Court dismisses challenge to Finance Acts as Money Bills; petitioner lacked standing & delayed action.

The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the constitutionality of amendments made via Finance Acts as Money Bills. The petitioner, a Member of Rajya Sabha, argued that certain sections of Finance Acts were ultra vires the Constitution of India. However, the court held that the delay in challenging the amendments, lack of locus standi, and absence of a valid cause of action were significant factors. The court concluded that there was no basis for exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this case.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to the constitutionality of amendments made via Finance Acts as Money Bills - Justiciability of the issue - Delay and locus standi in challenging the amendments.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a Member of Rajya Sabha, filed a writ petition seeking to declare certain sections of Finance Acts as ultra vires the Constitution of India. The petitioner argued that most amendments to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act after 2015 were enacted via Finance Acts as Money Bills, which, according to the petitioner, was unconstitutional. The petitioner contended that Money Bills are restricted to specific matters under Article 110(1) of the Constitution. The petitioner cited a previous judgment regarding the justiciability of such issues.

2. The petitioner claimed that the amendments made in 2015, 2016, and 2018 were unconstitutional and should be set aside. The petitioner, being a Parliamentarian, stated that the challenge was raised in 2019 after learning through Right to Information Act that the amendments were passed as Money Bills. The petitioner argued that there was no issue of limitation in challenging a parliamentary enactment, especially when it is unconstitutional. The petitioner requested the court to exercise discretionary jurisdiction in their favor due to the unconstitutional nature of the amendments.

3. On the other hand, the Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India argued against entertaining the petition, stating that the challenge to the amendments made in 2015, 2016, and 2018 by a person not directly affected should not be entertained. The ASG relied on a Supreme Court judgment to support this argument. The court noted that the petitioner, being a Member of Rajya Sabha, should have been aware of the amendments and that the delay in challenging them in 2019 was not justified. The court also emphasized the importance of locus standi in such challenges and cited the Supreme Court's position on parliamentary legislation and cause of action.

4. Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner's delay in challenging the amendments, lack of locus standi, and the absence of a valid cause of action were key factors in their decision. The court concluded that there was no basis for exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this case.

---