The Central Government opposed priority hearings in the matter of passage of the Finance Act(2017) as Money Bill

Last Updated on October 13, 2023 by News Desk

Facts:– The case deals with the issue of whether the Finance Act of 2017 which had brought amendments to the Finance Act of 1994 can be considered denoted as money as per article 110 of the constitution.

As well as it had to also deal with the question of whether the process that was employed in the passing of the bill was valid or not.

Background:– In 2019, a five-judge bench gave the decision that the issue of whether the procedure of the passing of the bill was valid or not should be decided by a larger bench.

On earlier occasions the Aadhar bill had also been put under the category of money bill and the decision was also passed by a five-judge bench.

Issue:- A batch of petitions came to the Supreme Court which was concerned with the functioning of the tribunals and had challenged the Finance Act of 2017 which had modified the scheme that governed the tribunals and their functioning.

Analysis:- The central government had opposed the priority hearing of the Roger Mathew Judgment reference, before the Supreme Court.

The matter dealt with the issuance of procedural directions and was listed before a seven-judge constitution bench.

The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud acknowledged the matter and Senior Advocate Kapil Sibbal suggested that the same should be prioritized.

To this, objections were raised by the Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, as the case was based on political exigencies.

Written By:- Shianjany Pradhan (@SHIANJANYPRADHAN)