The Supreme Court of India is currently poised to address a pivotal legal question that has significant implications for the legislative process in the country: What precisely constitutes a money Bill? This inquiry has gained prominence against the backdrop of contentious decisions, including the recent invalidation of the electoral bond scheme and the 2018 affirmation of the Aadhaar Act’s constitutionality. The matter now awaits the scrutiny of a seven-judge constitution bench, underscoring its critical importance.
Also Read- BCI Pledges Assistance To Legal Practitioners In Implementing New Criminal Codes (lawchakra.in)
Understanding Money Bills: A Legislative Shortcut?
Money Bills represent a streamlined legislative pathway, allowing for expedited enactment of laws by Parliament. Under the Constitution, while typically both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha must approve a Bill, a money Bill requires only the Lok Sabha’s assent, relegating the Rajya Sabha to a consultative role. This process, detailed in Article 109, essentially permits the Lok Sabha to enact a money Bill with or without the Rajya Sabha’s recommendations after a 14-day consideration period.
Criteria for Money Bills: A Narrow Scope
The designation of a Bill as a money Bill is contingent upon its exclusive dealing with specific subjects outlined in Article 110, such as taxation, government financial obligations, and the Consolidated Fund of India, among others. The Speaker of the Lok Sabha holds the authority to determine a Bill’s status as a money Bill, a decision that carries significant legislative ramifications.
Recent Controversies and Legal Challenges
The application of the money Bill route, particularly for enacting several ‘Finance Acts’ that amend laws like the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and the Foreign Contributions (Regulation) Act, has sparked legal debates and challenges. Notably, the Supreme Court’s 2018 verdict on the Aadhaar Act highlighted the contentious nature of this legislative process. Justice Ashok Bhushan affirmed the Act’s passage as a money Bill, linking it to subsidies and benefits involving expenditure from the Consolidated Fund of India. However, he also acknowledged the potential for judicial review of the Speaker’s decision, emphasizing the importance of adhering to constitutional provisions.
In contrast, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud’s dissenting opinion labeled the Aadhaar Act’s passage as a money Bill an “abuse of the constitutional process,” pointing out its broader implications beyond the stipulated scope of Article 110. This divergence in judicial opinion underscores the complex interplay between legislative procedure and constitutional mandates.
The Path Forward: Awaiting the Constitution Bench’s Verdict
The Supreme Court’s decision to refer the question of the Finance Act, 2017‘s status as a money Bill to a larger bench reflects the ongoing uncertainty and debate surrounding this issue. The outcome of this deliberation could have far-reaching consequences for future legislative practices and the validity of previously enacted laws under the money Bill designation.
As the legal community and the public keenly await the constitution bench’s verdict, the Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision promises to clarify the boundaries of money Bills, potentially reshaping the legislative landscape in India. This decision will not only impact the specific cases of the PMLA and the Aadhaar Act but also set a precedent for the interpretation and application of money Bills in the broader context of Indian governance.
