The Supreme Court on Friday said that a seven-judge Bench would soon be formed to hear the cases related to and challenging the constitutional validity of money bills.
The announcement was made by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud after Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy mentioned the matter before the Bench of CJI Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra.
The senior counsel, while referring to a case, said that it was about the money bills. The specific challenge was to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). A seven-judge bench was to be constituted.
Responding to Guruswamy, the CJI said that he was listing all pending seven-judge matters and nine-judge matters for directions next week, adding that he would list this too.
Article 110 of the Indian Constitution defines Money Bill as the one concerning financial matters like taxation and public expenditure. The Bill can neither be amended nor rejected by the Rajya Sabha.
The Supreme Court on Friday said that a seven-judge Bench would soon be formed to hear the cases related to and challenging the constitutional validity of money bills.
The announcement was made by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud after Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy mentioned the matter before the Bench of CJI Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra.
The senior counsel, while referring to a case, said that it was about the money bills. The specific challenge was to the PMLA. A seven-judge bench was to be constituted.
Responding to Guruswamy, the CJI said that he was listing all pending seven-judge matters and nine-judge matters for directions next week, adding that he would list this too.
Article 110 of the Indian Constitution defines a Money Bill as the one concerning financial matters such as public expenditure. It contains exclusive provisions for the imposition of taxes and appropriation of money out of the Consolidated Fund. A Money Bill can only be introduced in the Lok Sabha.
The Bill can neither be amended nor rejected by the Rajya Sabha. The Upper House can only suggest amendments to such a Bill. The recommendations on money bills by the Upper House (Rajya Sabha) are not binding on the Lower House, which may choose to reject it.
Earlier on May 3, the CJI had said that he would examine the request to set up a seven-judge bench to hear certain Constitutional cases, such as the matter related to passage of laws as money bills by the Parliament.
The CJI made the observation after Senior Counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi mentioned the matter relating to money bills. The Senior Counsel said that this was a seven-judge bench matter, adding that he realised that it could not be constituted immediately. Singhvi said the lead plea in the case was Rojer Mathew.
CJI Chandrachud said he has been wanting to constitute the seven-judge bench matters, adding that he would consider it soon.
A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court had ordered in November 2019 that the validity of passage of the Finance Act 2017 as money bill should be decided by a larger bench.
The order was passed on a bunch of petitions concerning the functioning of tribunals, including a challenge to the Finance Act 2017, which had revamped the schemes governing the functioning of tribunals.
In that case, all suggestions made by the Rajya Sabha regarding the Bill passed in the Lok Sabha were junked, and the Act came into force on April 1, 2017.
The petitioners had contended that the passage of the Finance Act in the form of a Money Bill was entirely inappropriate and amounted to a fraud on the Constitution.
Earlier, the passage of the Aadhaar Act as money had been approved by the Apex Court.Since that verdict was delivered by a five-judge bench, the Supreme Court in its 2019 judgment decided to refer the matter to a seven-judge bench.
CJI Chandrachud, who was then a puisne judge, had dissented in the Aadhaar case and said that the Aadhaar Act could not have been passed as a money bill.