Money Bills are those Bills that exclusively contain provisions for imposition of taxes and appropriation of moneys out of the Consolidated Fund. They can be introduced only in the Lok Sabha.
The Supreme Court has scheduled the case related to the enactment of legislation as appropriations measures by the legislature for October 12. This listing pertains to procedural guidelines, such as the appointment of a nodal counsel, and does not involve the final hearing. Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy presented the matter before a bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud today.
The case in question involves a financial document, and Guruswamy highlighted specific challenges regarding the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and how it should be heard by a panel of seven justices. The CJI then informed us that on October 12, all cases involving seven judges would be scheduled.
He stated, “I have informed the registrar’s office that on October 12, we will list all cases involving seven judges for procedural directions, and subsequently, we will schedule cases involving benches of five, seven, and nine judges. This way, we will establish the initial guidelines for all these cases.”
Money bills are legislative measures that exclusively deal with tax levies and fund allocations from the consolidated fund. They can only be introduced in the Lok Sabha. The Rajya Sabha can propose amendments to appropriation bills, but these recommendations are not binding on the Lok Sabha, which has the discretion to accept or reject them.
In November 2019, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, consisting of five judges, referred the question of the constitutionality of the Finance Act 2017’s passage as a money measure to a larger bench. This decision was in response to various petitions challenging the functioning of tribunals, including a challenge to the 2017 Finance Act, which had modified the regulations governing tribunals.
In this case, all amendments made by the Rajya Sabha to the Bill passed by the Lok Sabha were disregarded, and the Act came into effect on April 1, 2017. Similar petitions were filed in the apex court, contesting the same issue. The petitioners argued that enacting the Finance Act as an appropriations measure amounted to a clear violation of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court had previously ruled on the passage of the Aadhaar Act as a money measure. Because this earlier decision was also rendered by a five-judge bench, the Supreme Court decided in 2019 to refer the case to a bench consisting of seven judges. It’s worth noting that CJI Chandrachud, who was a puisne judge at the time, dissented in the Aadhaar case, asserting that the Aadhaar Act could not have been passed as a money measure.
The case mentioned by Guruswamy on Friday was filed by attorney Prateek K. Chadha and concerned amendments to the PMLA that were enacted as part of a budget bill. In July of the previous year, the Supreme Court upheld these amendments but refrained from making a ruling on the constitutionality of passing them as a money measure.
