The Congress on Monday welcomed the Supreme Court agreeing to consider a submission for setting up a constitution bench to hear pleas challenging the validity of passage of laws like the Aadhaar Act as money bills, and hoped a final verdict will come before CJI D Y Chandrachud retires in November this year. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Chandrachud and justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was urged by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who also heads the Supreme Court Bar Association, that the pleadings are complete and the petitions needed to be listed for hearing. “I will take the call when I form the constitution benches,” the CJI said.
In a post on X, Congress general secretary in-charge communications Jairam Ramesh said, “In the last ten years many Bills have been bulldozed through Parliament by having them declared ‘Money Bills’ under Article 110 of the Constitution. A good example of this is the Aadhar Act of 2016.”
“I had challenged its declaration as a money bill in the Supreme Court, and in his dissenting judgment then the present CJI had called this declaration as a ‘fraud on the Constitution’. I had challenged other instances as well,” Ramesh said.
“The verdict of the CJI today to set up a separate Constitutional Bench to hear pleas on the gross misuse of Article 110 since 2014 is a welcome step. Hopefully a final and definitive pronouncement will come before he retires in November 2024,” the Congress leader said.
Earlier, the top court had said it would constitute a seven-judge bench to consider the issue of validity of passage of laws like the Aadhaar Act as a money bill.
The decision was aimed at addressing the controversy around money bills after the government introduced legislations like the Aadhaar Act and even amendments to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) as money bills, apparently to circumvent the Rajya Sabha where it did not have a majority then.
A money bill is a piece of legislation which can be introduced only in Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha cannot amend or reject it. The Upper House can only make recommendations which may or may not be accepted by the Lower House.
