ukessay

IAS (Mains) 2018 Series: Is passing Ordinary Bill as Money Bill and Money Bill as Ordinary Bill, beyond Judicial Review?

Is passing Ordinary Bill as Money Bill and Money Bill as Ordinary Bill, beyond Judicial Review?

Question has two parts:

  • One when Money Bill is passed as Ordinary Bill and
  • Second when Ordinary Bill is passed as Money Bill

First when Money Bill is passed as Ordinary Bill

When a Money Bill is passed as Ordinary Bill

  • It is passed by both the Houses of Parliament by simple majority.
  • It may originate in either House
  • It does not require Speaker’s certification.
  • It fulfills one or all or any of the features enumerated in Article 110 (1)

Under these conditions, two cases may arise

  1. It originates in Lok Sabha, it fulfills the requirement of Money Bill like
  • It originates in Lok Sabha and
  • It has certain features enumerated in Article 110 (1)

However other conditions not fulfilled include

  • It is not certified by the Speaker as Money Bill
  • It does not received prior recommendation of the President

So, in this case we find that some conditions of Money Bill are fulfilled and some aren’t.

Going through the Supreme Court’s judgment of 1963 in the case of Mangalore Ganesh Bedi vs. The State of Mysore, such non-fulfillment may be considered as procedural irregularities and so immune from Judicial Review.

Moreover, Article 255 of the Constitution holds that missing recommendation or sanctions of the President are to be treated as procedural irregularities.

  1. It originates in Rajya Sabha, it does not fulfill the requirement of Money Bill like
  • It does not originate in Lok Sabha
  • It is not certified by the Speaker as Money Bill
  • It does not received prior recommendation of the President

However, it fulfills certain requirements of Money Bill like

  • It has certain features enumerated in Article 110 (1)
  • As ordinary bill, it is passed in both the Houses and it gets the approval of Lok Sabha also.

So, in this case, the core requirement of Money Bill, that is the approval of the Lok Sabha, is fulfilled and therefore it may be just a procedural irregularity only.

Therefore, we may conclude that the passage of

Money Bill as Ordinary Bill may be treated as just procedural irregularity and so can’t be invalidated.

Second when Ordinary Bill is passed as Money Bill

When an Ordinary Bill is passed as Money Bill then

  • It must have originated in the Lok Saha
  • It must have received prior recommendation of the President
  • It has been certified by the Speaker as Money Bill

However, approval of both the houses of Parliament is absent as Rajya Sabha can either

  • Return the bill to the Lok Sabha without any amendment within 14 days from the date of its receipt in the Rajya Sabha, it is considered to have been passed by both the Houses or
  • Return the bill to the Lok Sabha with its recommendations. In that case Lok Sabha can accept such recommendations or it can reject all or any of such recommendations.

So, in the Second case, it does not fulfill the condition of Ordinary Bill, viz. passed by both the Houses.

Therefore, it is not just procedural irregularities. It actually failed to fulfill Constitutional requirement.

Point to be noted:

Supreme Court in the 2014 case of Md. Saeed Siddiqui vs. State of UP and thereafter in the 2015 case of Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal vs. State of Bihar, had given similar judgment as in 1963 case of Mangalore Ganesh Bedi vs. The State of Mysore, though these were related to the second case, i.e. when an Ordinary bill is passed as Money Bill.

 

Please follow and like us:
100
error: Content is protected !!