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. ………………./

(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

TEAM CODE- TC

Index of Authorities .......................................................................................................3-

List of Abbreviations ......................................................................................................

Statement of jurisdiction ................................................................................................

Summary of Facts .........................................................................................................9-

Statement of Issues ......................................................................................................

Summary of Arguments ............................................................................................12-

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 …………………………………………………………

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES

• • Constitution of India,
• • Finance Act,
• • Representation of People’s Act ,
• • Income Tax Act,
• • Companies Act ,
• • Foreign Contribution and Regulation Act,
• • Andhra Industrial Works v. Chief Controller of Imports, AIR 1974 SC TABLE OF CASES
• • Baldev Singh Gandhi v. State of Punjab, AIR 2002 SC
• • Calcutta Gas Co. Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1962 SC • Buckley v.Valeo 424 U.S at 68.17 (2003)
• • Chiranjit Lal v. Union of India , AIR 1951 SC
• • Coffee Bd. V. Joint C.T.O., AIR 1971 SC
• • Common Cause (A Registered Society) v.Union of India, AIR 1996 SC
• • Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co.Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC
• • Fedreration of Bar Association in Karnataka v. Union of India , (2000) 6 SCC • Durga Shankar Mehta v. Raghuraj Singh , AIR 1954 SC
• • Fertilizer Corp. Kamgar Union v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC
• • Gopal Das v.Union of India, AIR 1955 SC
• • Janta Dal v. H.S Chawdhary, AIR 1993 SC
• • Kedarnath Singh v. The State of Bihar , AIR 1962 SC
• • K.S. Puttaswamy and org v. Union of India and org, SCC 2017 SC
• • L.Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997)3 SCC 261. SC • K. Vidyasagar v. State of U.P
• • Magan Bhai v. Union of India (1970) 3 SCC
• • Md. Saeed Siddiqui v. State of U.P , AIR 1960 SC • McIntyre v. Ohio Electronics communication 514 U.S, 334, 341-342 (1995)
• • M.S.M Sharma v. Dr.Shree Krishna Sinha, AIR 1959 SC • Mr .Jairamramesh v.Union of India and org
• • Pravasi Bharti Sangathan v. Union of India, (2014) 11 SCC

• Savita Kumari v. Union of India (1993) SC 892
• Union of India v. Delhi Court Bar Association (2002) 4 SCC 275
• Union of India v. Madras Bar Association (2010) 11 SCC 1

BOOKS

• M P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, (8 th^ ed., Lexis-Nexis Butterworth Wadhwa Publications, Nagpur,2018)
• D. D. Basu Commentary on The Constitution of India, (8 th^ edn., Lexis Nexis Butterworth Wadhwa Publication, Nagpur, 2018)
• H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India, (4 th^ ed., Universal Law Publishing,

New Delhi, 2010

• U.K. Bhargava, Income Tax, (64 th^ ed., Taxman Publications Pvt. Ltd., New

Delhi,2019)

• Taxman, Companies Act with Rules, (33 rd^ ed., Taxman Publications Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi,
• I.P.Massey, administrative Law, Statutory Tribunals,page no 175, 9 th^ edition,

ARTICLES

• Arun Jaitley, Why electoral bonds are necessary Facebook (sep. 1. 2019, 4:59pm)
• Ashish Tripathi, Electoral Bonds make political donations transperant Deccan Herald(sep. 2. 2019, 3:35pm)
• Administrative Tribunal,know india.gov.in, (26.3.17, 8:30 pm)
• Rahul Sharma,Inter-state river water disputes in India,clear IAS,(25 thApril,2017)

JOURNALS

• William McGeveran, Mrs.Mcintyre’s Checkbook: Privacy Costs of Political Contribution Disclosure , 6 Journal of Constitutional Law 19(2003).

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

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

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

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Union Finance Minister on 2nd of January 2018, elaborated the facets of electoral bonds scheme. An electoral bond is a financial instrument similar to a Promissory Note. In effect, it is like a bank note that is payable to the bearer on demand, and being free of interest it can be purchased by any citizen of Indiana, body incorporated in Indiana, foreign companies and a firm registered in Indiana including all private companies & one person companies. Electoral bonds will not bear the name of the donor or the name of the political party to which the donation is made. But all the details regarding donor and political parties receiving the electoral bonds will be available with bank. For en-cashing an electoral bond, party must be registered under a section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951) and must have secured at least 1% of the votes polled in the most recent Lok Sabha or State election. The new scheme has reduced the limit for disclosing of information regarding donation from 20,000 to 2,000.

Section 236 of the Finance Act, 2016 amended the definition of ‘foreign source’ provided in Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 allowing companies with nominal value of share capital under FEMA not to be considered as ‘foreign source’. Thereby, allowing foreign corporations to donate not only uncapped but also anonymous donations to political parties in Indiana. The Finance bill was passed as a ‘money bill’ as the Constitution of Indiana provides that money bill need not to be introduced in Rajya Sabha. That the Finance Act, 2017 amended the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, which removed the cap for companies to make political donations. Earlier the cap was 7.5% of net profits of the last three years for the company. The companies are no longer required to disclose name or even break up contributions made to the political parties.

Action for Democratic Reforms (ADR) is an Indiana’s non-partisan, nongovernmental organization has challenged the electoral bond scheme in the Supreme Court of Indiana. The petitioner contends that amendments made via Finance Act, 2017 are not only unConstitutional but also violate citizen’s fundamental right to information under article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of Indiana. That the amendments also compromise transparency in political funding as under this scheme there would be no disclosure of donor’s name and source of funding. Amendment to the companies act has led to creation of shell companies, rampant corruption; the rise of benami transactions and use of black money during the electoral process.

That the amendments to the Reserve Bank of Indiana Act, 1934, Representation of the People Act, 1951 and Income Tax Act, 1961 have affected transparency in political funding as now the political parties are not bound to disclose donations received through electoral bonds and Election Commission of Indiana will no longer be able to make a report on political funding that till now were made available for citizens to examine and take informed decisions.

The petitioner challenged the amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2017 as well as section 182,183,184 and 185 of the said act. The amendments made by the Finance Act 2017 are as follows:

i. Section 31, the Reserve Bank of Indiana Act, 1934 through Part III, Section 135 of the Finance Act, 2017, ii. ii. Section 29C, the Representation of the People Act, 1951 through Part IV, Section 137 of the Finance Act, 2017 iii. Section 13A, the Income Tax Act, 1961 through Chapter III, Section 11 of the Finance Act, 2017 iv. iv. Section 182 of the Companies Act, 2013 through Part XII, Section 154 of the Finance Act, 2017

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?

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

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?

The introduction of finance bill,2017 as a money bill is constitutional in nature as it comes under the ambit of Article 109 and 110 (1) (g) in incidental matters to any of the matter specified in sub clause (a) to (f) although it is to bring into consideration that money spent in salaries and allowance of tribunal member comes from the consolidated fund of India.

Coming to the certification of Lok Sabha speaker regarding passing a draft legislation as a money bill it cannot be challenged in the court of law as it renders final also under Article 122 (1), the validity of any proceeding in parliament cannot be questioned .Therefore, it is submitted that the passing of finance bill as a money bill is constitutional.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. Whether the instant writ petition is maintainable under Art.32 of the Constitution of Indiana? It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the instant writ petition is not maintainable before the Court of Law. The petitioner lacks the essential ingredients to maintain the matter before the apex Court. I. WRIT PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE UNDER ARTICLR 32
2. That it is submitted that no action lies in the Supreme Court under Art. 32 unless there is an infringement of a Fundamental Right, 1 as the Supreme Court has previously emphasized that “The violation of Fundamental Right is the sine qua non of the exercise of the right conferred by Art. 32.” 2 That in the given case there is no violation of fundamental right and moreover the government has acted in good conscience to make the process of electoral funding transparent thus enabling a more free and fair conduct of election which is one the essentials to democracy. 3
3. That the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Art. 32 can be invoked only when Fundamental Right has been infringed. 4 No question other than relating to a Fundamental Right will be determined in a proceeding under Art. 32. 5 Thus, where there is no infringement of Fundamental Right or scope for enforcement of any Fundamental Right, the writ petition is not maintainable on the fragile ground. 6

1 Andhra Industrial Works v. Chief Controller of Imports, AIR 1974 SC 1539. 2 Fertilizer Corp. Kamgar Union v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 344. 3 Common Cause (A Registered Society) Vs. Union of India ,AIR 1996 SC 3081. 4 Gopal Das v. Union of India, AIR 1955 SC 1. 5 Coffee Bd. v. Joint C.T.O., AIR 1971 SC 870. 6 Federation of Bar Association in Karnataka v. Union of India, (2000) 6 SCC 715

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. 7 and^ 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 UP^9 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

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. 12 There 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. 13 In 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

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.
12. 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 15Pravasi Bharti Sangathan v. Union of India, (2014) 11 SCC 477.

section 288 of the Finance act 2017, and furnishes a report under sub section (3) of section 29C of Representation of People Act 1951. Therefore, the earlier provision under section 13A did not put any limit on contribution of donation made in cash to political parties.

3. That it is submitted that further there was a concern among the donors that with their identity revealed, there is competitive pressure from thepolitical parties for the donation. Also large amount of political funding was in form of cash, source of funding was unaccounted/unexplained. Hence in order to tackle the situation of funding of political parties in cash and to maintain the anonymity of the donor. A mechanism of political funding by way of electoral bonds was introduced, The electoral bond scheme ensures that the money, flowing into the political parties is accounted for from explained sources. The electoral bond has been defined in the explanation in the section 13A as a bond referred to in the Explanation to sub- section (3) of section31 of the Reserve Bank of India Act 1934.
4. Also the amendment was made in the Income tax Act, 1961 vide Finance Act.
5. and a ceiling ,was placed on the amount of donation, to be received by political parties, i.e,, no donations of Rs. 2000/- or more shall be received otherwise than by an account payee cheque drawn on bank or an account payee bank draft or use of electronic clearing system through. a bank account or through electoral bonds.
6. Further, in order to address the concern of anonymity of the donors it is proposed to amend the said section to provide that the political sha1l not be required to furnish the name and address of the donors who contribute by way of electoral bond. I. ELECTORAL BONDS ENSURE TRANSPERANCY IN POLITICAL FUNDING
7. This instrument provides for a complete white money donation. The bond as a banking instrument of State Bank of India, a Party had to deposit it in a single declared account by the political party. Both at the hands of the receiver and the donor, it is white money through a declared channel. As far as the transparency is

concerned, as against the original system of cash which was non-transparent throughout, there is an improved transparency in the electoral bonds. The donor declares in his balance sheet the quantum of bonds that he has bought. The State Bank of India has a record of the donors. The recipient party declares the amount of bonds it has received. The link between the donor and the identity of the party is masked 16

7. That it is submitted that the scheme of electoral bonds would ensure transparency in political bonds from both sides, the donors balance sheet would represent the amount of electoral bonds purchased by him, while political parties in their returns will have to disclose the amount of donations it has received through electoral bonds to the Election Commission. The entire transactions would be through banking instruments. As against a total non-transparency in the present system of cash donations where the donor, the donee, the quantum of donations and the nature of expenditure are all undisclosed, some element of transparency would be introduced in as much as all donors declare in their accounts the amount of bonds that they have purchased and all parties declare the quantum of bonds that they have received. 17
8. That it is submitted that the government in an affidavit said the non-disclosure of identity of the donor is core objective of the scheme of electoral bond in order to safeguard the donor from political victimisation. Therefore, any donation received by the political party through an electoral bond is kept out of the ambit of reporting under the Contribution report as prescribed under Section 29C of the Representation of People Act, 1951. However, the records of the purchasers are always available in the banking channel and may be retrieved as and when required by the enforcement agencies. The electoral bonds can be encashed only by an eligible political party by depositing the same in the designated bank

16 Arun Jaitley, The Choice of Political Funding – Cheque, Electoral Bonds or Blackmoney from Contractors and middlemen Arun Jaitley (sep. 1.2019, 4:38pm)

https://www.arunjaitley.com/the-choice-of-political-funding-cheque-electoral-bonds-or- blackmoney-from-contractors-and-middlemen/ 17 Arun Jaitley, Why electoral bonds are necessary Facebook (sep. 1. 2019, 4:59pm)

https://www.facebook.com/notes/arun-jaitley/why-electoral-bonds-are-necessary/ 729708620551022/

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. 19 It 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

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. Valeo^24 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. 27 Disclosure 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.

23 K.S.Puttaswamy and another v Union of India and other, SCC 2017 SC 298. 24 424 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. 30 it 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
14. 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.
15. 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 Singh 32 , 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

28Buckley v. Valeo 424 U.S at 237(2003). 29McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334, 341-42 (1995). (^30) William 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). 32 Durga Shankar Mehta v. Raghuraj Singh AIR 1954 SC

constituted by the state and are invested with judicial as distinguished from administrative or executive functions.

2. These steps are taken for minimise the number of tribunals, the Finance Bill, 2017 sought to merge eight tribunals with other tribunals and amended provisions relating to the structuring and re-organization of such Tribunals.the government beliefs these changes will brought greater efficiency and results into speedy & fair justice that’s why the government makes some changes through Finance act, 2017.The Finance Bill, 2017 received Presidential Assent on 31 March 2017 becoming the Finance Act, 2017. The Ministry of Finance notified that the relevant provisions regarding the merger of tribunals would come into force on 26 May
   2017. Subsequently, in exercise of the rule-making power conferred by the Finance Act, 2017, the Ministry of Finance also notified the rules which would govern the appointments, tenure and other condtitions of service of chairpersons and members of the merged tribunals.
3. The Act provides for establishment of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the State Administrative Tribunals. The Members are drawn, both from judicial as well as administrative streams so as to give the Tribunal the benefit of expertise both in legal and administrative spheres. 33 in a similar way these changes brought by the Finance act is not going to dilute the working of schedule tribunal’s in India meanwhile in coming years it’s going to help for lifting up the efficiency of the tribunal’s in India and it will be viable in the public domain as there’s some problems which requires little bit restructuring so that’s why the Union of Indiana taking steps for greater efficiency of the tribunal’s without diluting the Independence of tribunal’s in the country. I. Doctrine of presumption of Constitutionality
   1. It is most humbly submitted before the hon’ble Courtthat,if a provision of a statute leads to absurdity or ambiguity and is questioned on its Constitutional validity, it gives possibility to two meanings –one which gives effect to the

33 Administrative Tribunal,knowindia.gov.in,

https://knowindia.gov.in/profile/the-union/administrative-tribunals.php (26.3.17, 8:30 pm)

provision and one which renders the provision inoperative. In such a case, the meaning which gives effect to the provision will be taken into interpretation. While applying the doctrine of presumption of Constitutionality, the Courts usually apply the concept of ‘reading down’ while interpreting provisions under question. The circumstances under which the need for the applicability of the doctrine arises can be understood through the case of Kedar Nath Singh v. The State of Bihar 34. “It is well settled that if certain provisions of law construed in one way would make them consistent with the Constitution, and another interpretation would render the unConstitutional, the Court would lean in favor of the former construction.”

In CharanjitLal v. Union of India, 35 Supreme Court stated-

“…the presumption is always in favor of the Constitutionality of an enactment, and the burden is upon him who attacks it to show that there has been a clear transgression of the Constitutional principles.”Although the amendment carried out by the government is Constitutional and the objective is to improve governance and efficiency simultaneously with reducing government expenditure as the Tribunal which doesn’t have adequate amount of work will handle more than type of work so it’s free from malice also there’s no transgression of the Constitutional principles. The apex court had earlier sought the Centre's view on bringing all the tribunals under one central umbrella body for ensuring "efficient functioning" and "streamlining the working" of quasi-judicial bodies. The top court had said it would not like to be bogged down with what is right or wrong and all it wants was that "the tribunals work efficiently andindependently". The court had said it is tentatively of the view that directions given by the apex court in its two verdicts of 1997 and 2010 for bringing all the tribunals of the country under one nodal agency should have been "implemented long back, the government of indiana takes this opportunity through provisions mentioned 34 KedarNath Singh v. The State of Bihar AIR 1962 SC 955. 35 CharanjitLal v. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 41

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 Association 36 , 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 Kumar^37 the 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

36 Union of India v. DELHI high court bar association (2002)4scc 275 37 L .Chandrakumar v. Union of India (1997) 3SCC 261 : SC 1125 38 Union of India v. Madras bar association ( 2010) 11 SCC 1