Money Bill Controversy: Supreme Court Judges Bill

Context

Parliament has introduced and passed the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026 as a Money Bill, thereby bringing to a constitutional discussion on the powers of the Rajya Sabha and the scope of Article 110, Constitution of India.

Key Highlights

• Parliament has passed the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill 2026, which has raised the sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court from 34 to 38 judges (including the Chief Justice of India).
• The bill was passed as a Money Bill under Article 110 of the Constitution.
• The debate on the Money Bill has again stirred up the perennial issue in constitutional law regarding the power of the Speaker in certification and the role of the Rajya Sabha.

What Does the Bill Provide?

• Increase in Judicial Strength

  • Increases the strength of Supreme Court judges from 34 to 38 (including Chief Justice of India).
  • Appoints four more judges to help alleviate the backlog of cases that are backlogged.
  • Has a desire to enhance the effectiveness and timeliness of justice delivery.

• Financial Implications

  • The Bill calls for spending on:
    • Four more judges’ salaries and allowances.
    • Residence and office staff members who are private to the individual.
    • Official residences.
    • Security arrangements.
    • Vehicles and furnishing.
  • Some of the estimated costs include:
    • Recurring expenditure: Roughly, ₹10.57 crore per annum.
    • One-time investments: About ₹4.20 crore.
    • The estimated cost of the project: Approximately ₹14.04 crore.

What is a Money Bill?

• Constitutional Provision

  • Under the provisions of Article 110 of the Constitution.
  • Can be introduced only in the Lok Sabha.
  • Must be certified by Speaker as a Money Bill.

• Subjects Covered

  • A Money Bill addresses only issues concerning:
    • Taxation.
    • Government borrowing.
    • Transfer and withdrawal of funds from the Consolidated Fund of India.
    • Funds that are spent from the Consolidated Fund.
    • Appropriation of public money.
    • Miscellaneous issues arising out of these financial arrangements.

Why Was This Bill Passed as a Money Bill?

• The government said it argued that:
  • There will be four additional judges, funded from the Consolidated Fund of India.
  • Other expenses include salaries, housing, employees, security and infrastructure.
  • Thus, it falls under the provisions of Article 110(1)(g) (incidental expenditure from the Consolidated Fund).

What is the Money Bill Route Controversy?

• Reduced Role of the Rajya Sabha

  • When a Bill is certified as a Money Bill:
    • A change cannot be made in it by the Rajya Sabha.
    • It can make only recommendations for change.
    • Recommendations may be accepted by Lok Sabha or rejected.
    • If nothing is done within 14 days, the Bill passes.
  • Critics say this is a blow to the federal system and to bicameral parliamentary system.

• Broad Interpretation of Article 110

  • The controversy is over the interpretation of:
    • Any “incidental” matter connected with financial provisions.
  • Critics argue that:
    • Numerous laws have come into existence as Money Bills having non-financial aspects.
    • This goes beyond the constitutional limits of Article 110.

Important Judicial Developments

• Aadhaar Judgment (2018)

  • Most of them have upheld the Aadhaar Act.
  • It accepted its passage as a Money Bill.

• Justice D.Y. Chandrachud’s Dissent

  • Justice Chandrachud said that the Money Bill route was:
    • “Fraud on the Constitution.”
    • “Subterfuge.”
  • He pointed out that the lack of accountability in the absence of Rajya Sabha defeats the spirit of constitutional checks and balances.

• Tribunal Reforms Case (2019)

  • Supreme Court invalidated the provisions of the Tribunal Reforms.
  • It raised doubts about the Money Bill procedure.
  • This case was sent to a larger Constitution Bench.

• Pending Seven-Judge Bench

  • A seven-judge Constitution Bench is yet to decide:
    • The scope of Article 110 is not clear.
    • Whether Speaker’s certification can be tested in court.
    • The constitutionality of several Bills passed as Money Bills, such as:
    • Aadhaar Act.
    • Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
    • Tribunal reforms.

Significance of Increasing Supreme Court Judges

• Reducing Pendency
  • Assists with the backlog of cases.
  • Makes the disposal of constitutional and civil matters quicker.
  • Increasing access to justice.Facilitating access to justice.
  • Enhances judicial capacity.
  • Minimises delays in the justice delivery system.
• Strengthening the Judiciary
  • Fosters the efficient operation of the Supreme Court.
  • Enhances judicial efficiency in the face of more litigation.

Concerns

• Threat of the Money Bill provision being misused.
• Weakening of bicameralism.
• Lack of Parliamentary oversight by the Rajya Sabha.
• Possibility of executive dominance in the legislative process.
• Temporary confusion over the Constitution until the Supreme Court gives its final ruling.

Way Forward

• The pending seven-judge Constitution Bench reference of Article 110 should be answered promptly by the Supreme Court.
• The scope of the “incidental matters” under Article 110 must be properly delineated.
• The certification of Money Bills should be an exceptional and strictly confined case and should apply only to Bills on financial matters.
• Parliamentary conventions should take into account the constitutional function of the two Houses.
• Legislative activity should continue to depend on judicial independence and upon the constitutional checks and balances.

Source: The Indian Express

Mains PYQ

Q. Critically examine the Supreme Court’s judgement on the ‘National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014’ with reference to the appointment of judges of higher judiciary in India. (2017)

Download as PDF