Was govt right in pushing Aadhaar as money Bill? SC to examine

Supreme Court on Monday decided to see whether introducing Aadhaar scheme as a Money Bill in Parliament was constitutionally valid. The government opposed a petition by former Union minister Jairam Ramesh challenging the action while lawyer P Chidambaram told the bench of Chief Justice J S Khehar that the provision for Money Bill is being misused frequently by the government. 

Both Chidambaram, representing Congress’s Ramesh, and attorney general Mukul Rohtagi cited earlier constitution bench decisions that have gone into the issue. Rohtagi said, "The court cannot review the ruling of the Speaker (of Lok Sabha), whether it is procedural or substantial." He pointed to judgments relating to Articles 110, 117, and others. He added that the petition was not maintainable as no fundamental right of Ramesh was violated by the House passing the Bill. The Lok Sabha has passed the Bill.

The attorney general read out the preamble to the Bill which gave "flesh and blood" to the scheme and submitted that it stated that the Aadhaar scheme subsidised various welfare schemes for which it had to draw money from the Consolidated Fund of India. The scheme also saved thousands of crores of rupees by eliminating “ghosts” in ration cards and gas connections. 

Chidambaram argued that if this could be accepted as a Money Bill, any Bill could be dressed up as a Money Bill by the government. This is a new trend, he said. This will set a trend among the states also as there are 32 legislative houses in the country, he added. 

When the judges asked Chidambaram whether the Rajya Sabha accepted it as a Money Bill when it passed changes to the legislation, the lawyer replied that the Upper House could pass any Bill. It made changes to the Bill and merely sent it back to the Lok Sabha, which passed the legislation, he said. The lawyer read out the constitutional provisions which defined what are financial Bills and Money Bills. 

The Aadhaar Bill did not fall under the definition of Money Bill, he said. The judges observed that the issues raised are sensitive and could not be decided quickly. So, they asked both sides to be prepared for final arguments and the hearing was ordered to be listed after four weeks.