Tribunal Rules 2017 Struck Down, Money Bill Question Referred to Larger Bench: Supreme Court in Rojer Mathew

Part XIV of the Finance Act, 2017, passed as a Money Bill, amended tribunal statutes, and Section 184 let the Centre frame rules on members' qualifications and service conditions (Gogoi CJI, paras 2, 150). The Madras Bar Association and others challenged it, and the Court noted that L. Chandra Kumar's direction for a single nodal agency had not been implemented (Gogoi CJI, paras 3, 5). The Attorney General contended that the dominant provisions fell within Article 110(1)(a) to (f) (Gogoi CJI, para 121). Eight issues were framed, from the Money Bill certification to direct appeals to the Supreme Court (Gogoi CJI, para 92).

Judicial review of the Speaker's Money Bill certificate is limited, but the majority in K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5) did not lay down how Article 110(1) is to be read, so its correctness needs a larger Bench (Gogoi CJI, paras 110, 122-123). Section 184 is not excessive delegation, as the binding decisions of this Court guide the delegate (Gogoi CJI, paras 143, 148). The Search-cum-Selection Committees in the Rules dilute the judiciary's role and are an executive encroachment (Gogoi CJI, paras 157-158). Short three-year tenures increase executive control over members (Gogoi CJI, para 175). A tribunal must have a dominant judicial character, and Supreme Court and High Court judges are not one class for the same post (Gogoi CJI, paras 165-166). Direct statutory appeals to the Supreme Court undermine tribunalisation (Gogoi CJI, paras 216-217). Article 226 jurisdiction is part of the basic structure and cannot be diluted (Gogoi CJI, para 222). Gupta J. held Section 184 excessive delegation as to qualifications (Gupta J., para 32). Chandrachud J. held Part XIV could not be a Money Bill, but agreed to the reference (Chandrachud J., para 103).