When Courts Enter Parliament: Judicial Review of Legislative Procedure and Parliamentary Autonomy in India and South Africa

In India, a Bill certified by the Speaker as a Money Bill can become law without the Rajya Sabha’s approval, and the Indian Constitution says the Speaker’s decision is final. Can courts check that decision? This article studies the question through Articles 110(3) and 122, the drafting history and the Supreme Court’s cases. In India the abuse of the Money Bill classification under Article 110(3) to bypass the Rajya Sabha shielded by the procedural immunity clause of Article 122 has created a crisis of bicameral balance and democratic accountability. It argues that the Court separates illegality from irregularity in privilege cases but not in Money Bill cases, where it relies on an unexamined remark. A comparison with South Africa, whose courts review the classification of Bills, helps to suggest a clearer test courts should review procedure that the Constitution itself requires, and leave alone procedure that a House makes for itself.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Published
2026-11-03
DOI
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23923291
Primary Topic
Judicial and Constitutional Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

When Courts Enter Parliament: Judicial Review of Legislative Procedure and Parliamentary Autonomy in India and South Africa

Safna Nivas
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Judicial and Constitutional Studies
article

When Courts Enter Parliament: Judicial Review of Legislative Procedure and Parliamentary Autonomy in India and South Africa

Safna Nivas
article en

Abstract

In India, a Bill certified by the Speaker as a Money Bill can become law without the Rajya Sabha’s approval, and the Indian Constitution says the Speaker’s decision is final. Can courts check that decision? This article studies the question through Articles 110(3) and 122, the drafting history and the Supreme Court’s cases. In India the abuse of the Money Bill classification under Article 110(3) to bypass the Rajya Sabha shielded by the procedural immunity clause of Article 122 has created a crisis of bicameral balance and democratic accountability. It argues that the Court separates illegality from irregularity in privilege cases but not in Money Bill cases, where it relies on an unexamined remark. A comparison with South Africa, whose courts review the classification of Bills, helps to suggest a clearer test courts should review procedure that the Constitution itself requires, and leave alone procedure that a House makes for itself.

Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
Judicial and Constitutional Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon