The Supreme Court on Friday scheduled the hearing of seven-judge and nine-judge Constitution bench matters between January and March next year, resolving to bring finality to issues ranging from passing of laws governing Aadhaar and amendments to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) as money bills, minority status of Aligarh Muslim University, and subclassification within SC/ST quota, which have remained pending for several years.

Read here: Supreme Court’s decision on Article 370 not God’s verdict: Mehbooba Mufti

The matter concerning whether government could use the money bill route to effect changes in PMLA, tribunal reforms and introduce Aadhaar will be taken up by a seven-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud on January 30. On this day, the bench is expected to pass directions on filing of written submissions, appointment of nodal counsels to compile digital copy of submissions and accompanying documents, and fix dates for arguments in the case.

The bunch of 22 petitions on money bill chronologically stands at the fourth position in the list of six cases before the seven-judge bench. The oldest case in the list is a petition from 1994 while the money bill case arose in 2019.

The controversy before the court revolved around the interpretation and applicability of Article 110 of the Constitution, which defines a money bill. The provision states that a money bill is a draft law that must deal “only” with matters specified in Article 110 (1)(a) to (g) — taxation, borrowing by the government, and appropriation of money from the Consolidated Fund of India, among others. Any other matter incidental to the subjects mentioned above, the provision states, can also be classified as a money bill.

Money bills can be introduced only in the Lok Sabha and it places a restriction on Rajya Sabha to either amend or reject it. In the past, the government faced criticism for introducing several laws as money bills such as the Finance Act passed in March 2017 making provisions concerning the conditions of service and structure of tribunals. These amendments were challenged by various bar associations as they argued that the issues dealt in these bills did not qualify to be classified as money bills.

In November 2019, a five-judge bench struck down provisions of the Finance Act in the Roger Mathew case but referred the larger question on the passage of Finance Act as a money bill to a seven-judge bench. The bench decided the validity of the Act and the rules framed thereunder in the wake of the government’s move to revamp the functioning of tribunals. The constitutional validity of Part XIV of the Finance Act was challenged on the grounds that the provisions relating to the functionality of tribunals could not form part of a money bill for the purposes of Act 110 of the Constitution. The petitioners argued that Part XIV of the Finance Act was not a money bill and was inserted only in order to circumvent the Rajya Sabha.

The five-judge bench noted a conflict with regard to another five-judge bench decision in September 2018 in the famous Aadhaar case in Justice KS Puttuswamy v Union of India case that upheld constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act of 2016 by a 4-1 majority.

The 2019 decision noted that the Aadhaar judgment of 2018 did not substantially discuss the effect of the word “only” in Article 110(1). Further, the 2018 judgment, it said, did not examine the repercussions of a finding when some of the provisions of an enactment passed as a money bill do not conform to the subjects enumerated under the constitutional provision.

The majority opinion in Aadhaar judgment pointed out that since the chief objective of the Aadhaar act is to grant social welfare benefits from the Consolidated Fund of India, there was nothing wrong with it being certified as a money bill. Other provisions in the law, the majority said, were incidental and could not change the fundamental nature of the act.

Writing the lone minority opinion, justice Chandrachud said that the passage of the act as a money bill constituted a “fraud on the Constitution” because anything can then be passed as a money bill by linking it to the Consolidated Fund of India. The dissenting opinion pointed out that Article 110 is clear that the draft law must deal “only” with the subjects pertaining to taxation, credits, consolidated money, Union government’s spending and borrowings.

The controversy raised its head again when the Centre passed a slew of amendments to the PMLA in 2019 as money bill. The amendments pertained to bail and classification of predicate offences passed between 2015 and 2019 through finance acts, passed as money bills.

In July 2022, a three-judge bench of the top court upheld the validity of the PMLA amendments for summoning individuals, making arrests, conducting raids and attaching properties of the suspects but left the question open on its passage as money bill awaiting the outcome of the seven-judge bench hearing in the Roger Mathew batch of appeals.

Based on the judgment of the seven-judge bench, the individual cases on the validity of the Aadhaar Act and the PMLA amendments may go back to respective benches for a decision.

A circular issued by the Supreme Court said that six seven-judge matters and four nine-judge matters will be listed before the appropriate benches in the next three months and gave advance notice to the lawyers and litigants to prepare their cases on the dates assigned to each case. While the first lot of seven-judge bench matters will be taken up on January 9, the four nine-judge bench cases have been listed on February 6 (two matters), February 20 and third week of March.

The seven-judge bench cases to be heard on January 9 include two interesting issues pertaining to the minority status of Aligarh Muslim University in Aligarh Muslim University v Naresh Agarwal and the state’s power to make law imposing surcharge on sales tax in Arjun Flour Mills v State of Orissa. The two matters will be heard by the bench presided over by CJI.

The next lot of seven-judge bench cases will be listed on January 17 and January 30, that will also be decided by a bench presided by CJI. These matters include State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Davinder Singh dealing with validity of subclassification within SC/ST quotas besides the money bill cases.

In the first week of March, the top court’s seven-judge bench will hear the case relating to interplay between breach of privilege and fundamental rights in N. Ravi & Ors. Vs. Speaker, Legislative Assembly Chennai. In the following week, the Court has listed the Maharashtra political crisis relating to the rift within the Shiv Sena party where the top court, while deciding the case in May, referred a 2016 decision in Nabam Rebia case to a bench of seven judges. This decision held that the Speaker does not have power to decide on disqualification pleas when a plea for his removal is pending in the House.

Read here: Supreme Court issues directions for places of worship in Manipur

These two matters will not be heard by a bench headed by the CJI. It was a five-judge bench headed by CJI which had in May referred the Nabam Rebia case to seven judges.

The nine-judge bench cases concern takeover of dilapidated private properties in the state by the Maharashtra state government, tax liabilities of mine operators, definition of “industry” under the Industrial Disputes Act and legislative competence for imposing licence fee on excise goods in Uttar Pradesh