Mohd. Saeed Siddiqui v State of Uttar Pradesh
Rule established
The Speaker's certificate that a Bill is a Money Bill is final and conclusive, and the validity of legislative proceedings cannot be questioned on the ground of an irregularity of procedure. The correctness of the certification is therefore not open to judicial review.
Facts
- The State of Uttar Pradesh amended its Lokayukta legislation, the effect of the amendment being to extend the term of office of the Lokayukta.
- The amending Bill was introduced and passed in the Legislative Assembly as a Money Bill, and was certified as such by the Speaker.
- Being a Money Bill, it was not open to the Legislative Council to reject it, and the Council's role was confined to recommendations.
- The petitioners contended that the Bill did not answer the definition of a Money Bill in Art.199(1), since its substance was the tenure of a statutory functionary and not any of the enumerated financial matters.
- It was argued that the Bill was consequently invalid for having been passed by a procedure that denied the Legislative Council its constitutional role.
Issue
- Whether the Speaker's certification of a Bill as a Money Bill is open to judicial review, and whether an alleged misclassification vitiates the resulting Act.
Held
- The challenge failed. The Speaker's certificate under Art.199(4) is declared by the Constitution to be conclusive, and a court may not go behind it. Article 212 provides that the validity of any proceedings in a State Legislature shall not be called in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure, and the manner in which a Bill was classified and passed was held to fall within that protection. The extension of tenure was accordingly valid.
Ratio Decidendi
The Constitution has itself allocated the function of certifying a Bill as a Money Bill to the Speaker and has declared his decision final. Where the Constitution confers a power on a functionary and expressly attaches finality to its exercise, a court cannot substitute its own view of the classification. Article 212 reinforces this by placing procedural irregularities in the legislature beyond judicial scrutiny, the remedy for a defect in legislative process being political rather than judicial.
How to use it in an exam
- The high water mark of non-justiciability in relation to Money Bills. State it as the position that the Speaker's certificate is conclusive.
- Immediately qualify it with Rojer Mathew v South Indian Bank 2020, in which this decision was doubted and the question of the scope of Art.110 and the reviewability of the certificate was referred to a larger Bench. The law is therefore unsettled, and an answer that states only Siddiqui is incomplete.
- The counter argument to develop is that whether a Bill answers the constitutional definition in Art.110(1) is a question of constitutional interpretation rather than a mere irregularity of procedure, and that Art.122 and Art.212 protect only the latter.
- Note the practical importance: certification as a Money Bill removes the second chamber almost entirely, so an unreviewable certificate transfers real constitutional power to the presiding officer.
- Read with Raja Ram Pal v Speaker Lok Sabha 2007, which read Art.122 narrowly as excluding review only for irregularity of procedure and not for substantive illegality.
Source
Source: (2014) 11 SCC 415; three Judge Bench; authority on the finality of the Speaker's certificate, since doubted and referred to a larger Bench in Rojer Mathew (2020); citation and bench checked against Indian Kanoon and reported sources, audit of 12 August 2026
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.