Aadhaar Hearing [Day 16]: Decision Of Speaker On Money Bill Not Outside The Scope Of Judicial Review, Argues P Chidambaram [Read Written Submissions Of KVV]

On Day 16 of the Aadhaar hearing, senior counsel P Chidambaram, appearing on behalf of Congress leader Jairam Ramesh, one of the petitioners, resumed his argument that Article 110(3), in so far as it provides that the decision of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha as to whether a Bill is a ‘Money Bill’ shall be final, does not exclude the scope of judicial review.Several judgments in context of the said contention were discussed: Sub Committee on Judicial Accountability v. UOI (1991), whereunder it was held, “It is not correct to say that the question whether a motion has lapsed or not was a matter pertaining to the conduct of the business of the House, of which the House was the sole and exclusive master, and that no aspect of the matter was justiciable before a Court...On an interpretation of the Constitutional provisions as well as the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, the Courts retain jurisdiction to declare that a motion for removal of Judge does not lapse on dissolution of the House... The scheme of Articles 124(4) and (5) is that the entire process of removal is in two parts - the first part, under clause (5) from initiation to investigation and proof of misbehaviour or incapacity is covered by an enacted law, Parliament's role being only legislative as in all the laws enacted by it, the second part under clause (4) is in Parliament and that process commences only on proof of misbehaviour or incapacity in accordance with the law enacted under clause (5)”. SR Bommai v. UOI (1994), wherein it was observed, in context of the power of the President in the event of the failure of the constitutional machinery in a state, that “the deletion of clause (5) of Article 356, as it stood prior to its deletion by the Constitution (44th Amendment) Act in 1978, has made no change in the legal position that the satisfaction of the President under clause (1) of Article 356, was always judicially reviewable...On the other hand, the deletion of the clause has reinforced the earlier legal position, viz., that notwithstanding the existence of the clause (5), the satisfaction of the President under clause (1) was judicially reviewable and the judicial review was not barred on account of the presence of the clause...” Raja Ram Pal v. Speaker (2007), wherein, in construing whether the Parliament is empowered to expel a member under Article 105(3), it was observed, “...the decisions taken, orders made, findings recorded or conclusions arrived at by Parliament/State Legislature are subject to judicial review, albeit on limited grounds and parameters. If, therefore, there is gross abuse of power by Parliament/ State Legislature, this Court will not hesitate in discharging its duty by quashing the order or setting aside unreasonable action”. Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992), whereunder it was held, “The legal fiction in para 6(2) of the Tenth Schedule brings a proceeding under para 6(1) within the ambit of clause (1) of Article 122/212 of the Constitution, and, therefore, makes it justiciable on the ground of illegality or perversity inspite of the immunity it enjoys to a challenge on the ground of ‘irregularity of procedure’”.Paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule deals with the power of the Speaker or the Chairman, as the case may be, to decide on the disputed disqualification of a Member of the Parliament. Mohd. Saeed Siddiqui v. State of UP (2014), wherein the apex court rejected the challenge that the UP Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta (Amendment) Act of 2012 was wrongly introduced as a Money Bill in clear disregard to the provisions of Article 199 of the Constitution, holding that the Speaker’s decision is final.Chidambaram on Tuesday submitted that in the said case there was no deliberation on why the Act was introduced as a Money Bill.In addition, the Supreme Court judgments in Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal (2015) and MSM Sharma v. Dr Shree Krishna Sinha were also discussed.Breaking: SC Extends Deadline for Mandatory Linkage Of Aadhaar With Bank Accounts And Mobile Till The Disposal Of Aadhaar Cases [Read Order]The bench also directed the senior counsel to the judgment in M/S Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works v. State of Mysore (1962), wherein it was ruled, “...even assuming that it was the ground that (the 1955 amendment to the Indian Coinage Act of 1906) offends Arts. 197 to 199, being a taxing measure, its validity could not be challenged on Art. 202 of the Constitution, because of the procedure laid down in Art. 212 which prohibits the validity of any proceedings of a legislature from being called in question for irregularity of procedure...”Expressing doubts regarding the relevancy of the aforesaid judgment, Chidambaram proceeded to discuss how the introduction of the Aadhaar Act of 2016 as a Money Bill strikes at the federal character of the Constitution in so far as the Rajya Sabha has been bypassed.In the same context, he relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Kuldip Nayar v. UOI (2006).In the light of the meaning of Money Bill under...

Aadhaar Hearing [Day 16]: Decision Of Speaker On Money Bill Not Outside The Scope Of Judicial Review, Argues P Chidambaram [Read Written Submissions Of KVV]

Mehal Jain

Tags