9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 504X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 26-9-2018. We have perused the review petitions as well as the grounds in support thereof. In our opinion, no case for review of judgment and order dated 26-9-2018 is made out. We hasten to add that change in the law or subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review. The review petitions are accordingly dismissed. 5. Consequently, prayer for urging additional grounds in Review Petition (Civil) No. 22/2019 stands rejected. JUDGMENT DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J. - 1. I regret my inability to agree with the decision of the majority in dismissing the present batch of review petitions. 2. This batch of petitions seeks a review of the decision of a Constitution Bench of this Court in Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) v. Union of India [2019] 1 SCC 1 "Puttaswamy (Aadhar-5J."]. Among the issues which arose for decision, the Court had to answer two critical questions: (i) 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 su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... question by holding that: "1080. The obligation placed on the Speaker of the Lok Sabha to certify whether a Bill is a Money Bill is not a mere matter of "procedure" contemplated under Article 122. It is a constitutional requirement, which has to be fulfilled according to the norms set out in Article 110. Article 122 will not save the action of the Speaker, if it is contrary to constitutional norms provided under Article 110. The Court, in the exercise of its power of judicial review, can adjudicate upon the validity of the action of the Speaker if it causes constitutional infirmities. Article 122 does not envisage exemption from judicial review, if there has been a constitutional infirmity. The Constitution does not endorse a complete prohibition of judicial review under Article 122. It is only limited to an "irregularity of procedure"." However, on the second question, my decision dissented with the majority and Justice Ashok Bhushan, and held that the decision of the Speaker of the House of People to certify the Aadhaar Act as a 'Money Bill' under Article 110(1) was unconstitutional. 6. The issue whether judicial review can be exercised over a decision of the Speaker ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xpression "Money Bill" cannot be construed in a restrictive sense and that the wisdom of the Speaker of Lok Sabha in this regard must be valued, save where it is blatantly violative of the scheme of the Constitution. We respectfully endorse the view in Puttaswamy [K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5 J.) v. Union of India, [2019] 1 SCC 1] and are in no doubt that Mohd. Siddiqui [Mohd. Saeed Siddiqui v. State of U.P., [2014] 11 SCC 415] and Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal [Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal v. State of Bihar, [2016] 3 SCC 183 : (2016) 2 SCC (Cri) 1] insofar as they put decisions of the Speaker under Article 110(3) beyond judicial review, cannot be relied upon." (emphasis supplied) However, the majority opinion noted that the first question was not adequately answered in the above decision in Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.). It also noted its doubts on the determination of the second question: "116. Upon an extensive examination of the matter, we notice that the majority in K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5 J.) [K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5 J.) v. Union of India, [2019] 1 SCC 1] pronounced the nature of the impugned enactment without first delineating the scope of Article 110(1) and principles for interpreta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as held that the decision of the Hon'ble Speaker of the House of People under Article 110(3) of the Constitution is not beyond judicial review. I also agree with his views that keeping in view the high office of the Speaker, the scope of judicial review in such matters is extremely restricted. If two views are possible then there can be no manner of doubt that the view of the Speaker must prevail. Keeping in view the lack of clarity as to what constitutes a Money Bill, I agree with the Hon'ble Chief Justice that the issue as to whether Part XIV of the Finance Act, 2017, is a Money Bill or not may be referred to a larger Bench." Similarly, another partly concurring and partly dissenting opinion, authored by me, held thus: "346. Though the present judgment [referring to the partly concurring and partly dissenting opinion] analyses the ambit of the word "only" in Article 110(1) and the interpretation of sub-clauses (a) to (g) of clause (1) of Article 110 and concludes that Part XIV of the Finance Act, 2017 could not have been validly enacted as a Money Bill, I am in agreement with the reasons which have been set out by the learned Chief Justice of India to refer the aspect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Aadhaar Act's certification as a 'Money Bill', which eliminated the possibility of discussion before the Rajya Sabha (Grounds V-W). (vi) Review Petition (Civil) No. 377 of 2019 - This petition was filed on 10 January 2019, and seeks a review of Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) in relation to the majority opinion holding that the Aadhaar Act could have been certified as a 'Money Bill' at the time of its introduction in the Lok Sabha (Ground A). (vii) Review Petition (Civil) No. 924 of 2019 - This petition was filed on 12 January 2019, and seeks a review of Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) in relation to the majority opinion upholding the Aadhaar Act's certification as a 'Money Bill' in terms of Article 110(1) even though it contained provisions which affected the fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution (Ground A). 11. The analysis of the majority opinion in Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) in relation to the second question, i.e., whether the Aadhaar Act was a 'Money Bill' under Article 110 has been doubted by a coordinate bench in Rojer Mathew, when the first question was referred to a larger bench. The larger bench has not been constituted, an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... review petitions before referring the question to a larger bench. Further, the court noted that such a question could also be a pure question of law. In explaining the power of this Court to review its own judgments, Chief Justice S A Bobde, speaking for the Bench, held thus: "29. Order LV Rule 6 makes it crystal clear that the inherent power of this Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice shall not be limited by the Rules. In S. Nagaraj v. State of Karnataka [S. Nagaraj v. State of Karnataka, 1993 Supp (4) SCC 595 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 320] , it was observed that even when there was no statutory provision and no rules were framed by the highest court indicating the circumstances in which it could rectify its orders, the courts culled out such power to avoid abuse of process or miscarriage of justice. It was further held that this Court is not precluded from recalling or reviewing its own order if it is satisfied that it is necessary to do so for the sake of justice. The logical extension to the above is that reference of questions of law can be made in any pending proceeding before this Court, including the instant review proceedings, to meet the ends o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
