# PAREENA SWARUP v. UNION OF INDIA

- **Citation:** [2008] 13 S.C.R. 1217
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2008-09-30
- **Case number:** Writ Petition No. 634 of 2007
- **Bench:** K.G. Balakrishnan, Lokeshwar Singh Panta, P. Sathasivam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/pareena-swarup-v-union-of-india-23704
- **Pages:** 15

## Headnote

Constitution of India, 1950:
Article 32 - Provisions of Prevention of Money-launder- c
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 - TriE
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-launderF
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 tribuG
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 inter1217
H
1218
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 13 S.C.R.
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
t
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 ChairperH son of the Adjudicating Authorities and Appellate Tribu-
)
PAREENA SWARUP v. UNION OF INDIA
1219
nal 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 unC
dermined, if the legislature

## Text

)
[2008] 13 S.C.R. 1217
PAREENA SWARUP
A
V.
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-launder- c
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 - TriE
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-launderF
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 tribuG
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 inter1217
H
1218
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 13 S.C.R.
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
t
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 ChairperH son of the Adjudicating Authorities and Appellate Tribu-
)
PAREENA SWARUP v. UNION OF INDIA
1219
nal 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 unC
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.
F
G
Gopal Subramanium, A.S.G., M. Chandrashekharan,
H
1220
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 13 S.C.R.
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 memD 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 PreA
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 AdjudiB
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 affidaG
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.
H
1222
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 13 S.C.R.
~
A
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:-
1.
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
2.
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."
H
PAREENA SWARUP v. UNION OF INDIA
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
1223
6.
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."
7.
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.
E
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
1224
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 13 S.C.R.
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 pow8 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 imparC 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 preservD 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 indepenE 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 sugG 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.
H
)
PAREENA SWARUP v. UNION OF INDIA
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
1225
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/ProRemarks
A
posed provision
.
Rule 3(3) of AdjudicatAction 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."
c
D
E
F
G
1226
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 13 S.C.R.
2.
Rule 4 of ApRule 4 of Appellate TriAction comA
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 comAppellate Tri- Tribunal Rules, 2007 pleted.
bunal Rules, has been amended to Amended
2007
which provide that the ChairRule as per
defines
the person of Appellate annexure C
Selection Tribunal is appointed
D
Committee for on the recommendarecommend- tion of the CJI and the
ing appoint- composition of the
men! of Mem- Selection Committee
bers of the Tri- to 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 JusF
powers
be- tice of India, to be the
tween judiciary Chairperson of the Seand
execulection Committee.
lives.
G
4.
Section 32(2) Appropriate amendDraft Bill is unof PMLA which ment to the Statute is der prepara·
provides for re· being proposed to untion.
moval of Chair- ambiguously provide
H
person/Memthat Chairperson/
)
PAREENA SWARUP v. UNION OF INDIA
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
1227
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 preparaChief Justice of India, tion.
shall not be removed ,
without ·mandatory
consultation with Chief
Justice of lndic;i.
. of the Tribunal.
5.
Rule 6(2) of Rule 6(2) of the AppelMay be deAppellate Tri- late 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-.
recommend- propriate authorities",
ing names af- a proposal endorsed
ter "inviting ap- by 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
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
1228
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 13 S.C.R.
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 Jus- in 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 Chairper- years as an advocate
c
son or Appel- of a High Court ... " Furlate Tribunal thermore, since apunder PMLA pointment of ChairperD
"who is or has son of the Tribunal unbeen a Judge der PMLA is to be
of the
Su- made on the recompreme Court or mendation of CJI, it is
a High Court" expected that an indeE
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 qualifica1. 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 eli-
' ..
PAREENA SWARUP v UNION OF INDIA
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
retired District gibility criterion, for apJudges should pointment as a District
be appointed. Judge, provided in the
The ChairperConstijution 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
1229
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
1230
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 13 S.C.R.
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 obE
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
G
fields, with a role as described in para 3 above,
appointment of its Chairperson should be left to
•
the recommendation of
the Selection Committee.
H
PAREENA SWARUP v. UNION OF INDIA
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.)
1231
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.
•