Will Take A Call On Hearing Money Bill Issue Soon : CJI DY Chandrachud

 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. Even many amendments to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act were introduced through the route of money bills. While the Supreme Court had upheld the constitutional validity of PMLA, it had kept one issue open, that is, could amendments to the PMLA, have been passed as a Money Bill. This question was to be considered by a seven-judge bench.

It may be noted that a seven-judge bench is already considering the constitutional question of defining a Money Bill and the scope of the Supreme Court jurisdiction to review the Lok Sabha Speaker's decision to certify a bill as a Money Bill. The formation of the bench was due to the reference made by the constitution bench in Roger Mathew v. South Indian Bank on the interpretation of Article 110(1) of the Constitution of India. The correctness of the majority judgment in Aadhaar case on this point was also doubted by the Court. Thereafter in the PMLA case, the question was left open for the consideration of larger bench.

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 the Money Bill and the other provisions are only incidental and, therefore, covered by clause (g) of Article 110. Justice Chandrachud, in his dissent in the Aadhaar judgment, 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.