Introduction

The Supreme Court of India's judgment in BEGHAR FOUNDATION v. JUSTICE K.S.PUTTASWAMY(RETD) (2021 INSC 14) marked a pivotal moment in the discourse surrounding the certification of Money Bills and the scope of judicial review over the Speaker's decision. This case primarily revolved around the validity of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, and whether its certification as a Money Bill under Article 110(1) of the Indian Constitution was lawful.

The petitioners, represented by the Beghar Foundation, challenged the Speaker of the Lok Sabha's decision to categorize the Aadhaar Act as a Money Bill. The core issues debated were:

1. Is the Speaker's certification of a bill as a Money Bill under Article 110(3) final and binding, or subject to judicial scrutiny?
2. If subject to review, was the Aadhaar Act correctly certified as a Money Bill?

This commentary dissects the judgment, exploring its implications, the legal reasoning employed, the precedents cited, and its potential impact on future legislative and judicial processes.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court delivered a split judgment regarding the certification of the Aadhaar Act as a Money Bill. Here's an overview of the key positions:

• Majority Opinion: Led by Dr. Justice A.K. Sikri, the majority opined that judicial review of the Speaker's certification is permissible under specific circumstances. They upheld the Speaker's decision, asserting that Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act possessed the essential elements of a Money Bill, making the certification valid.
• Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud's Dissent: Contrasting the majority, Justice Chandrachud argued that the Speaker's certification was unconstitutional. He emphasized that the Speaker's decision invokes substantive constitutional questions that merit judicial intervention.
• Other Opinions: Additional concurring and dissenting opinions echoed similar sentiments, with some justices advocating for referring the matter to a larger bench for a comprehensive review, especially in light of conflicting interpretations from earlier judgments.

Ultimately, the majority decision led to the dismissal of the review petitions, while Justice Chandrachud's dissent highlighted the necessity for a larger bench to resolve the emerging conflicts, emphasizing the importance of maintaining constitutional consistency and the rule of law.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively cited several landmark cases, underscoring their influence on the Court's deliberations:

• Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) v. Union of India (2019) 1 SCC 1: This Constitution Bench's decision was central to the current case, particularly regarding the certification of the Aadhaar Act as a Money Bill. The majority in Puttaswamy upheld the certification, while Justice Bhushan's concurring opinion allowed for judicial review in cases of constitutional breach.
• Mohd. Saeed Siddiqui v. State of U.P. (2014) 11 SCC 415: Addressed the scope of judicial review over the Speaker's decision to certify a Money Bill, which the current majority opinion in Puttaswamy and BEGHAR FOUNDATION cited and critically assessed.
• Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal v. State Of Bihar (2016) 3 SCC 183: Another case relevant to the interpretation of Money Bills, which the majority opinion in BEGHAR FOUNDATION viewed as overruled by Puttaswamy.
• Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd. (2020) 6 SCC 1: This case examined the certification of certain provisions within the Finance Act, challenging their categorization as Money Bills. The BEGHAR FOUNDATION judgment referenced it to highlight unresolved questions from Puttaswamy.
• Kantaru Rajeevaru (Right to Religion, In re-9J.) v. Indian Young Lawyers Association (2020) 9 SCC 121: Discussed the Supreme Court's inherent powers to oversee its judgments, which BEGHAR FOUNDATION leveraged to argue against dismissing review petitions prematurely.

These precedents collectively shaped the Court's approach to balancing legislative authority with judicial oversight, especially concerning the Speaker's discretionary powers.

Legal Reasoning

The core legal debate centered on Article 110 of the Indian Constitution, which delineates the definition of Money Bills and the role of the Speaker in certifying them. The majority reasoned that:

• The Speaker's certification is generally final but not absolute, allowing for judicial scrutiny if there's a clear constitutional violation.
• Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act embodied the primary financial provisions, qualifying it as a Money Bill, with other sections being ancillary.
• The term "Money Bill" should not be interpreted restrictively, respecting the Speaker's judgment unless blatant constitutional discrepancies are evident.

Justice Chandrachud, in his dissent, argued that:

• The Speaker's obligation under Article 110(1) is a constitutional mandate, not merely procedural, thus any deviation warrants judicial intervention.
• Certification as a Money Bill carries significant implications, necessitating stringent adherence to constitutional norms, undermining which should invite judicial review.
• Maintaining a consistent constitutional scheme requires addressing discrepancies through a larger bench to avoid fragmented interpretations.

The divergence in reasoning underscores the tension between upholding legislative discretion and ensuring constitutional fidelity through judicial oversight.

Impact

The judgment holds profound implications for the legislative and judicial landscape in India:

• Legislative Process: Affirming the Speaker's role in certifying Money Bills reinforces the separation of powers, entrusting the executive's representative with significant discretion in legislative categorization.
• Judicial Oversight: The acknowledgment that judicial review is possible, albeit limited, in cases of blatant constitutional breaches sets a precedent for future challenges against legislative categorizations.
• Consistency in Constitutional Interpretation: The call for a larger bench to resolve conflicting interpretations fosters a more unified judicial approach, minimizing fragmented rulings and ensuring coherent constitutional jurisprudence.
• Future Challenges: This judgment opens avenues for litigants to challenge legislative actions, especially in ambiguously categorized Bills, ensuring that constitutional norms are not sidelined.

Overall, the judgment balances respect for legislative authority with the necessity of constitutional adherence, shaping the contours of inter-branch relations in India's democracy.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Money Bill

A Money Bill is a specific type of legislative proposal in India that deals exclusively with national taxation, public expenditure, financial measures, or other monetary matters. According to Article 110 of the Indian Constitution, a Money Bill can only be introduced in the Lok Sabha (House of the People), and its certification is done solely by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha.

Article 110(1) of the Constitution

This article defines what constitutes a Money Bill. It lists specific subjects that a Money Bill can cover, such as the imposition, abolition, remission, alteration, or regulation of taxes, the borrowing of money by the government, and the custody of the Consolidated Fund of India.

Article 110(3) of the Constitution

This provision grants the Speaker of the Lok Sabha the exclusive authority to certify whether a bill is a Money Bill. Once certified, the Speaker's decision is generally final, though the Supreme Court has opined that certain constitutional violations can warrant judicial review.

Judicial Review

Judicial review refers to the power of the judiciary to examine legislative and executive actions to ensure they comply with the Constitution. In this context, it pertains to the Supreme Court's authority to review the Speaker's certification of a Money Bill.

Constitution Bench

A Constitution Bench is a formation of the Supreme Court comprising five or more judges that deals with significant questions regarding the interpretation of the Constitution or cases of great public importance.

Conclusion

The BEGHAR FOUNDATION v. JUSTICE K.S.Puttaswamy(RETD) case serves as a landmark in delineating the boundaries of legislative discretion and judicial oversight in India. By addressing the contentious issue of Money Bill certification, the Supreme Court navigates the intricate balance between respecting parliamentary proceedings and safeguarding constitutional principles.

The judgment reaffirms the Speaker's pivotal role in the legislative process while simultaneously asserting the judiciary's authority to intervene in cases of clear constitutional discrepancies. Justice Chandrachud's dissent highlights the judiciary's responsibility to ensure consistent constitutional interpretation, advocating for a larger bench to resolve existing ambiguities.

As India's democratic framework continues to evolve, this judgment underscores the importance of inter-branch checks and balances, ensuring that legislative actions remain within constitutional confines. The call for a larger bench's deliberation points towards a future where judicial coherence is paramount, fostering a more robust and harmonized legal structure.