Judicial Review of Parliamentary Procedures: Constitutional Interpretation and Legislative Authority

The present case delves into the constitutional boundaries of judicial review over parliamentary procedures, specifically regarding the classification of a bill as a Money Bill under Article 110 of the Indian Constitution. The petitioners challenged the legislative process, asserting that the bill was passed improperly and without Rajya Sabha scrutiny, violating constitutional principles.

Background of the Case

The dispute originated when a law was enacted by the Lok Sabha without Rajya Sabha approval, classifying it as a Money Bill. The petitioners argued that this classification was erroneous and that judicial intervention was necessary to prevent procedural misuse. The respondents countered that parliamentary proceedings are immune from judicial review under Article 122.

Legal Questions Before the Court

• Does the judiciary have the authority to review the Speaker’s decision to classify a bill as a Money Bill?
• Can judicial review extend to parliamentary procedures when fundamental constitutional principles are at stake?
• Does the separation of powers doctrine limit the judiciary’s ability to interfere in legislative matters?

Arguments by the Petitioners

The petitioners contended that:

• The classification of the bill as a Money Bill was unconstitutional since its provisions extended beyond the scope of Article 110.
• The passage of the bill without Rajya Sabha review undermined the bicameral structure envisioned in the Constitution.
• Judicial review is an essential check against arbitrary executive and legislative actions.

Arguments by the Respondents

The respondents defended the classification, arguing that:

• The Speaker’s decision on a bill’s classification is final and beyond judicial review under Article 110.
• Article 122 prohibits courts from questioning parliamentary proceedings on procedural grounds.
• The judiciary’s intervention would breach the separation of powers doctrine.

Judicial Observations

The Supreme Court, comprising R.F. Nariman and D.Y. Chandrachud, examined constitutional provisions and prior precedents. The Court held that:

1. Limits of Parliamentary Immunity: “While Article 122 provides parliamentary immunity from judicial intervention in procedural matters, such immunity cannot override constitutional mandates.”

2. Scope of Judicial Review: “If the classification of a Money Bill is demonstrably erroneous and violates constitutional provisions, the judiciary is empowered to review and rectify such decisions.”

3. Role of Bicameralism: “The exclusion of the Rajya Sabha from legislative processes through misclassification of a bill subverts constitutional principles and must be subject to judicial scrutiny.”

Key Judicial Statements

Justice R.F. Nariman stated:

“The dignity of the individual encompasses the right of the individual to develop to the full extent of his potential. And this development can only be if an individual has autonomy over fundamental personal choices and control over dissemination of personal information which may be infringed through an unauthorized use of such information. It is clear that Article 21, more than any of the other articles in the fundamental rights chapter, reflects each of these constitutional values in full, and is to be read in consonance with these values.”

Justice D.Y. Chandrachud observed:

“The sanctity of privacy lies in its functional relationship with dignity. Privacy ensures that a human being can lead a life of dignity by securing the inner recesses of the human personality from unwanted intrusion. Privacy recognizes the autonomy of the individual and the right of every person to make essential choices which affect the course of life.”

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court ruled that the bill’s classification as a Money Bill was unconstitutional and that judicial review was applicable in cases of constitutional violations, even in legislative procedures. This landmark ruling reinforced the principle that procedural immunity in parliamentary decisions does not extend to breaches of fundamental constitutional provisions.

Petitioner Name: Not Available.
Respondent Name: Not Available.
Judgment By: Justice R.F. Nariman, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud.
Place Of Incident: India.
Judgment Date: 26-09-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Not Available vs Not Available Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 26-09-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Fundamental Rights
See all petitions in Constitution Interpretation
See all petitions in Legislative Powers
See all petitions in Judgment by Rohinton Fali Nariman
See all petitions in Judgment by Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments September 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Constitutional Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category