CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has adjourned the hearing of a public interest litigation petition challenging certain provisions of the VB-G-RAM G Act as the petitioner’s counsel seemed to have not been ready for a full-fledged argument.
When the petition filed by advocate T Sivagnanasambandam came up for hearing before the first bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan on Thursday, the bench raised several queries to the counsel ML Ravi on alleged unconstitutionality in the new Act when compared to the now-repealed MGNREGA. It asked the counsel to go for a full-fledged argument if he was ready to do so. Since he was not ready, the bench granted time and adjourned the hearing to February 24.
The petition states that eight provisions — sections 3(1), 4(5), 5(1), 6(2), 22, 30, 34 and 37 of the Act — are unconstitutional and go against the principles of federalism. It argues that the impugned provisions are ultra vires Articles 245 and 246 of the Constitution, as they allegedly legislate on subjects falling within the State List and Concurrent List.
The provisions in the impugned Act vest exclusive control of the scheme with the union government, thereby transgressing the constitutional distribution of legislative powers.
It is settled law that legislative competence must be determined by the pith and substance of the legislation, the petitioner stated.
The plea further said that by reducing the central funds to state government from 90% to 60%, the liability is shifted to the states and as such, it is a violation of the guarantees in the Constitution. It sought the court to declare the said sections as null and void and pass further orders.