[2008] 13 S.C.R. 1217

PAREENA SWARUP A

UNION OF INDIA (Writ Petition No. 634 of 2007)

SEPTEMBER 30, 2008 8

[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI, LOKESHWAR SINGH

PANTA AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ]

Constitution of India, 1950:

Article 32 - Provisions of Prevention of Money-launderc

ing Act, 2002 and the Rules framed thereunder regarding constitution of Adjudicating Authorities and Appellate Tribunal - Challenged as violative of constitutional scheme of separation of powers and constitutional guarantee of independent ; udiciary - Union of India filing amended/proposed provisions D incorporating the required safeguards - HELD: Independence and impartiality are to be secured not only for courts but also for tribunals and their members entrusted with judicial powers

- Amended/proposed provisions of the Act and the Rules approved - Judicial Review - Administration of justice - Tri- E bunals entrusted with judicial powers- Independence of- Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 - ss. 28 and 32 - Prevention of Money-laundering (Appointment and Conditions of Service of Chairperson and Members of Adjudicating Authorities) Rules, 2007 - r. 3 - Prevention of Money-launder- F ing (Appointment and Conditions of Service of Chairperson and Members of Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 2007 - rr. 4 and 6

- Public Interest Litigation.

Basic structure theory - Doctrine of separation of powers, and independence of judiciary - Applicability of, to tribu- G nals entrusted with judicial powers - Explained.

The petitioner filed the instant writ petition under Artic le 32 of the Constitution of India, by way of public inter-

1217 H

A est litigation, challenging the provisions of Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002, Prevention of Money-laundering (Appointment and Conditions of Service of Chairperson and Members of Adjudicating Authorities) Rules, 2007 and Prevention of Money-laundering (Appointment B and Conditions of Service of Chairperson and Members of Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 2007 in so far as they related to constitution of the Adjudicating Authorities and the Appellate Tribunal. It was contended that the Adjudicating Authorities and the Appellate Tribunal under the Act c were to perform judicial functions, but their Members and Chairperson were to be selected by a Selection Committee headed by the Revenue Secretary and, thus, the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules were violative of the Constitutional scheme of separation of powers and D constitutional guarantee of a free and independent judiciary.

During the course of hearing, amendment to the Act and the Rules were suggested and, accordingly, the Union of India filed amended/proposed provisions of the Act and E the Rules, which were approved by the Court.

Disposing of the writ petition, the Court

HELD: 1.1 The Independence in judicial function and impartiality are to be secured not only for courts but also

F for tribunals and their members, entrusted with judicial , powers, though they do not belong to the 'Judicial Service'. [para 8) [1224, C]

1.2 While creating new avenue of judicial forums, it is the duty of the Government to see that they are not in G breach of basic constitutional scheme of separation of powers and independence of the judicial function. There is substance in the apprehension of the petitioner that

~ the provisions of Prevention of the Money-laundering Act, 2002 are so provided that the Members and the Chairper- H son of the Adjudicating Authorities and Appellate Tribunal would be selected by the Selection Committee headed A by Revenue Secretary and, that there may not be independent adjudicatory machinery to decide the cases under the Act. [para 8] [1223, F-H]

1.3 Power of judicial review over legislative action vested in the High Courts under Article 226 as well as in 8

this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution is an integral and essential feature of the Constitution constituting part of its structure. The Constitution guarantees free and independent judiciary and the constitutional scheme of separation of powers can be easily and seriously un- C dermined, if the legislatures were to divest the regular courts of their jurisdiction in all matters and entrust the same to the newly created Tribunals which are not entitled to protection similar to the constitutional protection afforded to regular courts. [para 8] [1223, H; 1224, A-B] D

L Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India and Ors. 1997

(2) SCR 1186 = (1997) 3 sec 261 - relied on.

2. Inasmuch as the amended/proposed provisions, as mentioned in para 9 of the judgment are in tune with E the scheme of the Constitution as well as the principles laid down by this Court, the same are approved and the respondent-Union of India is directed to implement them, as expeditiously as possible. [para 9-1 OJ [1231, A-B]

Case Law Reference

1997 (2) SCR 1186 relied on para 8

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 634 of 2007

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)

K.K. Venugopal, V. shekhar, Ameet Singh and Pramod Swarup for the Petitioner.

Gopal Subramanium, A.S.G., M. Chandrashekharan, H

A A.S.G., Satyakam, Vikas Sharma (for B.V. Balaram Das) and Dinesh Kr. Garg for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. Ms. Pareena Swarup, member of

B the Bar, has filed this writ petition under Art. 32 of the Constitu- ,_ tion of India by way of Public Interest Litigation seeking to declare various sections of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 such as Section 6 which deals with adjudicating authorities, composition, powers etc., Section 25 which deals with c the establishment of Appellate Tribunal, Section 27 which deals with corn position etc. of the Appellate Tribunal, Section 28 which deals with qualifications for appointment of Chairperson and Members of the Appellate Tribunal, Section 32 which deals with resignation and removal, Section 40 which deals with mem-

D bers etc. as ultra vires of Arts. 14, 19 (1 )(g), 21, 50, 323B of the Constitution of India. It is also pleaded that these provisions + are in breach of scheme of the Constitutional provisions and power of judiciary.

2. Brief facts in a nutshell are: E The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was introduced for providing punishment for offence of Money Laundering. The Act also provides measures of prevention of money laundering. The object sought

F to be achieved is by provisional attachment of the proceeds of crime, which are likely to be concealed, transferred or dealt with "- in any manner which may result in frustrating any proceedings relating to confiscation of such proceeds under the Act. The Act also casts obligations on banking companies, financial institutions and intermediaries to maintain record of the transactions G and to furnish information of such transactions within the prescribed time. In exercise of powers conferred by clause (s) of sub-section (2) of Section 73 read with Section 30 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003), the Cen- • tral Government framed rules regulating the appointment and H conditions of service of persons appointed as Chairperson and

PAREENA SWARUP v. UNION OF INDIA 1221 •

[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

Members of the Appellate Tribunal. These rules are the Pre- A vention of Money-Laundering (Appointment and Conditions of Service of Chairperson and Members of Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 2007. The Central Government has also framed rules

I called the Prevention of Money Laundering (Appointment and ..._

~ Conditions of Service of Chairperson and Members of Adjudi- B eating Authorities) Rules, 2007.

3. It is highlighted that the provisions of the Act are so provided that there may not be independent judiciary to decide the cases under the Act but the Members and the Chairperson are c to be selected by the Selection Committee headed by the Revenue Secretary. It is further pointed out that the Constitutional guarantee of a free and independent judiciary, and the constitutional scheme of separation of powers can be easily and seriously undermined, if the legislatures were to divest the regular D ...

Courts of their jurisdiction in all matters, entrust the same to the newly created Tribunals. According to the petitioner, the statutory provisions of the Act and the Rules, more particularly, re lating to constitution of Adjudicating Authority and Appellate Tribunal are violative of basic constitutional guarantee of free and E independent judiciary, therefore, beyond the legislative competence of the Parliament. The freedom from control and potential domination of the executive are necessary pre-conditions for the independence. With these and various other grounds, the petitioner has filed this public interest litigation .. seeking to issue a writ of certiorari for quashing the abovesaid F

provisions which are inconsistent with the separation of power and interference with the judicial functioning of the Tribunal as ultra vires of the Constitution of India.

4. The respondent-Union of India has filed counter affida- G vit repudiating the claim of the petitioner. The Department highlighted that the impugned Act has not ousted the jurisdiction of

) any courts and sufficient safeguards are provided in the appointment of officers of the Adjudicating Authorities, Members and Chairperson of the Appellate Tribunal.

5. We have carefully verified the provisions of the Act and the Rules, particularly, relating to constitution and selection of Adjudicating Authorities, Members and Chairperson of the Appellate Tribunal. Considering the stand taken by the petitioner with reference to those provisions, we requested Mr. K.K.

B Venugopal, learned senior counsel, to assist the Court. Pursu- • ant to the suggestion made by the Court, Mr. K.K. Venugopal and Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, learned Additional Solicitor General, discussed the above issues and by consensus submitted certain proposals. c

6. The petitioner has highlighted the following defects in the Adjudicating Authority Rules, 2007 and the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2007:-

Rule 3(3) of Adjudicating Authority Rules, 2007 does not

D explicitly specify the qualifications of member from the field of finance or accountancy. t

Rule 4 of Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2007 which provided for Method of Appointment of Chairperson do not give adequate control to Judiciary. • E 3.

Rule 6(1) of Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2007 which defines the Selection Committee for recommending appointment of Members of the Tribunal, would undermine the constitutional scheme of separation of powers between

F judiciary and executives. .. 4.

Rule 32(2) of PMLA which provides for removal of Chairperson/Members of Tribunal under PMLAdoes not provide adequate safety to the tenure of the Chairperson/ Members of the Tribunal.

G 5.

Rule 6(2) of Appellate Tribunal Rules is vague to the extent that it provides for recommending names after "inviting applications thereof by advertisement or on the recommendations of the appropriate authorities."

Section 28(1) of PMLA, which allows a person who "is A qualified to be a judge of the High Court" to be the Chairperson of the Tribunal, should be either deleted or the Rules may be amended to provide that the Chief Justice of India shall 111 .. ninate a person for appointment as Chairperson of Appellate Tribunal under PMLA "who B is or has been a Judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court" failing which a person who "is qualified to be a judge of the High Court."

The qualifications for Legal Member of the Adjudicating C Authority should exclude "those who are qualified to be a District Judge" and only serving or retired District Judges should be appointed. The Chairperson of the Adjudicating Authority should be the Legal member.

7. As regards the above defects in the rules, as observed o earlier, on the request of this Court, Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel, Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, learned ASG as well as Ms. Pareena Swarup who has filed this PIL suggested certain amendments in the line of the constitutional provisions as interpreted by this Court in various decisions.

8. It is necessary that the Court may draw a line which the executive may not cross in their misguided desire to take over bit by bit and judicial functions and powers of the State exercised by the duly constituted Courts. While creating dew avenue of judicial forums, it is the duty of the Government to see F that they are not in breach of basic constitutional scheme of separation of powers and independence of the judicial function. We agree with the apprehension of the petitioner that the provisions of Prevention of the Money Laundering Act are so provided that there may not be independent judiciary to decide G the cases under the Act but the Members and the Chairperson to be selected by the Selection Committee headed by Revenue Secretary. It is to be noted that this Court in the case ofL Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India and Ors., (1997) 3 SCC 261 has laid down that power of judicial review over legislative H

A action vested in the High Courts under Article 226 as well as in this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution is an integral and essential feature of the Constitution constituting part of the its structure. The Constitution guarantees free and independent judiciary and the constitutional scheme of separation of pow- 8 ers can be easily and seriously undermined, if the legislatures were to divest the regular courts of their jurisdiction in all matters, entrust the same to the newly created Tribunals which are not entitled to protection similar to the constitutional protection afforded to the regular Courts. The independence and impar- C tiality which are to be secured not only for the Court but also for Tribunals and their members, though they do not belong to the 'Judicial Service' are entrusted with judicial powers. The safeguards which ensure independence and impartiality are not for promoting personal prestige of the functionary but for preserv- D ing and protecting the rights of the citizens and other persons who are subject to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and for ensuring that such Tribunal will be able to command the confidence of the public. Freedom from control and potential domination of the executive are necessary pre-conditions for the indepen- E dence and impartiality of judges. To make it clear that a judiciary free from control by the Executive and Legislature is essential ifthere is a right to have claims decided by Judges who are free from potential domination by other branches of Government. With this background, let us consider the defects F pointed out by the petitioner and amended/proposed provisions of the Act and the Rules.

9. Mr. Gopal Subramaniam has informed this Court that the suggested actions have been completed by amending the Rules. Even other wise, according to him, the proposed sug- G gestions formulated by Mr. K.K. Venugopal would be incorporated on disposal of the above writ petition. For convenience, let us refer the doubts raised by the petitioner and amended/ proposed provisions as well as the remarks of the department in complying with the same.

S.No. Issues

1. Rule 3(3) of Adjudicating Authority

Rules, 2007 does not explicitly specify the qualifications of member from the field of finance or accountancy.

Amended/Pro- Remarks A

posed provision .

Rule 3(3) of Adjudicat- Action coming Authority Rules, p I e t e d . 2007 have been Am e.n d e d amended to specify Rule as per B the 'academic qualifiannexureA cation' for the Mem~ ber from the field of finance and accounting by inserting a subclause (b) as follows:

"(b) From among such persons, the Selection Committee shall have due regard to the academic qualificatiol'ls of chartered accountancy or a degree in fi nance, economics or accountancy or having special experience ih finance or ac- counts by virtue of having worked for at least two years in the finance or revenue department of either the Central Government or a State Government or being incharge of the finance or accounting wing of a corporation for a like period."

Rule 4 of Ap- Rule 4 of Appellate Tri- Action com- A

pellate Tribunal bunal Rules, 2007 has pleted.

Rules, 2007 been amended to un- Amended which provided ambiguously provide Rule as per

B for Method of that the appointment of annexure B Appointment Chairperson shall be of Chairperson made on the recomdo not give admendation of the Chief equate control Justice of India. to Judiciary. c 3.

Rule 6(1) of Rule 6(1) of Appellate Action com- Appellate Tri- Tribunal Rules, 2007 pleted. bunal Rules, has been amended to Amended 2007 which provide that the Chair- Rule as per defines the person of Appellate annexure C Selection Tribunal is appointed D

Committee for on the recommendarecommendtion of the CJI and the ing appointcomposition of the men! of Mem- Selection Committee bers of the Trito select Members of E

bunal, would the Tribunal has been undermine the amended to provide constitutional for a Judge of the Suscheme of preme Court, nomiseparation of nated by the Chief Jus- F

powers betice of India, to be the tween judiciary Chairperson of the Seand execulection Committee. lives.

G 4.

Section 32(2) Appropriate amend- Draft Bill is unof PMLA which ment to the Statute is der prepara provides for re being proposed to untion. moval of Chairambiguously provide

H person/Memthat Chairperson/

bers of Tribuna I under PMLA does not provide ad~ equate safety to the tenure of the Chairperson/members

Members appointed Draft Bill is unin consultation with der prepara- Chief Justice of India, tion. shall not be removed , without mandatory consultation with Chief Justice of lndic; i.

. of the Tribunal.

Rule 6(2) of Rule 6(2) of the Appel- May be de- Appellate Trilate Tribunal Rules, leted. bunal Rules is 2007 may be vague to the amended to delete the extent that it words "or on recomprovides for mendation of the ap-. recommendpropriate authorities", ing names afa proposal endorsed ter "inviting apby ASG, Shri Gopal p Ii cations Subramaniam. thereof by advertisement or on the recommendations of the appropriate authorities."

6. . Section 28(1) of

PMLA, which allows a person who "is qualified to be a judge of the High Court" to be the Chairperson of the

There are several Acts under which Judges and those 'qualified to be a judge' are equally eligible for selection like for Chairman under NDPS Act and SAFEMA; Judicial member under Admin

There is no requirement to amend either the Statute of the Rules.

A Tribunal, istrative Tribunal Act; should be ei- Chairperson under ther deleted or FEMA etc. The eligibilthe Rules may ity criteria, for appointbe amended ment as a judge of a to provide that High Court, provided B

the Chief Jusin the Constitution of tice of India India under Article shall nominate 217(2)(b), is that the a person for person should have

3. appointment been "for at least 1 O as Chairperyears as an advocate c

son or Appelof a High Court ... " Furlate Tribunal thermore, since apunder PMLA pointment of Chairper- D "who is or has son of the Tribunal unbeen a Judge der PMLA is to be of the Sumade on the recompreme Court or mendation of CJI, it is a High Court" expected that an inde- E failing which a pendent person would person who "is be appointed to head qualified to be the Appellate Tribunal. a judge of the High Court."

F 7.

The qualifica-

1. Persons 'qualified to There is no retions for Legal be a district Judge' are quirement to Member of the treated at par with Disamend either Adjudicating trict Judges for the purthe Statute or Authority poses of qualification the Rules.

G should exclude for appointment as "those who are member in ATFE under qualified to be FEMA; as President of a District District Forum under Judge" and Consumer Protection H onlv servina or Act. 1986 etc. The eliretired District gibility criterion, for ap- Judges should pointment as a District be appointed. Judge, provided in the The Chairper- Constijution of India unson of the Adder Article 233(2), is that judicating Authe person should have thority should been an advocate "for not be the Legal less than seven years''. member.

2. PMLA is a specialized and new Act and District Judges may not be available with experience in related issues whereas Advocates or officers of Indian Legal Service, who are eligible to be District Judges, may often have greater know!- edge of its provisions and working.

3. The Adjudicating Authority is a body of experts from different fields to adjudicate on the issue of confirmation of provisional attachment of property involved in money laundering. The functions of Adjudicating Authority are civil ir1 nature to the extent that it does not decide on the criminality of the offence nor does it have power

A to levy penalties or impose punishment.

4. Adjudication is a function which is performed

B by Executives under many statutes. The Competent Authority under NDPS/SAFEMA have been conducting c Adjudication proceedings routinely since 1978 and in the last four years i.e. 2004-2008, Competent Authority has taken 137 4 new D cases, issued 275 SCNs, forfeited 162 properties and disposed of 30 properties without any judicial ob- E jections. Similar adjudications are done by Custom Authorities under Custom Act or by Authorities under F

FE MA/FERA.

5. The Adjudicating Authority, being a body .of experts from different

fields, with a role as described in para 3 above, appointment of its Chairperson should be left to • the recommendation of the Selection Committee.

10. Inasmuch as the amended/proposed provisions, as A mentioned in para 9, are in tune with the scheme of the Constitution as well as the principles laid down by this Court, we approve the same and direct the respondent-Union of India to implement the above provisions, if not so far amended as suggested, as expeditiously as possible but not later than six B months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. This Court records its appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel and Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, learned Addi. Solicitor General. c

R.P .

Writ Petition disposed of.