The Opposition has raised hue and cry over the passage of Aadhaar Bill as a Money Bill. Whether there is any merit to this or not only the apex court’s order will tell
The definition of a Money Bill is given in Article 110 of the Constitution. It specifies only six subjects that qualifies to be a Money Bill. For a legislation to be classified as a Money Bill, it must comprise of ‘only’ provisions dealing with the following matters: (a) imposition, regulation and abolition of any tax, (b) borrowing or other financial obligations of the government of India, (c) custody, withdrawal from or payment into the Consolidated Fund of India (CFI) or Contingent Fund of India, (d) appropriation of money out of CFI, (e) expenditure charged on the CFI or (f) receipt or custody or audit of money into CFI or public account of India; or (g) any matter incidental to any of the matters specified in sub-clauses (a) to (f).
The qualification of the Aadhaar Bill as a Money Bill has been questioned by the Opposition on multiple occasions. Since a Money Bill is immune to any amendments as suggested by the Rajya Sabha and considering that the BJP does not have a majority in the upper House, the Opposition is led to believe that by mere taxonomy, the ruling party has circumvented parliamentary procedures and tactfully muzzled its voice.
The Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits & Services) Act, 2016, defines itself as, “an Act to provide for, as a good governance, efficient, transparent, and targeted delivery of subsidies, benefits and services, the expenditure for which is incurred from the Consolidated Fund of India, to individuals residing in India through assigning of unique identity numbers to such individuals and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.”
The Aadhaar Act, 2016, does not fall under the ambit of the six subjects mentioned in Article 110 considering that it is purely a tool to ensure individuals residing in India who are assigned a unique identity number, which may also thereon be used for transfer of applicable benefits from the Consolidated Fund of India to such individuals. The Aadhaar Act, 2016 does not deal with —
The Money Bill, on the other hand, deals only with the above stated factors. Aadhaar is merely a tool to protect the interests of the recipients and to safeguard leakage of funds from the Contingency Fund of India. It does not deal with the purpose or frequency of withdrawals. The Act does not declare any specific expenditure, receipt that should be routed through the Consolidated Fund of India. Considering that Aadhaar will not be limited to transfer of funds/benefits alone, it over-reaches the final sub clause of Article 110 (1). Then why was Aadhaar tabled as a Money BillIJ Clause (3) of Article 110 says, “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.”
If the Aadhaar Bill actually does not fit in the subjects mentioned under Article 110, the next obvious step is to question the precision of the decision of the Speaker of the House in terms of classification of the Bill itself. Is there any scope for judicial interventionIJ
As per Article 122 (1) of the Indian Constitution: “The validity of any proceedings in Parliament shall not be called in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure.”
There have been multiple instances when the Supreme Court has stated that parliamentary procedures, including actions of the Speaker, are not immune from judicial intervention and procedural irregularities cannot be connived merely by Article 122.
Jairam Ramesh, Member of Parliament in the Rajya Sabha from Karnataka, filed a writ petition (under Article 32), in April 2016, whereby he challenged the constitutionality of the Speaker's decision to treat Aadhaar as a Money Bill.
Attorney General of India, Mukul Rohatgi, is of the opinion that the Speaker's actions cannot be challenged in the apex court. He added that since Aadhaar will be used to transfer benefits from the Consolidated Fund of India, the Bill is a Money Bill.
The Judicial Bench, which included Chief Justice of India JS Khehar and Justice NV Ramana, observed merit in the petition and said, “Yes, we have identified the role and authority of the Speaker. But if the Speaker says blue is green, we will ask the Speaker to say it is blue…that we will set right.” The final hearing in this matter is expected to happen in the near future. The disquiet surrounding the Money Bill is related to constitutional propriety and a dangerous precedent to scuttle the Rajya Sabha, rendering it voiceless, even worse, putting it on mute mode.
The issue in question is not limited to treatment of Aadhaar alone. It brings to light existing potential for undermining procedures and design issues. If ruling parties make this a habit, and (mis)use Article 110 recklessly, it can have far-reaching dangerous implications. The very foundation of ‘good faith’ comes under scanner, and eventually dilutes the role of the Rajya Sabha in issues of national importance. We will have to wait for the Supreme Court to validate the Opposition's stance of terming this incident as an act of constitutional perfidy and blatant tact. Notwithstanding the final outcome, this is a relevant time to discuss constitutional procedures and powers. The voice of the Opposition needs to be heard and empowered, especially at a time when power is perilously concentrated and sense of entitlement has overtaken the very spirit of pluralism in a democracy.
Meanwhile, I leave the readers to ponder on a few questions —
Why was the UPA Government’s National Identification Authority of India Bill 2010, not a Money BillIJ Did the then Speaker not treat the Bill right or has the current Speaker exercised overreachIJ What compelled the BJP to call this a Money BillIJ
(The writer is associate fellow, Pahle India Foundation)