Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2021 (2) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (2) TMI 504 - SC - Indian LawsCertification 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.
|