In News:

The Rajya Sabha passed the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026, increasing the sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court from 34 to 38 judges, including the Chief Justice of India. However, its passage as a Money Bill has raised concerns regarding the use of the Money Bill route to limit the role of the Rajya Sabha.

What is a Money Bill?

• A Money Bill is a specific category of financial legislation dealing exclusively with matters such as taxation, government borrowing, expenditure and the Consolidated Fund of India. Its special procedure gives the Lok Sabha primacy, while the Rajya Sabha has a restricted role.
• Under Article 110(1), a Bill qualifies as a Money Bill only when it contains provisions dealing with specified financial matters, including taxation, government borrowing, appropriation from the Consolidated Fund, custody or withdrawal of public funds, and matters incidental to these provisions.

Special Procedure for Money Bills

• The Constitution provides a distinct procedure under Article 109. A Money Bill can be introduced only in the Lok Sabha and requires the prior recommendation of the President. The Speaker of the Lok Sabha certifies whether a Bill is a Money Bill under Article 110(3).
• Once passed by the Lok Sabha, the Rajya Sabha has only 14 days to return the Bill with recommendations. It cannot reject or amend the Bill, and the Lok Sabha may accept or reject its recommendations. There is also no provision for a joint sitting in case of disagreement.

Why is the Money Bill Route Controversial?

• The controversy arises because Article 110 requires a Money Bill to contain only provisions relating to the specified financial matters. Critics argue that governments may use the incidental matters clause under Article 110(1)(g) to bring legislation containing broader policy or institutional changes within the Money Bill framework.
• This becomes significant because the route can effectively bypass detailed scrutiny by the Rajya Sabha, thereby affecting the federal and bicameral character of Parliament.
• Several major legislations, including the Aadhaar Act, 2016, amendments to the PMLA framework and the Tribunals reforms, have faced challenges regarding their classification as Money Bills.
• The issue has also acquired constitutional significance following the 2018 Aadhaar judgment, in which Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, in dissent, described the use of the Money Bill route for a non-financial structural law as a “fraud on the Constitution.” A seven-judge Constitution Bench is examining the broader constitutional parameters governing Money Bill certification.