At least six cases are slated to be heard by seven-judge Constitution Benches of the Supreme Court on October 12. .The matters are not listed for final hearing, but only for procedural directions. Below are the six cases that are listed for October 12..1. Arjun Flour Mills v. State of Orissa Key Question: Can additional surcharge be imposed on the total amount of payable sales tax?This case deals with a challenge to the validity of Section 5A of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947. The primary issue in the case was the constitutionality of the Explanation to Section 8 of the Act, which deems the first point of sale to occur at the time of delivery inside the State for goods dispatched from outside the State.The seven-judge bench reference was made to determine whether the Explanation to Section 8 of the Act violates the constitutional principles of inter-state trade and commerce enshrined in Article 301 of the Constitution. Article 301 guarantees the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse throughout the territory of India..2. N Ravi & Ors v. Speaker, Legislative Assembly Chennai & OrsQuestion: Can fundamental rights override parliamentary privileges? The case had its genesis in 2003 when journalist N Ravi and others had approached the Supreme Court after the Tamil Nadu Assembly ordered the arrest of journalists on charges of breach of privilege and gross contempt.K Kalimuthu, the then Speaker of Tamil Nadu Assembly, had issued the order in connection with an editorial in The Hindu newspaper mentioning then Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa.In 2003, the Supreme Court stayed the arrests of the six journalists and issued notices to the Speaker, the Assembly Secretary, the Tamil Nadu Director General of Police, the Chennai Police Commissioner and two other officials.In 2004, the case had been referred to a seven-judge bench in view of the conflict between two judgments in similar and older cases — the MSM Sharma judgment delivered in 1958 and the Keshav Singh case of 1965. The 1958 judgment stated that fundamental rights should prevail, while the 1965 verdict stated that fundamental rights was subservient to parliamentary privileges..3. Aligarh Muslim University Through its Registrar Faizan Mustafa v. Naresh Agarwal & Ors.Question: Minority status of Aligarh Muslim UniversityIn 2019, the issue of Aligarh Muslim University’s status as a minority institution was referred to a seven-judge Constitution Bench. In 2006, the Allahabad High Court canceled the minority status of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) by relying on the 1967 Constitution Bench judgment in Azeez Basha. In that case, the Court had observed that the fundamental right to establish and administer educational institutions would apply only if minorities have “established” it in a literal sense. It held that since AMU was legally established by the Central Legislature through the AMU Act 1920, it cannot be said to be a minority institution.The UPA government along with AMU challenged the verdict. After the NDA government came to power, they sought to withdraw the appeal in 2016. The reference to seven-judge bench arose when it was argued that the effect of Azeez Basha was that no University can be granted minority status despite there being a fundamental right to establish minority Institutions under Article 30..4. State Of Punjab and ors vs Davinder Singh and orsQuestion: Reexamining the correctness of EV Chinnaiah v State of Andhra PradeshThe case originated when in 2010, the Punjab & Haryana High Court struck down Section 4(5) of the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006 as unconstitutional. Section 4(5) of the Act provides for ‘first preference’ to the Valmikis and Mazbhi Sikh castes for Scheduled Caste reservations in public services.The Punjab government in appeal contended that the EV Chinnaiah judgment does not apply to the current case. However, the High Court had followed the verdict in that case.The top court in EV Chinnaiah had held that any ‘sub-classification’ of the Scheduled Castes would violate Article 14 of the Constitution. It had stated that only Parliament, and not state legislatures, can exclude castes deemed to be Scheduled Castes from the Presidential List under Article 341 of the Constitution..5. Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd Question of law: Passage of laws as money bills to circumvent Rajya SabhaThe case deals with the question of whether the Finance Act, 2017, which introduced certain amendments to the Finance Act, 1994, can be considered a "money bill" under Article 110 of the Indian Constitution. The question before the Court is whether the amendments made through the Finance Act, 2017 were within the scope of a money bill and whether the procedure followed in passing the bill was valid.In November 2019, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court had ordered that the validity of passage of the Finance Act 2017 as money bill should be decided by a larger bench.The decision came in a batch of petitions concerning the functioning of tribunals and a challenge to the Finance Act, 2017, which had revamped the schemes governing the functioning of tribunals.In that case, all suggestions made by the Rajya Sabha regarding the Bill passed in the Lok Sabha were junked, and the Act came into force on April 1, 2017.Petitions were filed before the top court challenging the same.It was the petitioners’ case that the passage of the Finance Act in the form of a money bill was entirely inappropriate and amounted to a fraud on the Constitution.An earlier decision regarding passage of the Aadhaar Act as a money bill had been approved by the Supreme Court.Since that decision was also by a five-judge bench, the Supreme Court in its 2019 decision decided to refer the matter to a seven-judge bench.Interestingly, CJI Chandrachud, who was then a puisne judge, had dissented in the Aadhaar case and said that the Aadhaar Act could not have been passed as a money bill..6. Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary Governor of Maharashtra Question: Re-considering the powers of Speaker laid down in the Nabam Rebia judgmentThe primary question to be decided by the larger bench would be "whether the issuance of a notice of intention to move a resolution for the removal of the Speaker restrains the Speaker from adjudicating disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution".The reference was primarily made because the Kihoto Hollohan judgment, which was delivered in 1992, held that there is no reason to doubt the independence and impartiality of the Speaker. However, Nabam Rebia doubted the ability of the Speaker to remain neutral while deciding disqualification petitions after a notice of intention to remove the Speaker has been issued.
At least six cases are slated to be heard by seven-judge Constitution Benches of the Supreme Court on October 12. .The matters are not listed for final hearing, but only for procedural directions. Below are the six cases that are listed for October 12..1. Arjun Flour Mills v. State of Orissa Key Question: Can additional surcharge be imposed on the total amount of payable sales tax?This case deals with a challenge to the validity of Section 5A of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947. The primary issue in the case was the constitutionality of the Explanation to Section 8 of the Act, which deems the first point of sale to occur at the time of delivery inside the State for goods dispatched from outside the State.The seven-judge bench reference was made to determine whether the Explanation to Section 8 of the Act violates the constitutional principles of inter-state trade and commerce enshrined in Article 301 of the Constitution. Article 301 guarantees the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse throughout the territory of India..2. N Ravi & Ors v. Speaker, Legislative Assembly Chennai & OrsQuestion: Can fundamental rights override parliamentary privileges? The case had its genesis in 2003 when journalist N Ravi and others had approached the Supreme Court after the Tamil Nadu Assembly ordered the arrest of journalists on charges of breach of privilege and gross contempt.K Kalimuthu, the then Speaker of Tamil Nadu Assembly, had issued the order in connection with an editorial in The Hindu newspaper mentioning then Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa.In 2003, the Supreme Court stayed the arrests of the six journalists and issued notices to the Speaker, the Assembly Secretary, the Tamil Nadu Director General of Police, the Chennai Police Commissioner and two other officials.In 2004, the case had been referred to a seven-judge bench in view of the conflict between two judgments in similar and older cases — the MSM Sharma judgment delivered in 1958 and the Keshav Singh case of 1965. The 1958 judgment stated that fundamental rights should prevail, while the 1965 verdict stated that fundamental rights was subservient to parliamentary privileges..3. Aligarh Muslim University Through its Registrar Faizan Mustafa v. Naresh Agarwal & Ors.Question: Minority status of Aligarh Muslim UniversityIn 2019, the issue of Aligarh Muslim University’s status as a minority institution was referred to a seven-judge Constitution Bench. In 2006, the Allahabad High Court canceled the minority status of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) by relying on the 1967 Constitution Bench judgment in Azeez Basha. In that case, the Court had observed that the fundamental right to establish and administer educational institutions would apply only if minorities have “established” it in a literal sense. It held that since AMU was legally established by the Central Legislature through the AMU Act 1920, it cannot be said to be a minority institution.The UPA government along with AMU challenged the verdict. After the NDA government came to power, they sought to withdraw the appeal in 2016. The reference to seven-judge bench arose when it was argued that the effect of Azeez Basha was that no University can be granted minority status despite there being a fundamental right to establish minority Institutions under Article 30..4. State Of Punjab and ors vs Davinder Singh and orsQuestion: Reexamining the correctness of EV Chinnaiah v State of Andhra PradeshThe case originated when in 2010, the Punjab & Haryana High Court struck down Section 4(5) of the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006 as unconstitutional. Section 4(5) of the Act provides for ‘first preference’ to the Valmikis and Mazbhi Sikh castes for Scheduled Caste reservations in public services.The Punjab government in appeal contended that the EV Chinnaiah judgment does not apply to the current case. However, the High Court had followed the verdict in that case.The top court in EV Chinnaiah had held that any ‘sub-classification’ of the Scheduled Castes would violate Article 14 of the Constitution. It had stated that only Parliament, and not state legislatures, can exclude castes deemed to be Scheduled Castes from the Presidential List under Article 341 of the Constitution..5. Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd Question of law: Passage of laws as money bills to circumvent Rajya SabhaThe case deals with the question of whether the Finance Act, 2017, which introduced certain amendments to the Finance Act, 1994, can be considered a "money bill" under Article 110 of the Indian Constitution. The question before the Court is whether the amendments made through the Finance Act, 2017 were within the scope of a money bill and whether the procedure followed in passing the bill was valid.In November 2019, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court had ordered that the validity of passage of the Finance Act 2017 as money bill should be decided by a larger bench.The decision came in a batch of petitions concerning the functioning of tribunals and a challenge to the Finance Act, 2017, which had revamped the schemes governing the functioning of tribunals.In that case, all suggestions made by the Rajya Sabha regarding the Bill passed in the Lok Sabha were junked, and the Act came into force on April 1, 2017.Petitions were filed before the top court challenging the same.It was the petitioners’ case that the passage of the Finance Act in the form of a money bill was entirely inappropriate and amounted to a fraud on the Constitution.An earlier decision regarding passage of the Aadhaar Act as a money bill had been approved by the Supreme Court.Since that decision was also by a five-judge bench, the Supreme Court in its 2019 decision decided to refer the matter to a seven-judge bench.Interestingly, CJI Chandrachud, who was then a puisne judge, had dissented in the Aadhaar case and said that the Aadhaar Act could not have been passed as a money bill..6. Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary Governor of Maharashtra Question: Re-considering the powers of Speaker laid down in the Nabam Rebia judgmentThe primary question to be decided by the larger bench would be "whether the issuance of a notice of intention to move a resolution for the removal of the Speaker restrains the Speaker from adjudicating disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution".The reference was primarily made because the Kihoto Hollohan judgment, which was delivered in 1992, held that there is no reason to doubt the independence and impartiality of the Speaker. However, Nabam Rebia doubted the ability of the Speaker to remain neutral while deciding disqualification petitions after a notice of intention to remove the Speaker has been issued.
