2021 (2) TMI 504 - SC - Indian Laws

Certification of bill as a 'Money Bill' under Article 110(1) of the Constitution - Whether the decision of the Speaker of the House of People House of People interchangeably referred as Lok Sabha under Article 110(3) of the Constitution, to certify a bill as a 'Money Bill' under Article 110(1) is final and binding, or can be subject to judicial review? - if the decision is subject to judicial review, whether the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 had been correctly certified as a 'Money Bill' under Article 110(1) of the Constitution? HELD THAT - The issue whether judicial review can be exercised over a decision of the Speaker of the House of People under Article 110(3), arose subsequently before another Constitution Bench in Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd. 2019 (11) TMI 716 - SUPREME COURT where it was held that .This was in the context of whether some of the provisions of the Finance Act, 2017 (relating to appointments to Tribunals and the conditions of service of members) could have been certified as a 'Money Bill' under Article 110. Consequently, the correctness of the judgment in Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.), in relation to what constitutes a 'Money Bill' under Article 110 of the Constitution, the extent of judicial review over a certification by the Speaker of the House of People and the interpretation which has been placed on the provisions of the Aadhaar Act while holding the enactment to be a 'Money Bill', are issues which will be resolved by a larger bench, which is yet to be constituted. If these review petitions are to be dismissed and the larger bench reference in Rojer Mathew were to disagree with the analysis of the majority opinion in Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.), it would have serious consequences - not just for judicial discipline, but also for the ends of justice. As such, the present batch of review petitions should be kept pending until the larger bench decides the questions referred to it in Rojer Mathew - it is concluded that the constitutional principles of consistency and the rule of law would require that a decision on the Review Petitions should await the reference to the Larger Bench.

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the decision of the Speaker of the House of People to certify a bill as a 'Money Bill' under Article 110(1) is final and binding, or subject to judicial review.
2. Whether the Aadhaar Act was correctly certified as a 'Money Bill' under Article 110(1) of the Constitution.

Comprehensive, Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Judicial Review of Speaker's Certification of a 'Money Bill'
The Court examined whether the Speaker's decision to certify a bill as a 'Money Bill' under Article 110(1) is subject to judicial review. The majority opinion in the original Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) case acknowledged that judicial review would be admissible under certain circumstances. Justice Ashok Bhushan concurred, emphasizing that the Speaker's decision could be reviewed if it breached a constitutional provision, distinguishing between procedural irregularities and substantive illegality.

The opinion authored by Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud further clarified that the Speaker's certification is not merely procedural but a constitutional requirement. The Court can review the Speaker's action if it causes constitutional infirmities, as Article 122 does not exempt such actions from judicial review.

Subsequently, in Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd., another Constitution Bench endorsed the view that the Speaker's certification is subject to judicial review, rejecting the notion that such decisions are beyond judicial scrutiny.

Issue 2: Certification of the Aadhaar Act as a 'Money Bill'
The majority in Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) held that Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act had elements of a 'Money Bill,' and other provisions were incidental to its core, thus justifying its certification as a 'Money Bill' under Article 110(1). Justice Ashok Bhushan agreed with this conclusion.

However, Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud dissented, arguing that the Aadhaar Act's certification as a 'Money Bill' was unconstitutional. He emphasized that the Speaker's certification must adhere to the norms set out in Article 110, and the Court can review this certification if it violates constitutional norms.

The judgment in Rojer Mathew raised doubts about the majority opinion in Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.), particularly regarding the interpretation of the term 'Money Bill' and the implications of provisions not conforming to Article 110(1)(a) to (g). The majority opinion in Rojer Mathew referred the issue to a larger bench for further consideration, highlighting the need to determine the correctness of the Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) judgment.

Review Petitions Analysis:
Several review petitions were filed challenging the majority opinion in Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) on the grounds that the Aadhaar Act's certification as a 'Money Bill' was erroneous. These petitions argued that the majority opinion incorrectly assumed Section 7 as the core provision and failed to address the broader constitutional implications.

Given the doubts raised in Rojer Mathew and the pending reference to a larger bench, Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud argued that dismissing the review petitions at this stage would be premature. He emphasized that the larger bench's determination would significantly impact the validity of the Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) judgment. Therefore, he concluded that the review petitions should remain pending until the larger bench resolves the referred issues.

In summary, the Court's decision to dismiss the review petitions without awaiting the larger bench's determination would undermine judicial consistency and the rule of law. The review petitions should be kept pending to ensure a comprehensive resolution of the constitutional questions involved.

← Previous Next →