Karnataka High Court notice to State govt. on plea challenging constitutional validity of Greater Bengaluru Governance Act
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Joshi passed the order on the petition filed by well-known Kannada film director T.S. Nagabharana and three others.
The petitioners have also sought a direction to the State Election Commission to hold elections to the existing Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Pailke (BBMP) while pointing out that the last election to the BBMP was held 10 years ago, in 2015, and both the government and the SEC have failed to hold timely elections to the BBMP as per the constitutional provisions despite expiry of term of the elected body about five years ago.
Pointing out that Section 9 of the GBC Act provides for establishment of a Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA) consisting of Chief Minister as ex-officio chairperson, Minister in charge of Bengaluru development as vice-chairperson, Ministers representing greater Bengaluru area, Minister in charge of urban development and various officials as ex-officio members, the the petitioners have contended that the 'GBA is an unconstitutional body', which holds power to exercise control over city corporations to be created under the Act.
As the GBG Act entrusts power with the GBA, which is an unconstitutional body, to control the city corporations consisting elected representatives, the Act is contrary to the 74th Amendment to the Constitution of India, which provides power for local self-government, which is the basic purpose of the provisions contained in the 74th Amendment, the petitioners have claimed.
The GBG Act gives powers for executing major infrastructure projects, collection and distribution of taxes, to make model bye-laws, to the GBA by taking away these powers from the corporations to be created under the Act, it has been pointed out in the petition.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
14 minutes ago
- Indian Express
NJAC Act to Basic Structure doctrine, Jagdeep Dhankhar kept asking questions of the Supreme Court during his tenure
Jagdeep Dhankhar's term as Vice-President, cut short by his surprise resignation from the constitutional post late Monday evening, was marked by controversy as he spoke up against not just the Opposition but also the judiciary on multiple occasions. This followed his term as West Bengal Governor, where he had several run-ins with the Trinamool Congress (TMC) government. In 2022, his term as the Rajya Sabha Chairman began on a controversial note during the Winter Session as he called the Supreme Court's 2015 judgment striking down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act a 'glaring instance' of 'severe compromise' of parliamentary sovereignty and disregard of the 'mandate of the people'. He said Parliament, being the custodian of the 'ordainment of the people', was duty-bound to 'address the issue' and expressed confidence that 'it will do so'. The remarks, made in the House on December 7, were a reiteration of what he had said a week earlier. Dhankhar also said it was time for 'all constitutional institutions to reflect and give quietus to public display of adversarially challenging stance/trading or exchange of advisories emanating from these platforms'. The comments came at a time when the Opposition was planning to seek a discussion in the House on alleged government interference in the functioning of constitutional bodies, including a faceoff with the judiciary. A month earlier, then Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju had said the Collegium system of appointing judges was 'opaque' and 'not accountable' and 'alien' to the Constitution. His remarks had attracted the displeasure of the Supreme Court. Comments on Basic Structure doctrine A month later, on January 11, 2023, he rekindled the debate on the doctrine of separation of powers, citing the Supreme Court's landmark 1973 judgment in the Kesavananda Bharati case in which it ruled Parliament had the authority to amend the Constitution but not its basic structure. Dhankhar, in his inaugural address at the 83rd All-India Presiding Officers Conference in Jaipur, said it would be difficult to answer the question, 'Are we a democratic nation?' 'In a democratic society, the basic of any basic structure is supremacy of the people, sovereignty of the people, sovereignty of Parliament. Executive thrives on the sovereignty of Parliament. Legislatures and Parliament decide who will be the Chief Minister, who will be the Prime Minister. The ultimate power is with the Legislature. The Legislature decides who will be in other institutions. In such a situation, all Constitutional institutions – the Legislative, Executive, Judiciary – are required to be within their limits,' he said. 'In 1973, in the Kesavananda Bharati case, the Supreme Court gave the idea of basic structure saying that Parliament can amend the Constitution, but not its basic structure. With due respect to the Judiciary, I cannot subscribe to this,' Dhankhar said. Reviving the NJAC debate This March, amid the row over the discovery of wads of currency notes at the New Delhi home of High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma, Dhankhar again revived the NJAC debate. He said 'things would have been different' if the Supreme Court had not struck down the mechanism for judicial appointments. His remarks on March 25 came on a day a three-member committee constituted by the Supreme Court began its inquiry into the conduct of Justice Varma and visited his residence. The NJAC Act had proposed that appointment of judges be done by a six-member body, headed by the Chief Justice of India, and comprising two most senior SC judges, the Union Law Minister and two 'eminent' persons. The two eminent persons were to be selected by a panel comprising the Prime Minister, the CJI and the leader of the largest Opposition party in Lok Sabha. However, the Supreme Court was of the view that there was no question of accepting an alternative procedure which did not ensure primacy of the judiciary in the matter of selection and appointment of judges in the higher judiciary. On the judiciary and the President On April 22, Dhankhar minced no words in questioning the judiciary soon after the Supreme Court imposed a three-month time limit on the President and governors to give their assent to a Bill. At a gathering at a Delhi University event to commemorate 75 years of the Constitution, Dhankhar said, 'There is no visualisation in the Constitution of any authority above Parliament … elected representatives … They are the ultimate masters as to what (the) Constitution content will be.' Dhankhar also said that India cannot have a situation where the judiciary directs the President. 'So, we have judges who will legislate, who will perform executive functions, who will act as super Parliament, and absolutely have no accountability because the law of the land does not apply to them,' he said the same day in his address to the sixth batch of the Rajya Sabha interns at the Vice President's Enclave.
Mint
2 hours ago
- Mint
IT Act simplification to cut down litigation in a big way, to aid future reforms: Baijayant Panda
New Delhi: Simplification of the Income Tax Act for which a select committee of the Lok Sabha made over 330 recommendations will cut down tax litigation significantly and aid future tax reforms, the panel's chairperson Baijayant Panda told Mint in an interview. The select committee was set up for the purpose of scrutinizing the bill. The first draft of the bill tabled in the House in the Budget session of the House this year had sought to reduce the volume of words by nearly half while the Select Committee wanted to make sure the simplification exercise does not lead to wordings that are open to different interpretations, Panda said. The number of words has been lowered from over 500,000 to about 260,000. Override access code proposal accepted The chairperson said that the committee accepted the proposal in the draft bill regarding tax officials' powers to override access code in computers in the case of non-cooperating assesses under certain circumstances, as this did not entail any change in the law as it exists today, including judicial pronouncements and internal circulars of the Income Tax Department. The provision allowing tax officials to access computers and digital systems, even overriding their access code, when request for information is not complied with, in certain cases of undisclosed income or foreign assets, had caused concern among professionals. 'New India deserves a simple, easy-to-comprehend, easy-to-comply Income Tax Act and this is the first big step of simplifying the Act as it exists. The draft which the government had introduced in Parliament had already seen a huge simplification in terms of reduced word count, better clarity in language and removal of obsolete language in favour of more modern and concise wordings and tables and formulas to clarify certain aspects rather than describing them in words," Panda said. Also read | Income Tax Act revamp: Govt to set up panel to make law simpler for taxpayers Panda explained that the bill was not meant to make substantive changes to the law and the committee's mandate was to vet it for simplification. 'Our mandate was to make the Act as it exists, clear, simple and easy to comply," he said, adding that the committee received a lot of suggestions which were beyond the scope of its mandate and were seeking policy changes. Those could be taken up in different forums such as the annual Finance Bill every year. 'But what we have achieved is within our mandate." Panda explained that a lot of liberal and pro-taxpayer policy changes were being introduced from time to time by the government but many such measures were getting caught up in the complications of the tax law. 'Now, when this bill becomes a law and replaces the old Act, it will reduce ambiguity and it will reduce litigation dramatically because complexity is reduced vastly." 'The existing Act had become so complex that sometimes even very senior professionals with decades of experience could not give you a clear answer about the taxability of certain items. In the new bill, it becomes far simpler to understand what is taxable, what is not taxable and what is taxable at what rate," Panda said. 'Our mandate was to ensure that simplifying of the Act is internally consistent to avoid inadvertent errors that can creep in while language is changed." Examined extensively He explained that confusion about the search and seizure powers of tax officials as provided for in the bill was on account of 'misinformation". The committee had examined it extensively, he said. 'Let me make it very clear, there is no change in the law," Panda said, adding that some people were comparing the wordings in the existing law and the wording in the draft bill and thought there is a difference. 'The Income Tax Act dates back to 1961. On the issue of privacy and on the issue of search and seizure, there have been several judgments of High Courts and the Supreme Court. There have also been internal circulars about checks and balances; search and seizure cannot be subjective, cannot be whimsical. When you take the existing Act and court judgments leading to circulars--that is the existing law and that has been faithfully reproduced in the new bill." The law was written when there were no computers and when they came, accounts became electronic documents, Panda explained, adding that the same principle of search and seizure was extended and courts have ruled on it and the department has issued internal circulars on it. Also read | Redo the Income Tax Act not just to simplify but rationalize taxation Tax officials' powers to access documents of non-cooperating assessees under certain circumstances are the same whether these are digital or otherwise. 'To sum it up, the wording in the new draft bill faithfully reproduces the Act as it has been modified by court judgments and internal circulars. One thing is very clear, there is no policy change," said Panda. The committee held interactions with a wide range of stakeholders including large as well as small and medium enterprises, industry associations—not just the big ones, but even regional ones—lawyers and chartered accountants representing big and small firms and individual practitioners as well as taxpayers' associations and nonprofit organizations. "I will emphasize this point that this is a huge step for simplification, clarity, ease of compliance, reduced litigation, and it will make possible many more ongoing reforms in the years to come," Panda said. Also read | Nirmala Sitharaman reviews Income Tax Act 1961
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Cash-at-home row: Justice Varma removal notices handed; LS may initiate
MPs submit notices for removal of Justice Varma to LS Speaker NEW DELHI: Notices for the removal of Justice Yashwant Varma of Allahabad HC were submitted in both Houses of Parliament on Monday in what could potentially result in the first instance of a judge being benched for alleged misconduct. While 145 LS members, cutting across party lines, signed the notice, 63 members belonging to different parties made an identical move in RS. Sources said that both the Houses are on the same legal footing in this regard and proceedings are likely to be launched in Lok Sabha. 'Removal of judge will not be completed in current session' According to the Judges (Inquiry) Act, when notices of a motion are submitted on the same day in both Houses, a committee to examine the charges levelled against the judge will be constituted by LS Speaker and RS Chairman. The notable signatories to the LS notice, submitted to Speaker Om Birla, included leader of the opposition Rahul Gandhi, BJP MPs Ravi Shankar Prasad and Anurag Thakur, NCP-SP's Supriya Sule, Congress's K C Venugopal and K Suresh, DMK's T R Baalu, RSP member N K Premachandran and IUML member E T Mohammed Basheer. The notice signed by 63 opposition RS members was submitted to Upper House chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar who, before his shock resignation as vice-president, said he had received a notice for the removal of Justice Varma. 'It has been signed by more than 50 members of the council of states. Thus, it meets the numerical requirement of signing by MPs for setting in motion the process of removal of an HC judge,' Dhankhar said. On law minister Arjun Ram Meghwal's confirmation that a notice has also been submitted in LS, Dhankhar asked the RS secretary general to 'take necessary steps in this direction'. Hours after the opposition move, BJP also collected signatures of its RS members and those from its allies to file a notice. BJP sources said the opposition-sponsored notice in RS prompted the party to act as it did not want to be left out of the exercise in the Upper House. Party sources said they had no idea about the opposition's unilateral move as they cited their own bipartisan exercise in LS seeking signatures from all parties. Govt sources, however, confirmed that the matter will be taken up in LS first. Sources also confirmed that since the petition is set to be referred to a committee, the removal of the judge will not be completed in the current session. According to the Act, no committee shall be constituted unless the motion has been admitted in both Houses. The committee comprising a senior SC judge, a sitting HC chief justice and a distinguished jurist will then probe the charges levelled against Justice Varma and will be asked to come out with a report in three months. As sources indicated that LS is set to witness the motion first, this is the second time that a motion for the removal of a judge is being brought in the House after 32 years. In 1993, Justice V Ramaswami, an SC judge, faced a removal motion in LS.
