Context: THE Supreme Court has agreed to "take the call" on hearing petitions challenging the "Money Bill route" taken by the government to push through contentious legislation in Parliament.
Money Bill
- Article 110(1): Money Bills, which must contain specific provisions, primarily related to taxation, government finances, borrowing, and guarantees.
- Procedure of passing Money Bills: It as outlined in Article 109, involves them being introduced only in the House of the People (Lok Sabha).
- After passing the House of the People, a Money Bill is sent to the Council of States (Rajya Sabha) for recommendations within 14 days.
- Options LS have on RS recommendations:
o If the House of the People accepts the Council's recommendations, the Money Bill is considered passed with those amendments.
o If the House of the People rejects the Council's recommendations, the Money Bill is passed as originally proposed by the House of the People.
o If the Council of States doesn't return the Money Bill within 14 days, it's deemed passed in the form it was passed by the House of the People.
- Role of Speaker (Article 110(3): He/She takes the final call if a bill is a money bill or not. And his decision cannot be challenged in any court of the country.
- Criteria of Money Bill
o Tax imposition, abolition, remission, alteration, or regulation.
o Government of India's borrowing of money or giving guarantees.
o Management of the Consolidated Fund or Contingency Fund of India, as well as deposits and withdrawals.
o Allocation of funds from the Consolidated Fund of India.
o Identification of expenses as charges on the Consolidated Fund of India or increases in such expenses.
The Important Cases in Supreme Court
- Challenge to Adhaar Act: The SC stated that the Act's primary aim was to provide subsidies and benefits, which involve expenditure from the Consolidated Fund, thus qualifying it as a Money Bill.
- Finance Act, 2017: It included amendments empowering the government to set rules for the service conditions of Tribunal members.
- In November 2019, a five-judge Bench struck down the Tribunal Rules for interfering with judicial independence but referred the Money Bill aspect to a larger seven-judge Bench, noting the Aadhaar case Bench did not clearly define a valid Money Bill.