The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a plea challenging the constitutionality of certain amendments introduced in the Constitution to implement the Goods and Services Tax (GST).
Court Upholds Patna High Court’s Decision
A bench led by Justice J.B. Pardiwala, along with Justice Manoj Misra, refused to interfere with the Patna High Court’s ruling, which had earlier dismissed a writ petition challenging the constitutionality of Sections 2, 9, 12, and 18 of the Constitution (101st Amendment) Act, 2016.
The bench questioned the basis of the public interest litigation (PIL), asking, “What kind of public interest litigation has been filed? How are you concerned? How is the public concerned? Sorry, dismissed.”
In April, the Patna High Court had ruled that the petitioner, an advocate, lacked the locus standi to challenge the amendments. The court noted that the petitioner was not engaged in any commercial activities and had not suffered any legal injury.
Also Read: West Bengal Assembly Set For Heated Special Session Amidst Controversy
The special leave petition filed before the Supreme Court argued that the high court failed to recognize the established legal principle that when an issue of fundamental importance and public interest is raised, the rule of locus standi can be relaxed.
The petition further contended that if an amendment to the Constitution abrogates its basic structure, any citizen, regardless of their position, has the right to challenge the validity of the provision in the Constitutional Courts.
The plea highlighted that the Constitution (101st Amendment) Act, 2016, significantly alters the way indirect taxation is levied in the country, affecting every citizen, directly or indirectly.
Filed by advocate Chandan Kumar, the petition also argued that the GST Council, an executive body, has been empowered to create new levies on items like petroleum crude and high-speed diesel. This, it claimed, effectively allows the Council to amend the VII Schedule of the Indian Constitution without parliamentary oversight.
The petition contended that the delegation of Parliament’s legislative powers to the GST Council lacks constitutional safeguards, undermining Parliament’s essential functions.
