memorial for moot court competition, Essays (university) of Civil Law

Download memorial for moot court competition and more Essays (university) Civil Law in PDF only on Docsity! VI JUSTICE MURTAZA HUSSAIN MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019 IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA W.P.(CIVIL) NO. ………………./2019 (PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION) Action for Democratic Reforms (ADR) ……PETITIONER Versus UNION OF INDIANA ………RESPONDENT (UNDER ARTICLE .32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED TO THR HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA AS SUBMITTED TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND OTHER COMPANION JUDGES OF HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA Table of Content VI JUSTICE MURTAZA HUSSAIN MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTPage 1 TEAM CODE- TC08 Index of Authorities.......................................................................................................3-5 List of Abbreviations......................................................................................................6 Statement of jurisdiction................................................................................................8 Summary of Facts.........................................................................................................9-10 Statement of Issues......................................................................................................11 Summary of Arguments............................................................................................12-13 Arguments Advanced................................................................................................14-33. 1. Whether the instant writ petition is maintainable under Art.32 of the constitution of Indiana ? 2. Whether the amendment to :- A. Section 29c of representation of people act 1951 through part 4 section 137 of finance act 2017? B. Section 13A of income tax act 1961 through chapter 3 section 11 of finance act 2017have affected transparency in political funding? 3. Whether the Section 182,183,184,185 of finance act, 2017 which deals with merger’s of tribunal & qualifications, selection process and other service conditions of the tribunal effect the efficiency andIndependence of the tribunal’s ? 4. The introduction of the Finance Bill 2017 as money bill was constitutional. PRAYER FOR RELIEF …………………………………………………………34 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES VI JUSTICE MURTAZA HUSSAIN MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTPage 2 List of abbreviation AIR : All India Reporter A : Allahabad AP: Andhra Pradesh Art. : Article Bom: Bombay Cal : Calcutta Del : Delhi HC : High Court WP : Writ Petition VI JUSTICE MURTAZA HUSSAIN MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTPage 5 Kar: Karnataka U.P : Uttar Pradesh PIL : Public Interest Litigation Hon’ble : Honourable SC : Supreme Court SCC : Supreme Court Cases U/s : Under Section UOI : Union Of India Anr. : Another COI : Constitution Of India Ed. : Edition Govt. : Government i.e: That is J. : Justice Ors. : Others Sec. : Section Vs. : Versus Vol. : Volume Sd/. : Signed & : And VI JUSTICE MURTAZA HUSSAIN MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTPage 6 STATEMENT FOR JURISDICTION Action for Democratic Reforms in the instant matter, has approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Indiana under Article 32 of the Constitution of Indiana, 1950. - However, the Respondent reserves the right to contest the Maintainability VI JUSTICE MURTAZA HUSSAIN MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTPage 7 STATEMENT OF ISSUES 1. Whether the instant writ petition is maintainable under Art.32 of the Constitution of Indiana ? 2. Whether the amendment to :- i. Section 29c of Representation of people act 1951 through part 4 section 137 of Finance act 2017 ii. Section 13A of income tax act 1961 through chapter 3 section 11 of Finance act 2017 have affected transparency in political funding? 3. Whether the Section 182,183,184,185 of Finance act, 2017 which deals with merger’s of tribunal & qualifications, selection process and other service conditions of the tribunal effect the efficiency and Independence of the tribunal’s ? 4. Whether the introduction of the Finance Bill 2017 as a money bill was Constitutional? VI JUSTICE MURTAZA HUSSAIN MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTPage 10 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 1. Whether the instant writ petition is maintainable under Art.32 of the Constitution of Indiana ? The instant writ petition is not maintainable under Art. 32 of Constitution of Indiana as violation of fundamental right is sine qua non for a writ petition to be maintainable under the said article and no fundamental right has been violated through the Finance Act 2017. Also the impugned amendments are totally act of legislative wisdom and the courts generally refrain from interfering in act of legislative wisdom. a person invoking the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Article 32 must approach the Court for the vindication of some fundamental rights of affected persons who are not able to enforce their fundamental rights on account of their incapacity, poverty or ignorance of law and not for any personal purpose. Infringement of fundamental right can not be claimed on remote of speculative ground or merely on apprehension of violation of fundamental right. Also judiciary may only step in where there is a statutory vacuum and not where there is a valid law. 2. Whether the amendment to :- i. Section 29c of Representation of people act 1951 through part 4 section 137 of Finance act 2017 ii. Section 13A of income tax act 1961 through chapter 3 section 11 of Finance act 2017 have affected transparency in political funding? The scheme of electoral bonds and the various amendments through the Finance act 2017 have ensured transparency in political funding and are focused on protecting persons Right to Privacy as held to be fundamental right in “K.S VI JUSTICE MURTAZA HUSSAIN MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTPage 11 Puttuswamy v. Union of India”. Also through the amendment to Income Tax act a ceiling has placed on amount of cash donations i.e no donations can be made to political parties in excess of 2000 rupees. There would be transparency as the donor declares in his balance sheet the quantum of bonds that he has bought and the recipient party declares the amount of bonds it has received. The non disclosure of donor’s identity is to protect donor from political victimization. A individual right to control dissemination of information about himself it is his own personal possession hence in case of electoral bonds a donor making donation to a political party has full right to have his information about donation not to be disseminated. If donors identity is revealed the the donor would got cold shoulder’s from winning party . 3. Whether the Section 182,183,184,185 of Finance act, 2017 which deals with merger’s of tribunal & qualifications, selection process and other service conditions of the tribunal effect the efficiency and Independence of the tribunal’s ? These changes which is brought to minimize number of tribunal by merging eight tribunals with other tribunal with sole objective of cutting down the government expenditure and good Governance because there’s a huge inadequacy of work in some tribunals so the government tends to merge these tribunal without snatching the jurisdiction of Constitutional court as it will lead to tampering with basic structure. Although on account of rules frames under section 184 is not going to effect the independence of tribunals as the government is doing so because in the meantime the retired judge’s of supreme Court & High Court are going into Arbitration as public service no longer remains attractive it’s to bring into consideration that the judicial appointments are done with consultation of judiciary assured by the Finance minister therefore it’s submitted that there is no violation of Constitutional principle neither it will going to effect the efficiency and Independence of Tribunal’s. 3. Whether the introduction of the Finance Bill 2017 as a money bill was Constitutional? VI JUSTICE MURTAZA HUSSAIN MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTPage 12 3. That it is stated that the Finance Act 2017 has amended Section 29C of the Representation of the people Act, 1951 so as to provide that the declaration of donation as required under the statutory provision would not apply in the case of such donations which are mace by the way of electoral bonds. Hence, the political parties are not bound to make the mandatory declaration about the donation received by them to the Election commission in respect of the donation received through electoral bonds. It is further submitted that the new provision under the Representation of People Act 1951 by the way of amendment of Section 29C thereof has its basis in the newly introduced concept of electoral bonds as envisaged in the Finance Act 2017 thereby amending Section 31 of the Reserve Bank of lndia Act, 1934. 4. That the present petition, however, fails to demonstrate any violation of fundamental rights or arbitrary state action against persons unable to defend their rights. It is submitted that the chief prayers in the petition seek Court to interfere in the law making power of legislature and as such are not maintainable. It is submitted that courts generally refrain from interfering with legislative wisdom except to the extent relevant to article 13.7and the impugned amendments are totally act of legislative wisdom. It is submitted that highly disputed question of fact cannot be decided in a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.8 5. It is submitted that this Hon’ble Court in K. Vidyasagar v. State of UP9 held that the factual controversy and disputed question of fact should not be entertained by the supreme court under Art. 32 of the Constitution. Factual controversy requiring examination of oral and documentary evidence is not mainatainable II. PETITIONER HAVE NO LOCUS STANDI IN PRESENT CASE 6. That this Hon’ble Court has held time and again that a person acting bona fide interest in the proceeding of public interest litigation alone would have locus standi and can approach the court, This Hon’ble Court has further held in several cases that a person invoking the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Article VI JUSTICE MURTAZA HUSSAIN MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTPage 15 7 Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 937. 8Savita Kumari v. Union of India, (1993) 2 SCC 357. 9 AIR 2005 SC 2911. 32 must approach the Court for the vindication of some fundamental rights of affected persons who are not able to enforce their fundamental rights on account of their incapacity, poverty or ignorance of law and not for any personal purpose.10 7. That it is submitted that a person requires a locus standi, when he has to have a personal or individual right which has been violated or threatened to be violated.11 Since, no right of petitioner has been infringed, he has no locus standi before the Court. 8. It is submitted that petitioners have approached the Court on frivolous and fragile grounds and infringement of Fundamental Right cannot be founded on remote of speculative grounds.12There is no such action which infringes or poses a threat to Fundamental Right of the citizens. Mere apprehension that the petitioner would be deprived of his Fundamental Right is not enough to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court under Art. 32.13In the given case prima facie no fundamental right of the defendants have been violated and if any grounds of violation of fundamental right is contended it would be on remote speculative ground and the same would not suffice to invoke the jurisdiction under Art. 32. 9. It is submitted that to make it a case under Article 32, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to establish not merely that the law complained of is beyond the competence of the particular legislature as not being covered by any of the items in the legislative list but that it effects or invades his fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution by which he could seek enforcement by any appropriate writ or order. The right of the petitioner himself who complains of infraction of such right no one except those whose rights are directly affected by a law can raise the question of Constitutionality of that law. 14 that in the present writ petition the formulation of scheme of electoral bonds and the subsequent amendments carried out to various acts are totally exercise of legislative power of the parliament and VI JUSTICE MURTAZA HUSSAIN MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTPage 16 10 Janta Dal v. H.S.Chowdhary, AIR 1993 SC 892. 11 Calcutta Gas Co. Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1962 SC 1044 12 Baldev Singh Gandhi v. State of Punjab, AIR 2002 SC 1124. 13 Magan Bhai v. Union of India,(1970) 3 SCC 400. 14 Chiranjit Lal v. Union Of India, AIR 1951 SC 41. does not invade any of the fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution. It is submitted that the petitioner would have no locus standi in the present case 10. That it is further submitted that the judiciary may step in to fill gaps only where there is a statutory vacuum, but not where a valid law already occupies the field.15 11. In light of the averments made hereinabove, it is prayed that the Writ Petition may be dismissed as being without any merit and also on the ground of evident lack of bona fides. lt is further submitted that the writ petitioners are not entitled to any relief as prayed in the Writ Petition and the Writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 2. Whether the amendment to :- i. Section 29c of Representation of people act 1951 through part 4 section 137 of Finance act 2017 ii. Section 13A of income tax act 1961 through chapter 3 section 11 of Finance act 2017have affected transparency in political funding? 1. It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that the impugned amendment have ensured transparency in political funding and the government with an intention of reducing the cash transactions and to move towards the less cash economy, the government has taken several measures under the income tax Act, 1961 from time to time. Funding of political parties, which is,mostly in cash, is also in area concern. The provisions of section.13A.of the Income tax Act, inter-alia provides that political parties that are registered with the Election Commission of India are exempt from paying income tax subject to the conditions as specified. 2. That it is submitted Prior to the amendment carried out in Section 13A vide Finance Act, 2017, the conditions for availing exemption under the income-tax Act, 1961 were that such political party keeps and maintains such books of account and other documents and maintains a record of voluntary contribution in excess of twenty thousand rupees accounts are audited by an accountant as defined in Explanation to sub section (2) of VI JUSTICE MURTAZA HUSSAIN MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTPage 17 15Pravasi Bharti Sangathan v. Union of India, (2014) 11 SCC 477. account which means that a political party can open only one PAN India single bank account for crediting proceeds of the electoral bonds. The amount can be ascertained through the account statement. 18 II. NON DISCLOSURE OF DONOR’S IDENTITY PROTECTS PERSONS RIGHT TO PRIVACY 9. It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personel liberty under Article 21 and as a part of the freedom guaranteed by part III of the Constitution.19It is submitted that the law of privacy is a recognition of the individual's right to be let alone and to have his personal space inviolate. The need for privacy and its recognition as a right is a modern phenomenon. It is the product of an increasingly individualistic society in which the focus has shifted from society to the individual. The term “privacy” has been described as “the rightful claim of the individual to determine the extent to which he wishes to share of himself with others and his control over the time, place and circumstances to communicate with others. It means his right to withdraw or to participate as he sees fit. It also means the individual's right to control dissemination of information about himself it is his own personal possession”.20 Hence in case of electoral bonds a donor making donation to a political party has full right to have his information about donation not to be disseminated. Privacy of an individual is an essential aspect of dignity.21 10. It is submitted right to privacy would include a bundle of rights such as the right to privacy of beliefs, thoughts, personal information, home, and property. It is also seen as the claim of individuals to “determine for themselves when, how, and to what extent information about them is communicated to others”.22 VI JUSTICE MURTAZA HUSSAIN MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTPage 20 18Ashish Tripathi, Electoral Bonds make political donations transperant Deccan Herald(sep . 2. 2019, 3:35pm) https://www.deccanherald.com/national/electoral-bonds-make-political-donations- transparent-726994.html-+ 19 K.S.Puttaswamy and another v Union of India and other, SCC 2017 SC 652. 20Adam Carlyle Breckenridge: the Right to privacy, 1971. 21 K.S.Puttaswamy and another v Union of India and other, SCC 2017 SC 119. 22Alan Westin, Privacy and Freedom, (Atheneum Publishers, 1967) Privacy of an individual recognizes an inviolable right to determine how freedom shall be exercised. An individual may perceive the best form of expression is to remain silent. Silence postulated an realm of privacy.23 11. That it is submitted that in Buckley v. Valeo24 in his separate opinion Chief Justice Burger protested that the Court's analysis of disclosure rules paid too little attention to the privacy of individual contributors who made modest donations: "The public right to know ought not to be absolute when its exercise reveals private political convictions.'' It is submitted that the public Right to know could not include knowing a person’s affiliation towards any political party. It is submitted that the US Supreme Court in Buckley recognized only one individual privacy interest that might outweigh the government's interests in disclosure-the risk of outright harassment of a contributor as retaliation for the views expressed by a contribution.25 The court further observed that in some cases cost of disclosure included consequences such as economic reprisal, loss of employment, threat of physical coercion, and other manifestations of public hostility.26 12. It is submitted that the decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one's privacy as possible.27Disclosure of political contributions could also bear negative consequences on many professions. Those who rely on trust and identifications with others to do their work-such as ministers, psychotherapists, or schoolteachers-may find their roles undermined if congregants, patients, or parents know and judge their personal political activity. Control over personal information maximizes autonomy of donor by increasing their ability to be the authors of their own lives, at least as perceived by others. Loss of that control injures personal dignity because others learn information that is "none of their business. VI JUSTICE MURTAZA HUSSAIN MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTPage 21 23 K.S.Puttaswamy and another v Union of India and other, SCC 2017 SC 298. 24424 U.S. at 237(2003) 25Buckley v. Valeo 424 U.S. at 68-74(2003). 26Buckley v. Valeo 424 U.S at 71-72(2003). 27 McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334, 341-42 (1995). 13. In his Buckley opinion, Chief Justice Burger noted perhaps the most obvious direct penalty of disclosure-contributors to the losing candidate may get a cold shoulder from the winner's.28 it is submitted that there are also dangers of "social ostracism."29 Political contributions label us, and disclosure displays that label to others without our consent. Forced revelations are intrusions into a sphere of personal liberty.30it is submitted that formation of relationships, an essential aspect of autonomy, requires that an individual control the selective revelation of personal information to others.31 3. Whether the Section 182,183,184,185 of Finance act, 2017 which deals with merger’s of tribunal & qualifications, selection process and other service conditions of the tribunal effect the efficiency andIndependence of the tribunal’s? It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court of Indiana that the changes brought by the section 182,183,184&185 of Finance act,2017 doesn’t effect the efficiency of the scheduled tribunal’s and neither dilute the independence of the tribunal’s as these steps doesn’t hamper the working durability and Independence of schedule tribunal’s as this will only help to carry out some structural changes which is the need of an hour as the tribunal’s ought to carry out the process of justice with flexibility and speed but there are some misbalances occurred so the government of Indiana takes some optimistic steps which ultimately results in speedy justice. 1. It is submitted that intensive form of government is responsible for entrusting the administration with adjudicatory Powers. For the exercise of this power,a tribunal is a very efficacious instrumentality, which from a functional point of view is somewhere between a court and the government department exercising adjudicatory Powers.In Durga Shankar Mehta v. Raghuraj Singh32, the supreme Court defined “Tribunal” as used in article 136 doesn’t mean the same thing as 'Court' but includes, within it’s ambit, all adjudicating Bodies, provided they are VI JUSTICE MURTAZA HUSSAIN MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTPage 22 28Buckley v. Valeo 424 U.S at 237(2003). 29McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334, 341-42 (1995). 30William McGeveran, Mrs.Mcintyre’s Checkbook: Privacy Costs of Political Contribution Disclosure, 6 Journal of Constitutional Law 19(2003). 31Buckl v. Valeo 424 U.S at 235(2003). 32Durga Shankar Mehta v. Raghuraj Singh AIR 1954 SC above for bringing all the Tribunal’s under one umbrella without hampering the efficiency and Independence of the schedule tribunals’. II. Jurisdiction of the ConstitutionalCourt wasn’t taken away 2. It is submitted that the jurisdiction of the Constitutional court doesn’t altered in any manner, if talking about the jurisdiction matter’s of a Constitutional court, Validity of the third category Tribunal’s was upheld by the supreme Court in Union of India v. Delhi high court bar Association36 , The government establishedmore Tribunal’s within the areas of company law, tax law and intellectual property, and there is taking away of jurisdiction of High Court in these area though this create a little bit dispute between judiciary and Parliamentary. But this needs to be done as the pendency of the case’s in our country is ultra vires and no doubt Tribunal’s are the best alternative available therefore but the government of Indiana bring this structural reforms for maximum efficiency display of the Tribunal’s without harming it’s independence and jurisdiction of the High Court’s as it will lead to tampering with basic structure of the Constitution. In L.Chandra Kumar37the court asserted the power of judicial review and superintendence over Tribunal’s by holding that excluding the jurisdiction of the high court violates the basic structure of the Constitution.the court didn’t declared article 323-A &323-B as unConstitutional, but invalidated those provisions of Law which excluded the jurisdiction of the Constitutional court under articles 226,227 &32 of the Constitution. 3. Similarly, Parliament in 2002 amended the companies act,1956 & established the national company Law Tribunal to exercise jurisdiction under the law which took away the jurisdiction of the High Court’s under article 226&227, in Union of India v. Madras Bar Assn.38 The Madras high court struck down certain provisions of the act but upheld the validity of National Company Law Tribunal. Although here in the matter concerned government VI JUSTICE MURTAZA HUSSAIN MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTPage 25 36Union of India v. DELHI high court bar association (2002)4scc 275 37L .Chandrakumar v. Union of India (1997) 3SCC 261 : SC 1125 38Union of India v. Madras bar association ( 2010) 11 SCC 1 doesn’t want to hinder the independence & excluding the jurisdiction of any Constitutional court show’s no malafide intention was there and it will be done in good faith.In England,a council on Tribunals was constituted under the Tribunal’s and inquiries act,1958.the membership of this committee is 16. Except for 5 legal members, the rest are lay person’s. This Constitution introduces the elements of public opinion and flexibility in the functioning of the council. Parliamentary commissioner (ombudsman) is also an ex officio member except parliamentary commissioner, all the members are appointed by the Lord chancellor and the secretary of state for Scotland, acting jointly. This criteria will also refered here in the concerned matter as in United kingdom the Tribunal’s are working more efficient than India so we have to be very careful with the efficiency and efforts in India without diluting the Independence of Tribunal’s and it’sefficacy. 4. Bringing the concerned provisions of Finance act 2017 into consideration of the hon’ble supreme Court of Indiana, comprises of section 182 which deals with the amendment to the National green Tribunal act, 2010 “qualifications, terms & conditions of service of chairperson, judicial member & expert member” which governed by the section 184 of Finance act,2017. Section 183 this section is application of section 184 deals with conditions of service of chairperson & members of the tribunal’s, appellate Tribunal’s & other authorities, provisions of section 184 is interalia regulates the section 182,183 of Finance act, 2017,in section 184it’s mentioned that :- 184. (1) The Central Government may, by notification, make rules to provide for qualifications, appointment, term of office, salaries and allowances, resignation, removal and the other terms and conditions of service of the Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson, Chairman,Vice-Chairman, President, Vice- President, Presiding Officer or Member of the Tribunal,Appellate Tribunal or, as the case may be, other Authorities as specified in column (2) of the Eighth Schedule.39 VI JUSTICE MURTAZA HUSSAIN MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTPage 26 39 Finance act,2017 ,section 184. That it is submitted to the hon’ble court that the concerned provisions of Finance act, 2017 doesn’t violate the Independence of the schedule Tribunal’s neither it will effect the efficiency of Tribunals and also doesn’t hinder the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court’s. III. INADEQUACY OF WORK IN INDIAN TRIBUNAL’S 8. The aforementioned paragraphs makes it unambiguous that the Government‘s doesn’t want to interfere with the independence of Tribunals through Sections 182, 183, 184 and 185 of the Finance Act, 2017 ,the Rules framed under Section 184 thereof and notified vide G.S.R.514(E) dated 01/06/2017, is not in violation of the independence of Judiciary as the government of Indiana takes these necessary steps for reducing the government expenditure through mergers of some Tribunal’s the sole objective of this altercation with Tribunal’s are GOOD & Effective Governance.40For example taking 7 inter State water Tribunal’s in India into consideration the Parliament has enacted two law’s according to the article 262 (1) River board act, 1956 (2) inter state water dispute act, 1956 , here supreme Court shall not question the award or formula given by tribunal rather than it can question the working of Tribunal. But composition in tribunals consist persons only from the judiciary, problem arises in execution & implementation by the side of Tribunal example: Cauvery water dispute, Tamil Nadu government requested to constitute the tribunal in 1970, still after intervention of Supreme Court, the tribunal was constituted in 1990, the government of India created a new solution by virtue of amendment”inter-state water dispute Bill, 2017:- (1) center is to set up Dispute resolution committee having multidisciplinary expert’s for adequate, speedy Justice, Tribunal’s only approached when tribunals fail to resolve dispute within a year. VI JUSTICE MURTAZA HUSSAIN MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTPage 27 40Discussion on Finance bill, 2017 by Hon’ble Finance ministerArun jaitley,29.3.17, (9:30 pm)Rajyasabha TV Constitutionality valid and correct in nature. Throughsubclause (g) of Article 110 of the Constitution of Indiana which Follow as any matter incidental to any of the matters specified in sub clause (a) to (f) , the Constitution makes it clear that if moneys flow into the Consolidated Fund of India and if moneys are spent out of the Consolidated Fund of India and a law, in pith and substance, deals with that matter,therefore it becomes a Money Bill. 3. Article 110(3), grants to the Lok Sabha Speaker the authority to certify a draft law as a money bill so long as such legislation deals only with all or any of the matters specifically listed in the provision. These include subjects such as the imposition or abolition of a tax, the declaring of any expenditure to be expenditure charged on the Consolidated Fund of India, and, significantly, also any matter otherwise incidental to the subjects specified in Article 110. The ensuing clause clarifies that a draft law will not be a money bill for the reason that it also provides for the imposition or abolition of a tax. In other words, substantive laws, which are not merely incidental to the subjects enlisted in Article 110(1) cannot be finagled into a bill that also happens to contain taxing rules. I. The introduction of Finance bill, 2017 as a money bill does not Subject to judicial review. It is most humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that the introduction of the Finance Act as a money bill is not subject to judicial review because the Speaker being an officer of the parliament, his decision on the question of a bill being a money bill was a procedural one. The decision of the speaker to categories the Finance Bill, 2017 as a Money Bill cannot be subject to judicial review. In the view of separation of powers, it was not for the court to look into the decision of the speaker.The validity of any proceedings in Parliament shall not be called in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure and we should rely on Article 110(3), which states that in cases where a dispute arises over whether a bill is a money bill or not, the Speaker’s decision shall be considered final. i. In Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal v State of Bihar, the Supreme Court again review the incidental matter presented by the petitioner and following Mohd. VI JUSTICE MURTAZA HUSSAIN MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTPage 30 Saeed’s case, reiterated that certification as to whether a Bill is Money Bill or not cannot be judicially reviewable. In the instance case it same that introduction of Finance bill as a money bill did not go into the question whether the decision of a speaker on the question is open to judicial review at the time when it comes under the ambit of Article 110(3) and Article 109 of the Constitution which provide the Special procedure in respect of Money Bill as well as it assured the validity of the passing of the Finance Act as a money bill. ii).In Mohd. Saeed. Siddiqui v. State of U.P44, the question before the court concerned a categorisation made under Article 199 of the Constitution, which defines a money bill for the purposes of state legislatures. The provision is in parimateria with Article 110, and, as such, any decision made interpreting Article 199 ought to apply directly to Article 110 too. There, the Supreme Court had ruled that a Speaker’s decision to classify a draft statute as a money bill was not judicially reviewable, even if the classification was incorrect, since the speaker’s mistake constituted nothing more than a mere procedural irregularity. Here in the instance case dealing with Article 110 (1) referred to clause (g), which states that provisions incidental to the other provisions that establish what a money bill is, can also be used to establish that a bill is a money bill. II. The proceedings in Parliamentshall not be question on any ground and cannot challenge before the court of law. It is most humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that the certification of Finance bill as a money bill by the speaker of Lok Sabha cannot be challenged in any court of law because it satisfied the provision of Article 109 and 110 (1) (g). The proceeding in parliament is free from judicial review and court cannot interfare in the matter of parliament procedding or parliament is immune from judicial review in matter of the decision of the speaker of loksabha while deciding whether the particular bill is money bill or not. Under Article 122 clearly mentioned that Courts not to inquire into proceedings of Parliament while in VI JUSTICE MURTAZA HUSSAIN MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTPage 31 44 (2014) 11 SCC. 415 article 122(1) stated that; the validity of any proceedings in Parliament shall not be called in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure. i. In M. S. M. Sharma v. Dr. Shree Krishna Sinha,45 , the Supreme Court held that: “The validity of the proceedings inside the Legislature of a State cannot be called in question on the allegation that the procedure laid down by the law had not been strictly followed. No Court can go into those questions which are within the special Jurisdiction of the Legislature itself, which has the power to conduct its own business." In the instance case also the introduction of Finance act as a money bill is Constitutionally valid and it is not the duty of the court to look into the decision of the speaker when they finalizing the bill as a money bill and this concurrent matter will comes under the ambit of Article 122 of the Constitution and its conduct of business and proceedings of the parliament cannot be questioned before the Court of Law. ii).That the judicial process does not lie where Parliament has exclusive Jurisdiction has been recognized by decisions of the Courts. In Bradlaugh v. Gossett46, Justice Stephen examine that the area of judicial control over the matters relating to the internal procedure of the House of Commons, recognized that its privilege of regulating its own internal proceedings invested it with a judicial character. No Court in contemporary era seriously challenge that matters concerning the proceedings within either House are to be discussed and adjudged in that House and not elsewhere." In this case emphasized is on the payment of salaries, pensions etc. come from the Consolidated fund of India. Expenses of each one these tribunals that have been amalgamated under Part XIV of the Finance Act are borne by the Consolidated Fund of India . VI JUSTICE MURTAZA HUSSAIN MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTPage 32 45AIR 1960 SC 1186 46 (1884) 12 QBD 271,