No illegality in money bill floating LIC IPO, says Madras High Court

Bench rejects the policyholder’s objection that the item does not fall within the Money Bill definition

Bench rejects the policyholder’s objection that the item does not fall within the Money Bill definition

There is no unconstitutionality in Parliament which amended the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) Act 1956 by a Money Bill to conduct an initial public offering (IPO) and divest its interest in the company by 65,000 crore collect ₹70,000 crore originally to the Consolidated Fund of India, the Madras High Court has ruled.

The First Division Bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy ruled that a challenge to the Finance Act 2021, which amended the LIC Act, could not be accepted in the absence of a challenge to a certificate issued by the Spokesperson for Lok Sabha classifying the Finance Act 2021 as a Money Act.

The judges said the Speaker’s decision should be treated as final under Article 110(3) of the Constitution unless a judicial review was requested. They rejected a written claim from a policyholder, L. Ponnammal, who had argued that the item did not fall within the Money Bill definition.

Special procedures

The Bench pointed out that Article 109 lays down special procedures in relation to banknotes. Such calculations could only be introduced in the Lok Sabha and not in the Rajya Sabha. After being handed over by the Lok Sabha, they should be transmitted to the Rajya Sabha for their recommendation within 14 days.

If the recommendations were not made within 14 days the bill should be deemed adopted by both houses and if recommendations were made the Lok Sabha could take a phone call to accept or reject the recommendations. After such a decision, the bill would be deemed passed by both houses.

Issues related to the payment or withdrawal of funds from either the Consolidated Fund or the Contingency Fund of India would fall under the definition of Money Bill and when the question arises as to whether or not a Bill was a Money Bill, the decision of the Lok Sabha Speaker would be final under Article 110(3) of the Constitution.

The present case is not one in which an allegation of constitutional fraud has been made. “Even otherwise, we find no constitutional barring or illegality in the 2021 law. This is all the more true as Parliament, vested with full powers, passed the law and the Standing Committee on Budgets approved it after consideration and due diligence. ‘ said the bench.

It agreed with Additional Attorney General N. Venkataraman that the main purpose of the law was to put money into the consolidated fund and use it for the development of the country and therefore the law of 2021 would fall squarely in the area of ​​money The invoice.

Writing the judgment for the bank, the Chief Justice wrote: “In any event, the petitioner, who is a policyholder with a policy of £50,000, claims receipt of monies in the range of 65,000 crore to 70,000 crore Group in question Fund of India due to IPO.”

He continued: “Interfering or inferring the implementation of a policy of public interest through legislation should be avoided as it directly affects the country’s economic growth and interference in it can have far-reaching consequences because the money must be for the development of the country.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *