Larger SC benches to hear money bill, other key cases

The Supreme Court on Friday scheduled the hearing of seven-judge and nine-judge Constitution bench matters between January and March next year, resolving to bring finality to issues ranging from passing of laws governing Aadhaar and amendments to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) as money bills, minority status of Aligarh Muslim University, and subclassification within SC/ST quota, which have remained pending for several years.

- Abraham Thomas

The matter concerning whether the government could use the money bill route to effect changes in PMLA, tribunal reforms and introduce Aadhaar will be taken up by a seven-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud on January 30.

On this day, the bench is expected to pass directions on filing of written submissions, appointment of nodal counsels to compile digital copy of submissions and accompanying documents, and fix dates for arguments in the case.

The bunch of 22 petitions on money bill chronologically stands at the fourth position in the list of six cases before the seven-judge bench. The oldest case in the list is a petition from 1994 while the money bill case arose in 2019.

The controversy before the court revolved around the interpretation and applicability of Article 110 of the Constitution, which defines a money bill. The provision states that a money bill is a draft law that must deal "only" with matters specified in Article 110 (1)(a) to (g) taxation, borrowing by the government, and appropriation of money from the Consolidated Fund of India, among others. Any other matter incidental to the subjects mentioned above, the provision states, can also be classified as a money bill.

Money bills can be introduced only in the Lok Sabha and it places a restriction on Rajya Sabha to either amend or reject it. In the past, the government faced criticism for introducing several laws as money bills such as the Finance Act passed in March 2017 making provisions concerning the conditions of service and structure of tribunals. These amendments were challenged by various bar associations as they argued that the issues dealt in these bills did not qualify to be classified as money bills.