuant to specific Question No.7 framed by the Constitution Bench that the same was answered in paragraph 215 of Rojer Mathew.WING COMMANDER SHYAM NAITHANI vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORSROJER MATHEW vs STATE OF KERALA - 2015 Supreme(Online)(KER) 36802Ravindran K. VS Union of India - 2022 Supreme(Ker) 1107
Paragraph 215 specifically addressed Debt Recovery Tribunal orders, reinforcing L. Chandra Kumar principles on judicial review as part of the Constitution's basic structure. Ravindran K. VS Union of India - 2022 Supreme(Ker) 1107 Courts reiterated: The jurisdiction conferred by Articles 226 and 136 of the Constitution entitles the High Courts and the Supreme Court to examine the decisions of all Tribunals to see whether they have acted illegally.Ravindran K. VS Union of India - 2022 Supreme(Ker) 1107
In review petitions post-Rojer Mathew, the Supreme Court distinguished final judgments from pending ones, dismissing some while noting the larger bench reference. Beghar Foundation through its Secretary VS Justice K . S. Puttaswamy (Retd. ) - 2021 Supreme(SC) 216
Other applications include:- AFT Writ Maintainability: Article 226 petitions viable against AFT orders, but not Article 227. Ravindran K. VS Union of India - 2022 Supreme(Ker) 1107- Tribunal Independence: Reinforced in challenges to Armed Forces Tribunal decisions, emphasizing access to justice. Wing Commander Shyam Naithani VS Union Of India - 2022 Supreme(Del) 192- Broader Judicial Oversight: Cited in transfer disputes and consumer forum appointments, stressing review powers. Amarjeet Singh Dagar VS Union Of India - 2022 Supreme(Del) 218Vijaykumar Bhima Dighe VS Union Of India - 2021 Supreme(Bom) 1668
These references show Rojer Mathew's enduring influence on ensuring tribunals and legislative processes align with constitutional mandates. WING COMMANDER SHYAM NAITHANI vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS - Delhi_Delhi_WP(C)-6483_2021 2022_DHC_938-DB WG CDR VIDHU SINGH vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Critics of past rulings hailed the decision for curbing potential misuse of Money Bill status to evade Rajya Sabha scrutiny. However, the referral leaves finality pending, urging caution in interim applications.
For practitioners, it signals heightened vigilance: Alleged violations may invite judicial probe, impacting finance-related legislations. In tribunal contexts, it bolsters High Court interventions, as seen in AFT and DRT matters. Shriram Properties Pvt. Ltd. VS State of Karnataka Rep. by its Secretary Department of Revenue - 2021 Supreme(Kar) 81
The Rojer Mathew judgment exemplifies the judiciary's role in safeguarding democratic processes. Stay tuned for the larger bench's verdict, which could reshape legislative practices.
References:- Primary: MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION VS UNION OF INDIA - 2020 6 Supreme 65- Related: WING COMMANDER SHYAM NAITHANI vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS, Ravindran K. VS Union of India - 2022 Supreme(Ker) 1107, Beghar Foundation through its Secretary VS Justice K . S. Puttaswamy (Retd. ) - 2021 Supreme(SC) 216, and others noted inline.
#RojerMathew, #MoneyBill, #JudicialReview
Learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Rojer Mathew vs. South Indian Bank Ltd. This is a digitally signed Judgement. ... In the case of Rojer Mathew (supra), the Supreme Court had framed various questions of law to be answered by the Constitution Bench. ... In fact, it was pursuant to specific Question No.7 framed by the Constitution Bench that the same was answered in paragraph 215 of Rojer Mathew#HL_....
MATHEW. ... MATHEW & CO., G-203, PURAPPADATHIL, PANAMPILLY NAGAR ---------------------- REPRESENTED BY ITSCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER EXT.P-6: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT
(v) Although the above observations in Rojer Mathew (supra) and L. ... Union of India and Others – (2020) 2 SCC 442, Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd. - (2020) 6 SCC 1, Shalini Shyam Shetty and another v. ... (iv) At paragraph 215 of its judgment in Rojer Mathew (supra), the Supreme Court observed in the context of orders passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal that it was clear post L. ... This position was reiterated in Rojer Mathew (supra). In....
In the present case, the above-mentioned review petitions had all been filed before the judgment in Rojer Mathew was delivered on 13 November 2019. The review petitions were pending on the date when a reference was made to a larger bench in Rojer Mathew. ... The issue whether judicial review can be exercised over a decision of the Speaker of the House of People under Article 110(3), arose subsequently before another Constitution Bench in Rojer Mathew v South Indian Bank Ltd, (2020) 6 S....
Learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Rojer Mathew vs. South Indian Bank Ltd. ... In the case of Rojer Mathew (supra), the Supreme Court had framed various questions of law to be answered by the Constitution Bench. ... In fact, it was pursuant to specific Question No.7 framed by the Constitution Bench that the same was answered in paragraph 215 of Rojer Mathew (supra). ... (supra) continues to be good law as it....
Learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Rojer Mathew vs. South Indian Bank Ltd. ... In the case of Rojer Mathew (supra), the Supreme Court had framed various questions of law to be answered by the Constitution Bench. ... In fact, it was pursuant to specific Question No.7 framed by the Constitution Bench that the same was answered in paragraph 215 of Rojer Mathew (supra). ... (supra) continues to be good law as it....
Learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Rojer Mathew vs. South Indian Bank Ltd. ... In the case of Rojer Mathew (supra), the Supreme Court had framed various questions of law to be answered by the Constitution Bench. ... In fact, it was pursuant to specific Question No.7 framed by the Constitution Bench that the same was answered in paragraph 215 of Rojer Mathew (supra). ... (supra) continues to be good law as it....
Learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Rojer Mathew vs. South Indian Bank Ltd. ... In the case of Rojer Mathew (supra), the Supreme Court had framed various questions of law to be answered by the Constitution Bench. ... In fact, it was pursuant to specific Question No.7 framed by the Constitution Bench that the same was answered in paragraph 215 of Rojer Mathew (supra). ... (supra) continues to be good law as it....
Learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Rojer Mathew vs. South Indian Bank Ltd. ... In the case of Rojer Mathew (supra), the Supreme Court had framed various questions of law to be answered by the Constitution Bench. ... In fact, it was pursuant to specific Question No.7 framed by the Constitution Bench that the same was answered in paragraph 215 of Rojer Mathew (supra). ... (supra) continues to be good law as it....
Learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Rojer Mathew vs. South Indian Bank Ltd. ... In the case of Rojer Mathew (supra), the Supreme Court had framed various questions of law to be answered by the Constitution Bench. ... In fact, it was pursuant to specific Question No.7 framed by the Constitution Bench that the same was answered in paragraph 215 of Rojer Mathew (supra). ... (supra) continues to be good law as it....
PARAGRAPH 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION BENCH'S JUDGMENT IN ROJER MATHEW (SUPRA) CONSTITUTES RATIO DECIDENDI OF THE SAID JUDGMENT 30. Consequently, this Court is of the view that neither Section 30 nor Section 31 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 which provide for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court constitute an alternative effective remedy in all cases where the parties are aggrieved by the decision passed by Armed Forces Tribunal and where the Tribunal refuses leave to appeal.
In the present case, we find no such infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned CAT that warrants any interference from this court in exercise of its extra-ordinary discretionary jurisdiction. [Refer: Rojer Mathew vs. South Indian Bank Ltd. (2020) 6 SCC 1]. The power of judicial review must be exercised restrictively and on limited grounds.
In our present judicial set up, disputes often take many decades to attain finality, travelling across a series of lower Courts to High Court and ending with an inevitable approach to the Supreme Court. 31. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rojer Mathew vs. South Indian Bank Ltd., (2020) 6 SCC 1 has observed that the delay and backlog in the administration of justice is of paramount concern for any country governed by the rule of law.
That judgment pronounced upon the validity of the 2017 Rules and quashed them. The applicant’s contentions in this regard are of no avail; it is after the judgment in Madras Bar Association (supra) that the tenure has been mandated to be five years. The final judgment in Rojer Mathew, could not have per se been applied to the facts of this case. By the time this rule was held unconstitutional, the tenure of the incumbent holding office of chairperson, of the board ended, on 21.09.2019. The judgment in Rojer Mathew by the five judge Constitution Bench was delivered....
87. Rojer Mathew vs. South Indian Bank Ltd. and Others, Civil Appeal No. 8588 of 2019
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
