The petition was filed challenging the section\u00a0 32(2)(a) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. As regards the qualification for appointment of as a judicial Member of the Appellate Tribunal . Allowing the petition the Court held that The extent of judicial review that can be exercised in a given case is limited. Though a constitutional court can declare a provision to be unconstitutional, it should not give any direction to the Legislature to make an amendment in a particular way. However, in a case where a direction has been given by the Supreme Court to have the judicial independence, it is required to be followed by the High Courts as well as the Executive. In view of this position section\u00a032(2)(a)\u00a0of the\u00a0Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988\u00a0is unconstitutional because it postulates that a Member of the Indian Legal Service who has held the post of Additional Secretary or equivalent post in that service is eligible for appointment as a Judicial Member in the Appellate Tribunal. Referred\u00a0 Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain [1975] Supp SCC 1\u00a0 , UOI \u00a0v. R. Gandhi , President, Madras Bar Association\u00a0 (2010) 156 Comp Cas 392 (SC) , Sampat Kumar (S.P) v. UOI (1987) 1 SCC 124<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. <\/p>\n
S. 32 :Qualification for appointment of chairperson and Members of Appellate Tribunal- Constitution Of Appellate Tribunal – Independence of Judiciary \u2014 Qualification of Judicial Member \u2014 Requirement that he could be a Member of Indian Legal Service or one had held post of additional Secretary or equivalent post in that service \u2014 Provision not valid. [ Art , 226 ] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-28469","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allied-laws"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-7pb","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28469","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=28469"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28469\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":28470,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28469\/revisions\/28470"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=28469"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=28469"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=28469"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}