Judicial Review of Money Bill Certification: Supreme Court's Dissenting Opinion
Beghar Foundation vs Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.)
Listen to this judgment
• 4 min readKey Takeaways
• A court cannot dismiss review petitions merely because a change in law has occurred.
• Judicial review of a Speaker's certification as a Money Bill is permissible under certain circumstances.
• The obligation of the Speaker to certify a Money Bill is a constitutional requirement, not merely procedural.
• Substantive illegality in the Speaker's decision can be grounds for judicial review.
• The interpretation of what constitutes a Money Bill under Article 110 is subject to judicial scrutiny.
Introduction
The Supreme Court of India recently addressed the contentious issue of judicial review concerning the certification of a Money Bill by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha. This matter arose from a series of review petitions challenging the earlier judgment in the case of Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) v. Union of India, which upheld the certification of the Aadhaar Act as a Money Bill. The dissenting opinion by Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud has significant implications for the interpretation of constitutional provisions related to legislative processes.
Case Background
The review petitions in question were filed against the final judgment and order dated September 26, 2018, in the case of Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) v. Union of India. The primary issues revolved around whether the Speaker's decision to certify the Aadhaar Act as a Money Bill was final and binding, and whether such a decision could be subjected to judicial review. The majority opinion in the earlier case had concluded that the Aadhaar Act was correctly certified as a Money Bill under Article 110 of the Constitution.
What The Lower Authorities Held
The majority opinion in Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) held that judicial review of the Speaker's certification was permissible under certain circumstances. However, it also concluded that the Aadhaar Act contained elements of a Money Bill, thus validating the Speaker's certification. Justice Ashok Bhushan, in his concurring opinion, emphasized that the Speaker's decision could be reviewed if it breached constitutional provisions, distinguishing between procedural irregularities and substantive illegality.
The Court's Reasoning
In the dissenting opinion, Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud articulated a more stringent view regarding the Speaker's certification. He argued that the obligation to certify a Money Bill is not merely procedural but a constitutional requirement that must adhere to the norms set out in Article 110. He asserted that the Court retains the power to review the Speaker's actions if they result in constitutional infirmities. This perspective underscores the importance of maintaining constitutional integrity in legislative processes.
Statutory Interpretation
The interpretation of Article 110 of the Constitution is central to this discussion. Article 110 outlines the criteria for classifying a Bill as a Money Bill, emphasizing that such classification must be strictly adhered to. The dissenting opinion raised concerns about the majority's interpretation in Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.), suggesting that it lacked clarity and could lead to significant constitutional implications.
Constitutional or Policy Context
The dissenting opinion also highlighted the potential consequences of dismissing the review petitions without awaiting the larger bench's decision in Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd. This case had raised similar questions regarding the certification of Money Bills and the extent of judicial review. Justice Chandrachud cautioned that dismissing the petitions prematurely could undermine judicial discipline and the rule of law, as it would prevent a thorough examination of the constitutional issues at stake.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is significant for several reasons. Firstly, it reinforces the principle that the Speaker's certification of a Money Bill is not immune from judicial scrutiny. Secondly, it emphasizes the need for clarity in the interpretation of constitutional provisions governing legislative processes. The dissenting opinion serves as a reminder of the judiciary's role in upholding constitutional norms and ensuring that legislative actions comply with the Constitution.
Final Outcome
The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the review petitions, stating that no case for review had been made out. However, the dissenting opinion called for the matter to be referred to a larger bench for further consideration, highlighting the ongoing debate regarding the certification of Money Bills and the scope of judicial review.
Case Details
- Case Title: Beghar Foundation vs Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.)
- Citation: 2021 INSC 14
- Court: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
- Bench: Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud
- Date of Judgment: 2021-01-11