Introduction

The case of Beghar Foundation Through Its Secretary And Another v. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retired) And Others brought before the Supreme Court of India on January 11, 2021, delves into the contentious issue of judicial review over the Speaker of the Lok Sabha's certification of a bill as a "Money Bill" under Article 110 of the Indian Constitution. The primary focus revolves around whether the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 was correctly certified as a Money Bill and if such certifications by the Speaker are subject to judicial scrutiny.

The petitioners challenged the final judgment dated September 26, 2018, arguing that the Speaker's certification was flawed both procedurally and substantively. This case has significant implications for the legislative process and the balance between legislative autonomy and judicial oversight in India.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision by a five-judge bench, granted permission to file review petitions concerning the final judgment dated September 26, 2018, but ultimately dismissed these petitions. The majority opinion held that the review petitions lacked sufficient grounds for reconsideration, emphasizing that a mere change in law or a decision by a different bench does not constitute valid grounds for a review.

However, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud dissented, contending that dismissing the petitions at this juncture without awaiting the outcome of a larger bench reviewing related issues would be a disservice to judicial consistency and the principles of justice.

The crux of the judgment revolves around the judicial review of the Speaker's certification of the Aadhaar Act as a Money Bill. While the majority upheld the certification based on the content of the Act, the dissenting opinion raised concerns about the procedural and substantive adherence to constitutional norms.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references previous landmark cases to contextualize its stance on the issue. Notably:

• Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5 J.) v. Union of India (2019) 1 SCC 1: This Constitution Bench judgment primarily addressed whether the Aadhaar Act qualified as a Money Bill, holding that Section 7 of the Act rendered it so.
• Mohd. Siddiqui (2014) 11 SCC 415: Established that certain legislative certifications could be beyond the purview of judicial review.
• Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal (2016) 3 SCC 183: Similar to Mohd. Siddiqui, it delved into the non-justiciable nature of Speaker's certifications under specific contexts.
• Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd. (2020) 6 SCC 1: A coordinate bench that questioned aspects of the Puttaswamy judgment, especially concerning the Speaker's discretion and judicial oversight.
• Kantaru Rajeevaru (Right to Religion, In re-9 J.) v. Indian Young Lawyers Assn. (2020) 9 SCC 121: Affirmed the Supreme Court's inherent power to review its judgments, emphasizing that procedural rules do not limit this authority.

Legal Reasoning

The majority held that the Speaker's certification of the Aadhaar Act as a Money Bill was appropriate, primarily because Section 7 of the Act pertained to financial matters integral to the government’s executive functions. The Court differentiated between procedural irregularities and substantive constitutional violations, asserting that only the latter warranted judicial intervention.

Justice Ashok Bhushan, in concurrence, emphasized that while procedural adherence is essential, substantive constitutional breaches by the Speaker's certification could be reviewed by the judiciary. This nuanced understanding underscores the Court's role in upholding constitutional integrity without overstepping legislative boundaries.

The dissent, led by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, argued that dismissing the review petitions without awaiting the verdict of a larger bench reviewing the same issues would undermine judicial coherence and the rule of law. The dissent stressed the need for consistency in judicial pronouncements, especially on pivotal constitutional interpretations.

Impact

This judgment reaffirms the judiciary's readiness to oversee and potentially revise legislative classifications of bills, ensuring they align with constitutional mandates. By permitting judicial review of the Speaker's certification under specific circumstances, the Court strengthens the checks and balances fundamental to India's democratic framework.

Moreover, the dissent highlights the importance of resolving conflicting judicial interpretations through broader bench reviews, ensuring that foundational legal principles remain consistent and universally applicable across different cases.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's handling of the Beghar Foundation Through Its Secretary And Another v. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retired) And Others case underscores a pivotal moment in the discourse on legislative autonomy versus judicial oversight. By addressing the validity of the Speaker's certification of the Aadhaar Act as a Money Bill, the Court navigates the delicate balance between respecting parliamentary procedures and safeguarding constitutional principles.

The majority's decision to dismiss the review petitions pending the larger bench's judgment in the Rojer Mathew case reflects a commitment to judicial prudence and consistency. Meanwhile, the dissent highlights the necessity for thorough examination to prevent potential miscarriages of justice arising from premature dismissals of significant constitutional challenges.

Moving forward, the forthcoming judgment by the larger bench will likely provide comprehensive clarity on the scope of judicial review over parliamentary certifications, thereby shaping the procedural landscape of legislative validations in India.