News Stocks Supreme Court's Pending Decision on Money Bill Classification Could Reshape Legislative ProcessSupreme Court's Pending Decision on Money Bill Classification Could Reshape Legislative Process
The Supreme Court is preparing to constitute a seven-judge Constitution Bench to resolve disagreements over Money Bill classification following the 2018 Aadhaar case. Justice Ashok Bhushan upheld the Aadhaar Act's passage as a Money Bill under Article 110(1)(c), while Justice DY Chandrachud dissented, arguing it contained provisions beyond constitutional scope. The Court has established that the Speaker's certification power under Article 110(3) remains subject to judicial review for constitutional compliance, departing from the British model of absolute parliamentary sovereignty.
*this image is generated using AI for illustrative purposes only.
The Supreme Court's upcoming decision on Money Bill classification boundaries represents a critical constitutional matter that could significantly impact India's legislative process. The issue stems from contrasting judicial interpretations in the landmark 2018 Aadhaar case, where fundamental questions about parliamentary procedure and constitutional limits remain unresolved.
Divergent Views in the Aadhaar Case
The 2018 Supreme Court judgment in the Aadhaar case revealed sharp disagreement among justices regarding Money Bill classification. The contrasting positions highlight the complexity of constitutional interpretation in this area.
| Justice | Position | Key Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Ashok Bhushan (Majority) | Constitutional passage as Money Bill | Primary objective facilitates state subsidies from Consolidated Fund under Article 110(1)(c) |
| DY Chandrachud (Dissent) | Unconstitutional passage | Act contains provisions beyond Article 110(1) scope; Section 7 mandates Aadhaar without directly authorizing expenditure |
Justice Bhushan emphasized that the Aadhaar Act's primary objective of facilitating delivery of state subsidies and benefits, with expenditure drawn from the Consolidated Fund of India, satisfied Article 110(3) requirements. In contrast, Justice Chandrachud argued that Money Bills must contain only provisions falling within Article 110(1) clauses (a) to (g), and the Aadhaar Act regulated aspects extending beyond this constitutional scope.
Constitutional Framework and Unique Features
Money Bills occupy a distinctive position in India's parliamentary system due to their subject matter and procedural safeguards. Article 110 defines Money Bills as dealing exclusively with financial matters including taxation, public expenditure, and Consolidated Fund issues.
Key Procedural Requirements:
- Introduction only in Lok Sabha with prior Presidential recommendation
- Rajya Sabha limited to making recommendations without amendment or rejection powers
- Speaker of Lok Sabha holds authority to determine Money Bill qualification
- Speaker's decision deemed "final" under Article 110(3)
Historical Evolution and Constitutional Development
The Money Bill concept in Indian constitutional law traces its origins through several historical documents and legislative frameworks.
| Document/Act | Year | Contribution |
|---|---|---|
| Commonwealth of India Bill | 1925 | Initial categorization framework |
| Nehru Report Article 17 | - | Money Bill definition |
| Government of India Act Section 37 | 1935 | Special provisions for financial bills |
| British Parliament Act Section 3 | 1911 | Speaker certification finality principle |
The Indian Constitution's framers consciously departed from the British Parliament Act 1911's absolute language of "shall not be questioned in any court of law," instead adopting "shall be final." This distinction reflects India's constitutional supremacy principle versus Britain's parliamentary sovereignty model.
Judicial Review and Constitutional Limits
The Supreme Court has established that the Speaker's Money Bill certification power remains subject to judicial scrutiny for constitutional compliance. In the Aadhaar case, the Court emphasized that no constitutional institution exercises unfettered power, and the Speaker's decision must align with constitutional principles of transparency, fairness, and non-arbitrariness.
Critical Constitutional Points:
- Speaker's function under Article 110(3) is legislative, not judicial in character
- Article 122 does not provide immunity from judicial review for constitutional infirmities
- Article 212 limits challenges only on procedural irregularity grounds, not substantive illegality
- Judicial review ensures constitutional authorities act within prescribed bounds
Pending Resolution and Future Implications
The matter was referred to a seven-judge Constitution Bench in November 2019 in the Roger Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd case. In July 2024, then Chief Justice DY Chandrachud indicated the Court would soon decide on listing the Money Bill issue for hearing, following an October 2023 commitment to constitute the Constitution Bench.
The eventual decision will provide crucial clarity on constitutional boundaries for Money Bill classification, potentially affecting future legislative procedures and the balance between parliamentary authority and judicial oversight in India's constitutional framework.
19
