Procedure Of Money Bill In India

It is often a constitutional convention that the upper house may not

block a money bill. There is often another requirement that non-
money bill-type clauses may not be attached to a money bill. The
rationale behind this convention is that the upper house, being
appointed or indirectly elected, should not have any right to decide on
taxation and public expenditure-related policies as may be framed by
the directly elected representatives of the lower house. Therefore,
money bills are an exception to the general rule that for a bill to be
enacted into a law, it has to be approved by both Houses of the
Parliament—the lower house and the upper house.
Procedure for a Money Bill:

1. Money Bills can be introduced only in Lok Sabha (the directly

elected 'people's house' of the Indian Parliament).
2. Money bills passed by the Lok Sabha are sent to the Rajya
Sabha (the upper house of parliament, elected by the state and
territorial legislatures or appointed by the president). The Rajya
Sabha may not amend money bills but can recommend
amendments. To make sure that Rajya Sabha doesn't amend the
bill by adding some non-money matters (known as Financial
Bill), the Speaker of the Lok Sabha certifies the bill as a money
bill before sending it to the upper house, and the decision of the
Speaker is binding on both the Houses. A money bill must be
returned to the Lok Sabha within 14 days, or the bill is deemed
to have passed both houses in the form it was originally passed
by the Lok Sabha.
3. When a Money Bill is returned to the Lok Sabha with the
recommended amendments of the Rajya Sabha, it is open to the
Lok Sabha to accept or reject any or all of the
recommendations.
4. A money bill is deemed to have passed both houses with any
recommended amendments the Lok Sabha chooses to accept,
and without any that it chooses to decline.
 5. The definition of "Money Bill" is given in Article 110 of The
Constitution of India. A financial bill is not a Money Bill unless
it fulfills the requirements of Article 110.
6. The Speaker of the Lok Sabha certifies if a financial bill is a
Money Bill or not.[4]
7. Policy cut motion - disapproval of the given policy.
Symbolically, the members demand that the amount of the
demand be reduced to 1 INR. They may also suggest an
alternative policy.
8. Economy cut motion - it is demanded that the amount of the
policy be reduced by a specified amount.
9. Token cut motion - used to show specific grievance against the
government. Also states that the amount of the demand be
reduced by Rs. 100.
10. A money bill can only be introduced in parliament with
prior permission of the President of India.
11. Finance bill is supposed to be enacted within 75 days
(including the Parliament voting and the President assenting).
12. Money bill cannot be returned by the President to the
parliament for its reconsideration, as it is presented in the Lok
Sabha with his permission.
The concept of money bills in India came to the forefront during the
enactment of the Aadhar Act, 2016. In spite of resistance by the
opposition, the Aadhaar Bill was certified as a ‘money bill’ by the
Speaker of the Lower House. The Upper House proposed certain
amendments, but ultimately the BJP-dominated Lower House rejected
the amendments suggested by the Upper House and unilaterally
enacted the Aadhar Act, 2016. Immediately thereafter, Jairam
Ramesh, a senior Congress leader, challenged the speaker’s decision
to treat the Aadhar Bill as a ‘money bill’ before the Supreme Court of
India. Article 110(3) of the Constitution of India categorically states
that 'if any question arises whether a Bill is a Money Bill or not, the
decision of the Speaker of the House of the People thereon shall be
final'. Therefore, one of the prime constitutional questions before the
Supreme Court is whether it can review the speaker’s certificate
classifying a bill as a ‘money bill’. In three prior cases, the Supreme
Court of India has refused to review the Speaker's certificate.
However, some commentators have argued that the Court's earlier
judgements were incorrect and Article 110(3) made the Speaker’s
decision "final" for the purpose of the two Houses of the Parliament,
not for the Supreme Court of India. This argument is further
supported by the fact that in Kihoto Hollohan vs Zachillhu (AIR 1993
SC 412), the "final" decision of the speaker regarding disqualification
of members of the House under the Tenth Schedule of the Indian
Constitution was held to be a judicial decision subject to judicial
review. This suggests that the "final" status given by the Indian
constitution does not automatically immune the Indian speaker's
decision or certificate from judicial review. In view of this crucial
constitutional question, it has been suggested that the Supreme Court
in Jairam Ramesh v. Union of India should create a constitution
bench of at least nine judges to settle the law on this issue. The five
judge bench in the ratio 4-1 decided that the Aadhar Bill was a Money
Bill.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW -- II

PROCEDURE OF MONEY BILL

SUBMITTED TO :- SUBMITTED BY:-

DR. NARENDRA SINGH ANSHUMAN SINGH
BA+LLB (H.O.N.S)
17GSOL102032