Review of Speaker's Article 110(3) certification and Aadhaar Money Bill deferred pending larger bench to preserve consistency

SC held that the correctness of the Speaker's certification of a bill as a Money Bill and the question whether the Aadhaar enactment was properly certified cannot be finally resolved in the present review petitions. Those questions-including the extent of judicial review over Article 110(3) certifications and the definition of a Money Bill-have been referred to a larger bench in a pending reference. The Court directed the review petitions to remain pending until the larger bench decides, to preserve consistency and rule of law.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the decision of the Speaker of the House of People to certify a bill as a 'Money Bill' under Article 110(1) is final and binding, or subject to judicial review.
2. Whether the Aadhaar Act was correctly certified as a 'Money Bill' under Article 110(1) of the Constitution.

Comprehensive, Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Judicial Review of Speaker's Certification of a 'Money Bill'
The Court examined whether the Speaker's decision to certify a bill as a 'Money Bill' under Article 110(1) is subject to judicial review. The majority opinion in the original Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) case acknowledged that judicial review would be admissible under certain circumstances. Justice Ashok Bhushan concurred, emphasizing that the Speaker's decision could be reviewed if it breached a constitutional provision, distinguishing between procedural irregularities and substantive illegality.

The opinion authored by Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud further clarified that the Speaker's certification is not merely procedural but a constitutional requirement. The Court can review the Speaker's action if it causes constitutional infirmities, as Article 122 does not exempt such actions from judicial review.

Subsequently, in Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd., another Constitution Bench endorsed the view that the Speaker's certification is subject to judicial review, rejecting the notion that such decisions are beyond judicial scrutiny.

Issue 2: Certification of the Aadhaar Act as a 'Money Bill'
The majority in Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) held that Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act had elements of a 'Money Bill,' and other provisions were incidental to its core, thus justifying its certification as a 'Money Bill' under Article 110(1). Justice Ashok Bhushan agreed with this conclusion.

However, Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud dissented, arguing that the Aadhaar Act's certification as a 'Money Bill' was unconstitutional. He emphasized that the Speaker's certification must adhere to the norms set out in Article 110, and the Court can review this certification if it violates constitutional norms.

The judgment in Rojer Mathew raised doubts about the majority opinion in Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.), particularly regarding the interpretation of the term 'Money Bill' and the implications of provisions not conforming to Article 110(1)(a) to (g). The majority opinion in Rojer Mathew referred the issue to a larger bench for further consideration, highlighting the need to determine the correctness of the Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) judgment.

Review Petitions Analysis:
Several review petitions were filed challenging the majority opinion in Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) on the grounds that the Aadhaar Act's certification as a 'Money Bill' was erroneous. These petitions argued that the majority opinion incorrectly assumed Section 7 as the core provision and failed to address the broader constitutional implications.

Given the doubts raised in Rojer Mathew and the pending reference to a larger bench, Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud argued that dismissing the review petitions at this stage would be premature. He emphasized that the larger bench's determination would significantly impact the validity of the Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) judgment. Therefore, he concluded that the review petitions should remain pending until the larger bench resolves the referred issues.

In summary, the Court's decision to dismiss the review petitions without awaiting the larger bench's determination would undermine judicial consistency and the rule of law. The review petitions should be kept pending to ensure a comprehensive resolution of the constitutional questions involved.

---