9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 504X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unals 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 r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 (the Aadhaar Act ) had been correctly certified as a 'Money Bill' under Article 110(1) of the Constitution. 3. On the first question, the majority (speaking through Dr Justice A.K. Sikri) stated that [j]udicial review [of whether a Bill is a 'Money Bill'] would be admissible under certain circumstances having regard to the law laid down by this Court Id at paras 455-464 . While answering the second question, the majority held that Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act had elements of a 'Money Bill', and the other provisions were incidental to the 'core' of the Aadhaar Act. Hence, the majority held that the Aadhaar Act had been correctly certified as a 'Money Bill' under Article 110(1). 4. In his concurring opinion, Justice Ashok Bhushan answered the first question by holding that the decision of the Speaker of the House of People under Article 110(1) could be subject to judicial review when it was in breach of a constitutional provision. Drawing a distinction between an irregularity of procedure and a substantive illegality, Justice Ashok Bhushan held: 901. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bench in Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd. [2020] 6 SCC 1 ( Rojer Mathew ) 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. 7. The judgment delivered by the majority (speaking through Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi) answered this question by referring to the judgment in Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) in the following terms: 102. A coordinate Bench of this Court in K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5 J.) v. Union of India [K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5 J.) v. Union of India, [2019] 1 SCC 1] , was tasked with a similar question of the certification of Money Bill accorded to the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 by the Speaker of Lok Sabha. The majority opinion after noting the important role of the Rajya Sabha in a bicameral legislative set-up, observed that Article 110 being an exceptional provision, must be interpreted narrowly. Although the majority opinion did not examine the correctness of the decisions in Mohd. Siddiqui [Mohd. Saeed Siddiqui v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m in K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5 J.) [K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5 J.) v. Union of India, [2019] 1 SCC 1] did not substantially discuss the effect of the word only in Article 110(1) and offers little guidance on the repercussions of a finding when some of the provisions of an enactment passed as a Money Bill do not conform to Articles 110(1)(a) to (g). Its interpretation of the provisions of the Aadhaar Act was arguably liberal and the Court's satisfaction of the said provisions being incidental to Articles 110(1)(a) to (f), it has been argued, is not convincingly reasoned, as might not be in accord with the bicameral parliamentary system envisaged under our constitutional scheme. Without expressing a firm and final opinion, it has to be observed that the analysis in K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5 J.) [K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5 J.) v. Union of India, [2019] 1 SCC 1] makes its application difficult to the present case and raises a potential conflict between the judgments of coordinate Benches. 117. Given the various challenges made to the scope of judicial review and interpretative principles (or lack thereof), as adumbrated by the majority in K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5 J.) [K. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ently, 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. 10. The present batch of review petitions, in challenging the correctness of the judgment in Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.), assails the reasoning in the opinion of the majority on whether the Aadhaar Act was a 'Money Bill' under Article 110. The details of the review petitions, are summarised below: (i) Review Petition (Civil) Diary No. 45777 of 2018 - This petition was filed on 6 December 2018, and its sub-Ground (e) calls for a review of Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) in which the majority opinion upheld the certification of the Aadhaar Act as a 'Money Bill', which rests on the erroneous assumption that Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act is its core provision (Grounds XXIII-XXVII). (ii) Review Petition (C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... batch of review petitions at this stage - a course of action adopted by the majority - would place a seal of finality on the issues in the present case, without the Court having the benefit of the larger bench's consideration of the very issues which arise before us. The correctness of Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) on issues pertaining to, and arising from, the certification of a Bill as a 'Money Bill' by the Speaker of the House of People has been doubted by a co-ordinate Constitution Bench in Rojer Mathew. With the doubt expressed by another Constitution Bench on the correctness of the very decision which is the subject matter of these review petitions, it is a constitutional error to hold at this stage that no ground exists to review the judgment. The larger bench's determination would have an undeniable impact on the validity of the reasons expressed in Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.), on the constitutional issues pertaining to and arising out of the certification by the Speaker of the House of People. The failure to re-contextualize the decision of the larger bench with regard to the Aadhaar Act being a 'Money Bill' under Article 110(1) will render it a mere academ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
