Why in the News? 

CJI D.Y. Chandrachud has accepted the plea to list petitions challenging the passage of contentious legislation in Parliament as Money Bills.

• This has given rise to the expectation that the matter could be heard and decided before Chandrachud demits office in November this year.

Presently, the three key issues are referred to the 7-judge bench in the Supreme Court:

• Amendments made post-2015, like the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) through Money Bills, giving the Enforcement Directorate wide powers, were valid or not.
• Whether the passage of the Finance Act of 2017 as a Money Bill to alter appointments to 19 key judicial tribunals was valid or not
• In the Aadhaar case, the Supreme Court had in 2018 upheld the Aadhaar Act as a valid Money Bill.
  • However, in 2021, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud (who was then a part of the bench) had dissented, saying the larger questions on Money Bills should be decided first before reviewing the Aadhaar judgment.
• Now, the current Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud has agreed to list the petitions challenging the use of the Money Bill route by the Centre to pass contentious amendments, indicating he will constitute a 7-judge Constitution Bench to hear this matter.

What are the present challenges associated with the Parliament?

• Circumvention of the Rajya Sabha:  The government is accused of misusing the Money Bill provision to evade scrutiny of the Bill by the Rajya Sabha where it was numerically weaker as compared to the Lok Sabha where it enjoyed pre-eminence.
• Contentious Amendments passed as the Money Bill: Aadhaar Act, 2016; amendments to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; amendments to the Foreign Contributions Regulations Act, 2010; Finance Act, 2017 which brought about changes in the mode of appointment of judicial tribunals; electoral bonds scheme brought through Finance Act, 2017.
  • For example, the Finance Act of 2017, passed as a Money Bill, altered the appointment processes for judicial tribunals, which was seen as an attempt to extend executive control over these institutions.
  • The Supreme Court has been involved in multiple such cases questioning the classification of certain bills as Money Bills. For instance, the Rojer Mathew case and the Aadhaar case (K. Puttaswamy case)
• Finality of the Speaker’s Decision: The Lok Sabha Speaker’s decision to certify a bill as a Money Bill has been contested. The judiciary has debated whether this decision is final or subject to judicial review.

Way forward: 

• Need for strengthening Judicial Oversight: Establish clear guidelines and criteria for the classification of bills as Money Bills, ensuring they strictly adhere to the provisions outlined in Article 110 of the Constitution.
• Requires the Reinforcement of Legislative Procedures: Enhance the role of the Rajya Sabha in the legislative process by ensuring that all significant amendments, especially those affecting governance structures or individual rights, undergo thorough scrutiny in both houses of Parliament.

Mains PYQ: 

Q The Indian Constitution has provisions for holding joint session of the two houses of the Parliament. Enumerate the occasions when this would normally happen and also the occasions when it cannot, with reasons thereof. (UPSC IAS/2017)

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now