A Money Bill, did you say?

Over half a decade ago, The National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010, was aptly introduced as an ordinary Bill in the Rajya Sabha. On March 3, 2016, the Government withdrew it from the Rajya Sabha and brought  a modified version before the Lok Sabha on the same day. A cursory look at the long title and preamble of the new Bill, The Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Bill, 2016, gives the impression that it may qualify to be a Financial Bill of Category A. The Bill, passed by the Lok Sabha on March 11, 2016, now stands transmitted to the Rajya Sabha as a Money Bill.

What is a Money Bill?

Articles 109 and 110 of the Constitution and Rules 74, 96, 103-108 of the Lok Sabha provide for certain Bills to be dealt with as Money Bills in Parliament. A Money Bill can be introduced only in the Lok Sabha and only on the recommendation of the President. The Rajya Sabha is permitted to make only recommendations, if any, for alterations in a Money Bill within 14 days of its receipt from the Lok Sabha. The Lower House is entitled to accept or reject, partly or fully, the recommendations of the Upper House. If the Bill is not returned by the Rajya Sabha in the prescribed time limit, it is deemed to have been passed by both the Houses in the form in which it was first cleared by the Lok Sabha. The absolute primacy of the Popular House — with many an 'only' to its credit — vis-a-vis Money Bills, is likely to tempt any Government looking for safe legislative sailing in choppy waters. What should a Government do? Steer clear of choppy waters or temptation? The answer lies in the word 'only' as it emerged in and remained part of Article 110 (1) of the Constitution.

Article 110 (1) reads : “For the purposes of this Chapter, a Bill shall be deemed to be a Money Bill if it contains only provisions dealing with all or any of the following matters, namely:- (a) the imposition, abolition, remission, alteration or regulation of any tax; (b) the regulation of the borrowing of money or the giving of any guarantee by the Government of India, or the amendment of the law with respect to any financial obligations undertaken or to be undertaken by the Government of India; (c) the custody of the Consolidated Fund or the Contingency Fund of India, the payment of moneys into or the withdrawal of moneys from any such Fund; (d) the appropriation of moneys out of the Consolidated Fund of India; (e) the declaring of any expenditure to be expenditure charged on the Consolidated Fund of India or the increasing of the amount of any such expenditure; (f) the receipt of money on account of the Consolidated Fund of India or the public account of India or the custody or issue of such money or the audit of the accounts of the Union or of a State; or (g) any matter incidental to any of the matters specified in sub clause (a) to (f). The word 'only' did not figure at all in corresponding clause 75 (1) of the first draft of the Constitution presented to the Constituent Assembly in October, 1947. The revised clause 75 (1) with the word 'only' was first taken on record in the minutes of the Drafting Committee, headed by BR Ambedkar  on December 8, 1947. The key word 'only' was retained in corresponding clause 90 (1) of the revised draft Constitution of  February 21,1948. Between the second reading based on this draft and the third and final reading based on final draft of November 3, 1949, the Constituent Assembly debated this Article on two different days. Significantly, the amendments moved for deletion of the word 'only' and for addition of a few more matters under this article were negatived by the Constituent Assembly.  The definition of the Money Bill was kept very very tight, leaving no scope for any interpretation whatsoever.

The Constituent Assembly, after debating clause 89 of the draft Constitution (corresponding to Article 109 of the Constitution), decided to accept an “amended amendment,” aimed at reducing the time limit prescribed to Rajya Sabha for returning a Money Bill from 30 days to 14 days. The emphasis obviously was on minimising the time loss suggesting that a Money Bill is essentially a bill which is of serious consequences of urgent nature for the exchequer and ought to be cleared at the earliest. Therefore, any bill before being certified a Money Bill has to be subjected to the test of urgency as well.

If a Bill is wrongly christened as a Money Bill, the Upper House will be deprived of its right to contribute to its improvement. It cannot even be referred to the Joint Committee of Parliament for further scrutiny. Taking the Bill to a joint session is also not an option under the Rules. Parliament will also miss out on the wise counsel of the President as s/he cannot send a Money Bill back for reconsideration with suggestions under Article 111. Such a counsel is of immense significance in the context of Aadhaar, which as a concept has already received considerable attention of the apex Court. Thus, any Bill designated as a Money Bill escapes closer scrutiny at different levels as is provided for under the Constitution as well as Parliamentary procedures and practice. 

Under Article 110 (3) “if any question arises”, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha has a final say in deciding whether a Bill is a Money Bill or not. Popular perception is that the decisions taken by the Speaker under Article 110 (3) cannot be challenged in the court of law. But, Article 122 (1) precludes Courts only from inquiring into the proceedings of Parliament. It says: "The validity of any proceedings in Parliament shall not be called in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure."  Hence, decisions under Article 110 (3) are unlikely to get protection under Article 122 (1) and may become the subject matter of judicial scrutiny, if challenged on the grounds of “incorrect application” of definitive principles laid down in the Constitution. Such a ground, as is obvious, is different from "alleged irregularity of procedure". This possible lack of protection from judicial examination may lead to an embarrassing  scenario where a decision of the Speaker is binding on fellow parliamentarians and the Presiding Officer of the Council of States but is subjected to scrutiny by an altogether different organ of the State.

Since the Aadhaar Bill is certified now as a Money Bill, the Government must be bracing itself for tough questions from Elders who might find the references to the Consolidated Fund in the new Bill as incidental in a composite Bill aimed primarily at statutorily institutionalising Aadhaar. The law makers may find a few proposals in the Bill such as the proviso to Clause 7, Financial Memorandum that is almost identical to that of the withdrawn Bill and even the preamble itself, a clear giveaway. It is in the best interest of our democracy to apply Constitutional yardstick in letter and spirit and not fall for tempting innovations for short-term gains. If any question arises, rulings of illustrious Speakers such as GS Dhillon and KS Hegde are there to point towardsthe appropriate Article — 110 or 117.

The writer is Secretary, Legislative Assembly, NCT of Delhi. The views expressed are personal.