Summary of arguments (petitioner’s side

revised):

1. The counsel for the petitioners most humbly submits to this honourable court that the
petition filed is maintainable because the amendments to the finance act violates the
constitution. It goes against the principles enshrined in the Constitution. The speaker
acted in an unconstitutional manner while deciding the fate of the impugned bill in
question, hence the act, so passed, is also unconstitutional.

2. The counsel for the petitioners most humbly submits to this honourable court that
amendments to the finance act were wrongly classified as money bill. The merger of
tribunals as per the provisions of the amendments to the finance act, do not lie under
the purview of money bill but Constitution Amendment Bill as it is the modification
of provisions/articles of the Constitution.

3. The counsel for the petitioners most humbly submits to this honourable court that the
speaker’s decision was unconstitutional and it goes against the Preamble of the
Constitution of Aryavart. The speaker exercised his authority without taking into
consideration the grounds which were essential to be considered before arriving at
that decision or taking that decision.