One of the petitioners, an LIC policyholder, had initially approached the Madras High Court challenging provisions of the Finance Act, 2021 and the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) Act, 1956 on the ground that they were introduced by way of a Money Bill under Article 110 of the Constitution of India, even though the amendment did not fall in the category of a Money Bill.
The High Court,while dismissing the petition on March 21, had held that “it directly impacts the economic growth of the country and interference therein may have far reaching consequences, because the receipt of money into the Consolidated Fund of India is to be used for the development of the country.”
The appeal in the Supreme Court stated that the amendments being challenged effectively reduce the share of LIC’s surplus which the petitioner is legally entitled to, causing losses to her and other participating policyholders to the tune of ₹4,14,919 crore.
The appeal filed through advocate Abhishekh Jebaraj said that the High Court failed to appreciate that the amendments – Sections 128 to 146 of the Finance Act, 2021 – do not fall under Article 110(1) of the Constitution.
“Therefore, the Speaker’s certification of the Bill as a Money Bill, and its subsequent enactment as one, is a colourable exercise and a fraud on the Constitution,” the plea stated.
Further, it was contended that decision of a Speaker certifying a Money Bill under Article 110(3) of the Constitution is justiciable and amenable to judicial review on the ground of illegality.
Other petitions were also filed under Article 32 of the Constitution.
Last month, the Bombay High Court had also refused to stay the Draft Red Herring Prospectus (DRHP) filed by LIC for the issuance of shares through its IPO.
Source: Barandbench
