Today, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud made an oral statement indicating his intention to establish a seven-judge bench in the near future to address the constitutional matter concerning money bills.

This statement came in response to Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, who was presenting her case before a bench consisting of CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra, and raised the aforementioned issue.

"This is about the money bills. The specific challenge is to the PMLA. A seven-judge bench was to be constituted."

In response, the Chief Justice mentioned that he would be scheduling all pending cases involving seven-judge and nine-judge benches for directions in the coming week. He further commented –

"I will then list these too."

Article 110 of the Indian Constitution defines a Money Bill, which primarily deals with financial matters such as taxation and public expenditure.

Importantly, the upper house of India's Parliament, does not have the authority to amend or reject a Money Bill.

Controversy arose when the government attempted to introduce certain bills, like the Aadhaar Bill, as Money Bills, seemingly to bypass the Rajya Sabha where the government lacked a majority. Similarly, amendments to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) were introduced through the Money Bill route.

While the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the PMLA, it left one question unanswered: whether amendments to the PMLA could have legitimately been passed as Money Bills. This specific issue was intended to be examined by a seven-judge bench.

Currently, the seven-judge bench is addressing the constitutional issue related to defining a Money Bill and the extent of the Supreme Court's authority to review the certification of a bill as a Money Bill by the Lok Sabha Speaker.

This bench was established following a reference made by a constitution bench in the Roger Mathew v. South Indian Bank case, which focused on interpreting Article 110(1) of the Indian Constitution.

The Court also raised doubts regarding the accuracy of the majority judgment in the Aadhaar case on this matter.

Subsequently, in the case of amendments to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the question was left unresolved for consideration by a larger bench.