Name Of The Bill

Lok Sabha should create consultative mechanism for speaker to certify a money bill.

Written by M R Madhavan | Published:April 15, 2016 12:27 am
Aadhar bill, money bill, Lok sabha Photo for representational purpose.

The Aadhaar bill was passed by Parliament as a money bill. The Lok Sabha rejected the amendments made by the Rajya Sabha. A writ petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging its classification as a money bill. In this context, it would be instructive to see why some bills are labelled as money bills and require only the Lower House to pass them.

India has a bicameral Parliament. The purpose of the second House is to be a revising chamber. Any legislation must be passed by each House by a simple majority. This provides a check on hasty decisions.

Following the procedure in the British parliament, our Constitution makes an exception for money bills. The British parliament, over the centuries, built up checks against the monarch’s power. It required all government expenditure to be sanctioned by parliament. It also forbade new taxes unless parliament provided for them by law. Parliament could stop any expenditure plans of the government and bring it to a standstill. In such a case, the government cannot function and would be expected to resign. Given that the government requires the confidence of the Lower House, the corollary is that only the Lower House should have decision-making powers on such bills.

In other words, money bills are an exception to the rule that bills need to be passed by each House. Therefore, there is a need to provide limits on the usage of this procedure. Our Constitution specifies six conditions for any bill to be a money bill, and states that the bill should have only these features, or any item incidental to it. The six conditions pertain to taxes, government borrowings and expenditure.

Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice says the following. “A bill which contains any of the enumerated matters and nothing besides is indisputably a ‘money bill’. If it contains any other matters, then, unless these are ‘subordinate matters incidental to’ any of the matters so contained in the bill, the bill is not a money bill. Further, if the main object of a bill is to create a new charge on the Consolidated Fund or on money provided by Parliament, the bill will not be certified if it is apparent that the primary purpose of the new charge is not purely financial.”

In this context, does the Aadhaar bill fit the money bill criteria? The bill provides for a mechanism to identify a person using biometrics, and states that this could be used for providing subsidies or government services. However, it also allows the Aadhaar system to be used for other purposes. Therefore, it seems to contain matters other than those that are incidental to expenditure from the Consolidated Fund. That is, it does not seem to fit the requirement of “only” the matters listed.

Our Constitution also follows the British procedure that provides the speaker with the authority to certify a bill as a money bill. However, there is a key difference. The House of Commons appoints two senior members who must be consulted before the speaker gives the certificate. In India, the speaker makes the decision on her own.

Can the speaker’s decision be challenged? The Constitution says the decision of the speaker shall be final. However, there are several instances in which Parliament’s decisions have been subjected to judicial review. These include decisions made by speakers under the anti-defection law. Also, in a recent judgment, a Constitution bench of the Supreme Court decided that the privilege of legislatures was subject to judicial review, and repealed a resolution of the Punjab legislative assembly to expel Amarinder Singh for the rest of its term. It remains to be seen whether the court will consider the writ petition.

Though the bill has been passed, this issue needs debate as it sets a precedent. An immediate case is the Finance Bill, 2016, which includes structural changes to the RBI Act to enable statutory backing for a monetary policy committee. The question is whether such a bill can be certified as a money bill, which will enable these amendments to be made without the concurrence of the Rajya Sabha. Perhaps it may help if the Lok Sabha creates a consultative mechanism before the speaker certifies a bill as a money bill.

The writer works with PRS Legislative Research, New Delhi.

For all the latest Opinion News, download Indian Express App

  1. H
    Hemant Kumar
    Apr 15, 2016 at 1:55 am
    Rajya Sabha rarely works on non-partisan lines, which is not expected of it in Consution as it being a chamber of members not directly elected by people. This fact should be considered as a ground for dismissing the PIL.
    Reply
    1. K
      K SHESHU
      Apr 15, 2016 at 6:38 am
      If rajya sabha has no power on important bills and lok sabha pes any bill of national importance, especially money bills, what is the use of rajya sabha except being a bunch of back-door politicians and safety seeking opportunists who can enjoy six years leisure without work??!!
      Reply
      1. A
        anand
        Apr 15, 2016 at 12:08 pm
        When AP re-organisation bill was ped just before elections, in the most reprehensible manner by the Lok Sabha by stalling live coverage, closing the doors, throwing away the will of the State embly to the dustbin and arbitrarily Bill was ped, no courts including Hon'ble Supreme Court did not feel it necessary to address the issue - where were people like this author? The bill was ped purely with an eye on elections and Congress got a sound drubbing. Atleast in the present case, the Adhar Bill was not ped for any electoral gains primafacie. The sole reason for the Congress to oppose the bill is they are afraid that the country will develop and the number of poor , their vote bank, will reduce.
        Reply
        1. A
          Ashok
          Apr 15, 2016 at 3:29 pm
          You cannot adopt British practices blindly. It depends on the character of politicians also. If you look at the behavior of political parties, where opposition is in strong position, they do not allow any business to transact. Where govt has upper hand, they do not tolerate even a lone opposition members. Look at Delhi embly.lt;br/gt;The solution is to retire Rajya Sabha members alongwith dissolution of respective state embly and also giving power to state embly to recall its representative, if working against the policies of the state.
          Reply
        2. J
          jayaram reddi
          Apr 15, 2016 at 6:29 pm
          It looks like all these opinion articles are written by authors for each other to read and not necessary to read by others.
          Reply
          1. K
            KS KUMAR
            Apr 15, 2016 at 2:26 am
            Why was this writer silent when Meira Kumar openly behaved as instructed by congress ministers or Vice Chairman of RS adjourned the house as desired by Rajeev Shukla.
            Reply
            1. A
              Ananth
              Apr 15, 2016 at 2:04 pm
              Irrespective of whether we followed some practices of other countries we have to evaluate each case from the point of view of its own merit. For direct distribution mechanism to succeed the AADHAR route seems the best bet today. The court has been putting roadblocks as it hasn't got the statutory sanction. To overcome that the opposition parties are not cooperating and have made the working of Rajya Sabha a sham and veer away from its main purpose of being a revising house. The government's hands have been unnecessarily tied and hence the need to byp them. Why should the opposition parties act in a irresponsible fashion particularly when it concerns about curbing wasteful expenditures. So nitpicking on the bill, its validity, or the mechanism emplo by speaker etc. are of no use unless the opposition political parties are disciplined. The columnist has completely sidestepped on that main requirement thus rendering his column directionless and meaningless too.
              Reply
              1. A
                Ananth
                Apr 15, 2016 at 2:13 pm
                Sure enough but what makes people think that the speaker has not consulted the right quarters. ultimately it is her prerogative, duty and responsibility. The courts should not try to overreach their functioning.
                Reply
                1. Load More Comments