The Game of Money (Bill)

As a student of law each time I read the Indian Constitution I wondered what was so special about the Money Bills which 'must' be always introduced in the Lok Sabha[1] ,while in case of all the other bills both the Lok Sabha-the Council of People and the Rajya Sabha which is the Council of States stand on equal footing ;the Founding fathers of the C.O.I in their wisdom decided a different treatment altogether when it comes to Money Bills.

In case of Money Bills, the Constitution makers made amply clear their intention of keeping the 'direct mandate of the people'-Supreme; as compared to all Executive,Indirectly elected Legislative, Nominated, Judicial and Administrative powers .

Nowhere better than in the Part of the C.O.I. where Money bills are described in Article 110 of the Constitution of India,has this intention been more clearly specified wherein the Lok Sabha being the directly elected house of the people enjoys Exclusive control over the Consolidated fund of India which is the sum total of the Finances of the Government of India .

The Founding fathers made sure that the Consolidated fund of India which in turn represents the’ money of the people of India’ will not to be in the control of any other authority or power except the directly elected representatives of the people themselves.

It is a beautiful and accurate execution of the very philosophy upon which the Indian constitution has been made; so much so that even the Head executive i.e. the President of India also cannot appropriate funds from the Consolidated fund of India by an executive order! It is the Lok Sabha and the Lok Sabha alone without whose approval no grant of funds from the Consolidated fund of India can be appropriated.

The Money bill is introduced only in the Lok Sabha on the prior recommendation of the President.Once passed by the Lok Sabha the bill is transferred to the Rajya Sabha which is 'allowed' to debate and discuss the provisions of money bill. Also the Rajya Saba may send recommendations of amendments to the money bill to the Lok Sabha .However the Lok Sabha is not bound by any such recommendations .[Article 109 (supra)]

Hence once the Lok Sabha passes the Money Bill , even if the Rajya Sabha withholds or fails to pass the bill after a period of 14 days the bill is automatically deemed to have been passed.

The President cannot use his veto power under article 111[2] of the Constitution of India and therefore shall give his assent to the bill (which is logical too because it was the President himself on whose prior recommendation this bill had been introduced in the Lok Sabha in the first place!)

Under the provisions of A.356 [3] of the Constitution we can see the Founding fathers providing the 'aha moment'! in this regard.

As is already a common knowledge that during the President's rule the Executive, Legislative and even the Financial powers of the State Government of the particular state where the said provision of 'President's rule' is invoked is vested with the Union Government. In such a scenario too the funds from the Consolidated Fund of the State cannot be appropriated without the Presidential order which in turn is infructuous without the 'Approval' of the Lok Sabha.

The 'crucial' element of Parliamentary form of government is evident in this arrangement. If you notice the 'Direct Mandate of People' of the Vidhan Sabha in this case is ‘replaced’ Only by a Direct Mandate of People of Lok Sabha and None else-Not even the President!

The underlying philosophy of 'Executive is Responsible to the Legislature' and not vice versa is the very backbone of Parliamentary form of Government and the Founding Fathers of the Constitution preserved it with mathematical accuracy.

In the light of the above discussion the recent Introduction of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Bill, 2015[4] by 'appending' some tax provisions to the same is a detour to say the least from the oft treaded path the Constitution makers would have liked our Parliamentarians to take.

The 'deficiency' in numbers in the Rajya Sabha is not a valid ground to circumvent the Constitution as it is a basic principle of law that what cannot be done directly cannot be permitted to be done indirectly.[5] in keeping with the principle of "quando aliquid prohibetur, prohibetur at omne per quod devenitur ad illud".

But then why must I worry?  I trust our Parliamentarians and the Government to lead us in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution and if not, then Beware -the Lordships in the Hon'ble Supreme Court take their jobs of being the 'Custodians of the Constitution' very seriously.

Keep the Faith.

Sidharth Arora Adv.

lawfullofit@gmail.com

Supreme Court of India              

ANNEXURE:

[1] Article 109 -Special procedure in respect of Money Bills.

[2] Article 111 - Assent to the Bill

[3] Article 356 - Provisions in case of failure of constitutional machinery in State

[4]The bankruptcy code proposes to consolidate and amend laws relating to reorganization and insolvency resolution of corporate persons and other entities, and to establish an “insolvency and bankruptcy fund”. S.243-245 of the proposed code amend laws dealing with central excise, income tax and customs to safeguard the priority rights of secured creditors over tax dues as given in Section 53 of the code and the interim report of the Bankruptcy Law Reform Committee. But these amendments cannot fall under the category of “imposition, abolition, remission, alteration or regulation of any tax” as provided in A.110 of the Constitution (supra)

[5] Jagir Singh Vs. Ranbir Singh reported in AIR 1979 SC 381