- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- "Matters Shouldn't Be Prioritised...
"Matters Shouldn't Be Prioritised On Political Exigencies": Centre Opposes Priority Hearing Of Money Bill Issue In Supreme Court
Padmakshi Sharma
12 Oct 2023 12:32 PM IST
The Central Government on Thursday (October 12) objected to the Supreme Court giving priority hearing for the money bill issue, saying that matters should not be prioritised based on "political exigencies".The bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice B R Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra was...
The Central Government on Thursday (October 12) objected to the Supreme Court giving priority hearing for the money bill issue, saying that matters should not be prioritised based on "political exigencies".
The bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice B R Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra was passing directions for the pre-hearing steps in various matters before 7-judge bench and 9-judge bench. Deciding to pass a common order for directions in all matters, the CJI remarked– "The idea is to get these matters ready for hearing. So we will pass a common order in all these matters in terms of the circular of 22nd August 2023. The compilation of documents, pleadings, precedents - that must be filed in three weeks and written submissions as well."
One of the matters listed before the bench for directions was Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd And Ors, which pertains to money bills. When the matter was taken up, upon Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal's insistence, CJI DY Chandrachud remarked–
"We will give this some priority."
To this, SG Mehta stated–
"We would request that your lordships go by seniority(of the cases). My lords can't decide priority based on political exigencies." It may be noted that Rojer Mathew is listed as the fifth case chronologically out of the six cases before the 7-judge bench.
The bench had then stated that it will take an appropriate call in the matter. CJI stated– "Leave it to us, we will decide."
What is the matter about?
Money Bill, as defined under Article 110 of the Indian Constitution, concerns financial matters like taxation, public expenditure, etc. The Rajya Sabha cannot amend or reject this bill. The money bill provision had courted controversy after the Government sought to introduce certain bills, such as the Aadhaar Bill, as money bill, seemingly to circumvent the Rajya Sabha, where the government was lacking majority. The Electoral Bond scheme is also facing challenge on the ground that the amendments were introduced through a money bill.
The majority judgment in Aadhaar case by Justice AK Sikri had held that the Aadhaar Bill in its pith and substance would pass the test of being a Money Bill. It was held that main provision of the Aadhaar Act is a part of Money Bill and the other provisions are only incidental and, therefore, covered by clause (g) of Article 110. 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". The dissenting view pointed out that the clear language of Article 110 says that a bill can be a Money Bill only if deals with taxes or borrowings or other aspects mentioned in Articles 110(1)(a) to (g).
In 2019, the lead judgment by the then 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 Articles 110(1)(a) to (g). Since Rojer Mathew bench had the same strength as the Aadhaar case judgment, it referred the matter to a 7-judge bench to ascertain the correctness of the interpretation given in Aadhaar case. The effect of the word 'only' in the interpretation of Article 110(1) was referred for examination by a larger bench of seven judges.
