Breaking-SC Doubts Correctness Of Treating Aadhaar Bill As Money Bill; Refers To Larger Bench

The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in its judgment examining the validity of provisions of Finance Act 2017 affecting tribunals, has doubted the correctness of the interpretation of the majority judgment which held that Aadhaar Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of Article 110(1) of the Constitution.The effect of the word 'only' in the interpretation of Article 110(1) was referred for examination by a larger bench of seven judges.Article 110 of the Constitution defines a Money Bill. It reads that a Bill shall be deemed to be a Money Bill if it contains only provisions dealing with all or any of the matters listed in clauses (a) to (g) thereunder. The majority judgment in Aadhaar case by Justice AK Sikri had held that the Aadhaar Bill in its pith and substance should pass the test of being a Money Bill and not isolated provisions in the Act. It was held that main provision of the Aadhaar Act is a part of Money Bill and other are only incidental and, therefore, covered by clause (g) of Article 110. Justice Ashok Bhushan, in his concurring opinion, had held that, for treating a bill as Money Bill, the main and substantive provision of an enactment should only be any or all of the sub-clauses from (a) to (f). Justice Chandrachud, in his dissent, referred to the word 'only' in Article 110(1) and said that the pith and substance doctrine which is applicable to legislative entries would not apply when deciding the question whether or not a particular bill is a "Money Bill". Now, the lead judgment by CJI Ranjan Gogoi in Rojer Mathew vs. South Indian Bank Ltd noted that the majority dictum in Aadhaar judgment did not substantially discuss the effect of the word 'only' in Article 110(1) and did not examine the repercussions of a finding when some of the provisions of an enactment passed as a "Money Bill" do not conform to Article 110(1)(a) to (g).The judgment reads: It is clear to us that the majority dictum in K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5) 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 Article 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 Article 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. Its interpretation of the provisions of the Aadhaar Act was arguably liberal and the Court's satisfaction of the said provisions being incidental to Article 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) makes its application difficult to the present case and raises a potential conflict between the judgments of coordinate Benches. In this case, the contention of the petitioners was that every impugned provision be individually examined and brought either under Article 110(1)(a) to (f) or be incidental thereto, as permitted by Article 110(g). In case even a single provision did not satisfy either of the aforementioned two categories, then the entire Finance Act, 2017 would be an affront to the prefatory phraseology of Article 110(1) and must be declared as being unconstitutional, it was urged. On the other hand, the Attorney General objected to reading of the enactment in read in a piece-meal manner and submitted that if its dominant provisions, which form the core of the enactment, fall within the ambit of Article 110(1)(a) to (f), it can be treated as money bill. The court further noted:In the context of Article 110(1) of the Constitution, use of the word 'only' in relation to sub-clauses (a) to (f) pose an interesting, albeit a difficult question which was not examined and answered by the majority judgment in K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5). While it may be easier to decipher a bill relating to imposition, abolition, remission, alteration or regulation of any tax, difficulties would arise in the interpretation of Article 110(1) specifically with reference to sub-clauses (b) to (f) in a bill relating to borrowing of money or giving of any guarantee by the Government of India, or an amendment of law concerning financial obligation. Therefore on this aspect, the matter has been referred to larger bench 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) and the substantial precedential impact of its analysis of the Aadhaar Act, 2016, it becomes essential to determine its correctness. Being a Bench of equal strength as that...

Breaking-SC Doubts Correctness Of Treating Aadhaar Bill As Money Bill; Refers To Larger Bench

Ashok Kini

Tags