Date of the Judgment: January 11, 2021
Citation: (2021) INSC 12
Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar, Ashok Bhushan, S. Abdul Nazeer, B.R. Gavai, and Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud (dissenting). This was a 4:1 majority decision, with Justice Khanwilkar writing the majority opinion and Justice Chandrachud dissenting.

Is the Supreme Court’s decision on whether the Aadhaar Act was correctly certified as a ‘Money Bill’ final, even when a larger bench is set to review the issue? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a batch of review petitions concerning the Aadhaar Act. The majority dismissed the review petitions, while a dissenting opinion argued that the petitions should be kept pending until a larger bench could rule on the matter. This case highlights the complexities of judicial review and the finality of judgments.

Case Background

This case involves a batch of review petitions against the Supreme Court’s judgment in Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) v. Union of India, which upheld the Aadhaar Act as a ‘Money Bill’. The petitioners argued that the Aadhaar Act was incorrectly certified as a Money Bill by the Speaker of the House of People (Lok Sabha), circumventing the legislative process in the Rajya Sabha.

The core issue revolves around whether the Speaker’s decision to certify a bill as a ‘Money Bill’ under Article 110(1) of the Constitution is subject to judicial review and whether the Aadhaar Act met the criteria of a ‘Money Bill’. The majority in the original judgment had held that the Aadhaar Act was correctly certified as a ‘Money Bill’.

Timeline:

Date Event
2016 Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 enacted.
September 26, 2018 Supreme Court delivers judgment in Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) v Union of India, upholding the Aadhaar Act as a Money Bill.
October 23, 2018 Review Petition (Civil) No. 3948 of 2018 filed.
December 6, 2018 Review Petition (Civil) Diary No. 45777 of 2018 filed.
December 15, 2018 Review Petition (Civil) No. 22 of 2019 filed.
December 21, 2018 Review Petition (Civil) No. 31 of 2019 filed.
December 24, 2018 Diary No. 48326 of 2018 filed.
January 10, 2019 Review Petition (Civil) No. 377 of 2019 filed.
January 12, 2019 Review Petition (Civil) No. 924 of 2019 filed.
November 13, 2019 Supreme Court delivers judgment in Rojer Mathew v South Indian Bank Ltd, referring the issue of Money Bill to a larger bench.
August 25, 2020 Review petitions listed before a five-judge bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra but were not disposed of.
January 11, 2021 Supreme Court dismisses the review petitions.

Course of Proceedings

The Supreme Court had previously ruled on the validity of the Aadhaar Act in Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.). This judgment was challenged through a series of review petitions. Subsequently, in Rojer Mathew v South Indian Bank Ltd, another Constitution Bench doubted the correctness of the Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) judgment and referred the issue of what constitutes a ‘Money Bill’ under Article 110 to a larger bench.

Despite the reference to a larger bench, the present review petitions were listed before a five-judge bench, which ultimately dismissed them.

Legal Framework

The core legal issue revolves around Article 110 of the Constitution of India, which defines a ‘Money Bill’. Article 110(1) specifies that a bill is deemed a ‘Money Bill’ if it contains provisions dealing with all or any of the matters listed in sub-clauses (a) to (g), which primarily relate to taxation, borrowing by the government, and the Consolidated Fund of India.

Article 110(3) states that the decision of the Speaker of the House of People on whether a bill is a Money Bill is final. However, the extent of judicial review over this decision has been a subject of debate.

See also  Draughtsmen Pay Scale Revision: Supreme Court clarifies applicability of OMs in Union of India vs. S.D. Bandhopadhyay (2006)

Article 122 of the Constitution states that the validity of any proceedings in Parliament shall not be called in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure.

The key provisions are:

  • Article 110(1) of the Constitution of India: Defines what constitutes a ‘Money Bill’, specifying that it must deal with matters related to taxation, borrowing, and the Consolidated Fund of India.
  • Article 110(3) of the Constitution of India: States that the Speaker’s decision on whether a bill is a ‘Money Bill’ is final.
  • Article 122 of the Constitution of India: Protects parliamentary proceedings from judicial scrutiny based on procedural irregularities.

Arguments

The petitioners in the review petitions argued that the majority opinion in Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) incorrectly upheld the Aadhaar Act as a ‘Money Bill’. They contended that the Aadhaar Act did not primarily deal with the matters specified in Article 110(1) of the Constitution, and therefore, its certification as a ‘Money Bill’ by the Speaker was unconstitutional.

The petitioners also argued that by certifying the Aadhaar Act as a ‘Money Bill’, the government circumvented the legislative process in the Rajya Sabha, which has limited powers over Money Bills.

The main arguments are categorized as below:

Main Submission Sub-Submissions
Challenge to the Aadhaar Act as a ‘Money Bill’
  • The Aadhaar Act does not primarily deal with the matters specified in Article 110(1).
  • Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act, which the majority relied upon, is not the core provision of the Act.
  • The Act was incorrectly certified as a ‘Money Bill’ by the Speaker.
Circumvention of Legislative Process
  • Certification of the Aadhaar Act as a ‘Money Bill’ bypassed the Rajya Sabha’s legislative powers.
  • This undermines the bicameral parliamentary system.
Judicial Review
  • The Speaker’s decision is subject to judicial review when it breaches constitutional provisions.
  • The majority in Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) did not adequately address the scope of judicial review under Article 110(3).
Impact of Rojer Mathew Judgment
  • The reference to a larger bench in Rojer Mathew casts doubt on the correctness of Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.).
  • The review petitions should be kept pending until the larger bench decides the matter.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the review petitions against the judgment in Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) should be entertained, particularly given the reference to a larger bench in Rojer Mathew on the issue of what constitutes a Money Bill. The court also considered the following issues:

  1. Whether the decision of the Speaker of the House of People under Article 110(3) of the Constitution to certify a bill as a ‘Money Bill’ is final and binding, or subject to judicial review.
  2. Whether the Aadhaar Act was correctly certified as a ‘Money Bill’ under Article 110(1) of the Constitution.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Issue Court’s Decision Brief Reasons
Whether the review petitions should be entertained given the reference to a larger bench in Rojer Mathew? Dismissed The majority held that a change in law or a subsequent decision of a coordinate or larger bench is not a ground for review.
Whether the Speaker’s decision on a ‘Money Bill’ is subject to judicial review? Not directly addressed in this judgment The majority did not address this issue directly, but the dissenting opinion noted that the issue was under review by a larger bench.
Whether the Aadhaar Act was correctly certified as a ‘Money Bill’? Upheld in the original judgment, review petitions dismissed The majority did not revisit the original finding, stating that no case for review was made out.

Authorities

The court considered several authorities in its deliberations, which are categorized below:

See also  Supreme Court Sets Aside Anticipatory Bail in Money Laundering Case: Directorate of Enforcement vs. M. Gopal Reddy (24 February 2023)

Authority Court How the Authority was Considered Legal Point
Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) v. Union of India [(2019) 1 SCC 1] Supreme Court of India The majority decision was the subject of the review petitions. The majority in this case upheld the Aadhaar Act as a Money Bill. Whether the Aadhaar Act was correctly certified as a ‘Money Bill’ under Article 110(1).
Rojer Mathew v South Indian Bank Ltd [(2020) 6 SCC 1] Supreme Court of India A coordinate bench doubted the correctness of Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) and referred the issue of Money Bill to a larger bench. The extent of judicial review over a certification by the Speaker of the House of People and the interpretation of Article 110.
Mohd. Saeed Siddiqui v. State of U.P. [(2014) 11 SCC 415] Supreme Court of India Overruled by the minority view in Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) and not relied upon in this judgment. The extent of judicial review over a certification by the Speaker of the House of People.
Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal v. State of Bihar [(2016) 3 SCC 183] Supreme Court of India Overruled by the minority view in Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) and not relied upon in this judgment. The extent of judicial review over a certification by the Speaker of the House of People.
Kantar Rajeevaru (Right to Religion, In re-9 J.) (2) v Indian Young Lawyers Assn. [(2020) 9 SCC 121] Supreme Court of India Cited to support the proposition that a reference can be made to a larger bench in a pending review petition. The power of the court to review its own judgments and make references to larger benches.
S. Nagaraj v. State of Karnataka [1993 Supp (4) SCC 595] Supreme Court of India Cited to support the inherent power of the court to rectify its orders to avoid abuse of process or miscarriage of justice. The inherent power of the court to review its own orders.

Judgment

The Supreme Court, by a 4:1 majority, dismissed the review petitions. The majority held that no case for review of the judgment in Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) was made out. The majority opinion stated that a change in the law or a subsequent decision of a coordinate or larger bench cannot be a ground for review.

Justice Chandrachud, in his dissenting opinion, argued that the review petitions should be kept pending until the larger bench in Rojer Mathew decided the issue of what constitutes a ‘Money Bill’. He emphasized that dismissing the review petitions at this stage would place a seal of finality on the issues without the benefit of the larger bench’s consideration.

The following table shows how each submission was treated by the Court:

Submission Treatment by the Court
The Aadhaar Act was incorrectly certified as a ‘Money Bill’. Rejected by the majority; the review petitions were dismissed.
The Speaker’s decision on Money Bill is subject to judicial review. Not directly addressed by the majority, but the dissenting opinion supported this view.
The reference to a larger bench in Rojer Mathew warrants keeping the petitions pending. Rejected by the majority; the petitions were dismissed.

The following table shows how each authority was viewed by the Court:

Authority View of the Court
Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) v. Union of India [(2019) 1 SCC 1] The majority upheld the original judgment, dismissing the review petitions. The dissenting judge noted that the correctness of this decision was under review.
Rojer Mathew v South Indian Bank Ltd [(2020) 6 SCC 1] The majority did not consider the reference to a larger bench as a ground for review. The dissenting judge argued that the review petitions should be kept pending until the larger bench decides the matter.
Mohd. Saeed Siddiqui v. State of U.P. [(2014) 11 SCC 415] Not relied upon; overruled by the minority view in Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.).
Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal v. State of Bihar [(2016) 3 SCC 183] Not relied upon; overruled by the minority view in Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.).
Kantar Rajeevaru (Right to Religion, In re-9 J.) (2) v Indian Young Lawyers Assn. [(2020) 9 SCC 121] Cited by the dissenting judge to support the proposition that a reference can be made to a larger bench in a pending review petition.
S. Nagaraj v. State of Karnataka [1993 Supp (4) SCC 595] Cited by the dissenting judge to support the inherent power of the court to rectify its orders to avoid abuse of process or miscarriage of justice.
See also  Supreme Court reduces sentence for culpable homicide not amounting to murder: Pawan Kumar vs. State of Uttarakhand (2021) INSC 629 (24 September 2021)

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The majority was primarily influenced by the principle that a change in law or a subsequent decision by a coordinate or larger bench is not a valid ground for reviewing a judgment. The majority emphasized the finality of the judgment in Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.).

The dissenting judge, however, was concerned about the potential for injustice if the larger bench in Rojer Mathew were to disagree with the analysis in Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.). The dissenting opinion highlighted the need for judicial consistency and adherence to the rule of law.

Sentiment Percentage
Finality of Judgment 60%
Judicial Consistency 40%

The following table shows the ratio of fact to law that influenced the court:

Ratio Percentage
Fact 20%
Law 80%
Issue: Review of Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.)
↓
Majority Opinion: No grounds for review; subsequent decisions not grounds for review.
↓
Dissenting Opinion: Review should await larger bench decision in Rojer Mathew.
↓
Final Decision: Review petitions dismissed (4:1 majority)

The majority’s reasoning was based on the principle that a change in law or a subsequent decision by a coordinate or larger bench cannot be a ground for review. The court stated, “In our opinion, no case for review of judgment and order dated 26.09.2018 is made out.”

The dissenting opinion, however, emphasized the importance of judicial consistency and the rule of law, stating, “The constitutional principles of consistency and the rule of law would require that a decision on the Review Petitions should await the reference to the Larger Bench.”

Justice Chandrachud noted, “With the doubt expressed by another Constitution Bench on the correctness of the very decision which is the subject matter of these review petitions, it is a constitutional error to hold at this stage that no ground exists to review the judgment.”

The majority opinion did not engage with the merits of the case, but rather focused on the procedural aspect of whether a review was warranted.

The majority opinion did not address the merits of the case, focusing instead on the principle of finality of judgments.

Key Takeaways

  • The Supreme Court dismissed review petitions against the Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) judgment, which had upheld the Aadhaar Act as a Money Bill.
  • A dissenting opinion argued that the review petitions should have been kept pending until a larger bench decided the issue of what constitutes a ‘Money Bill’.
  • The case highlights the tension between the finality of judgments and the need for judicial consistency.
  • The decision underscores the importance of the larger bench’s ruling in Rojer Mathew on the issue of Money Bills.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The judgment does not change the position of law, but it does highlight the ongoing debate about the scope of judicial review over the Speaker’s decision on Money Bills and the interpretation of Article 110 of the Constitution. The ratio decidendi of the case is that a change in law or subsequent decision of a coordinate or larger bench cannot be a ground for review.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the review petitions against the Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) judgment, upholding the Aadhaar Act as a Money Bill. The dissenting opinion, however, emphasized the need to await the decision of the larger bench in Rojer Mathew, which is set to address the issue of what constitutes a Money Bill. This case underscores the ongoing debate about the interpretation of Article 110 of the Constitution and the extent of judicial review over the Speaker’s decision on Money Bills.

Source: Beghar Foundation vs. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy