Speaker's authority on Money Bill final

Sir, merely because an unlegislated executive action of the government has been challenged before a court, Parliament does not lose its right to legislate. It is absolutely clear. It is as clear as daylight.

Secondly, why is it a Money Bill? That is a question, which Naresh Agrawal raised. This House, in my respectful submission, should not have been on a matter of propriety discussing it since it has been raised and a contention made. Article 110 defines what a Money Bill is. Sub-clause (c) of Article 110 is absolutely clear that if moneys flow into the Consolidated Fund of India and if moneys are spent out of the Consolidated Fund of India and a law, in pith and substance, deals with that matter, it becomes a Money Bill.

What is that law? It has several other provisions. Will it cease to be a Money Bill? That is a question. The first Lok Sabha was faced with this issue because Article 110 uses the words "only if". So, "only" being a narrower phrase, must a Bill only deal with a taxation provision? Must it only deal with an expenditure provision and no other provision? Therefore, the First Lok Sabha was confronted with this question. And, Mr Mavalankar gave a detailed ruling that there is no law which can ever be framed which is a one-section law. And, that one-section law says, "There shall be a tax for the following...." When you say that there will be a tax for the following purpose, you will need an administrative machinery for the levy of that tax, for the collection of that tax, for the appointment of tax officers, for an appeal provision, and for the general administration of the tax. Will those provisions, which provide for administration of that taxation, render a Money Bill to be a non-Money Bill? That was the question. And, Mr Mavalankar gave a clear ruling. The answer is: "No". It will remain a Money Bill if the principal purpose of the Bill is to impose a tax and the incidental provisions thereto. Now read Article 110(c), read with Article 110(g). Article 110(g) means any other power incidental to the main purpose. So, the purpose of the present Bill is moneys spent out of the Consolidated Fund of India, which go towards the expenditure of 109 subsidies, makes it a Money Bill. The administrative machinery around it makes it, under sub-clause (g), a provision incidental to the administration of that Money Bill. And, Article 110(c) clearly says, "In this matter, it is the satisfaction of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha which is final." And, since it is final, on a matter of propriety, in a bicameral House. ...(Interruptions)

D Raja: This way, every Bill will be a Money Bill... (Interruptions)

Arun Jaitley: As per the certification of the honourable Speaker, it is a Money Bill...(Interruptions)... The test to be applied is this. Merely because there is a provision that we have created a particular authority and moneys will be provided from the Consolidated Fund of India for that authority, will not make it a Money Bill. Supposing a development authority is being created and the funds are to be met from the Consolidated Fund of India, in pith and substance, the money deals with the creation of the development authority and its functioning. Providing funds is incidental; it won't be a Money Bill. That is the answer to Mr Raja's question. But if the principal purpose is that money spent out of the Consolidated Fund of India has to be spent in a particular manner, and a machinery is created for spending that money, then, Article 110 (c) read with Article 110 (g), that is, spending money out of the Consolidated Fund of India and any other matter incidental thereto, the machinery created is a matter which is incidental thereto, and, that is why it is a Money Bill. This satisfaction to that effect has to be of the Speaker. Therefore, once the Speaker satisfies herself and says, "I certify, it is a Money Bill", this Money Bill, then, is transmitted to this House, it will be a Money Bill, and no authority in the country can question that provision.

Now comes the third question: How is this Bill different from the one that the UPA brought in? The UPA Bill - because this whole thought process has grown - conceived of an idea and it was a welcome idea, and I must straightaway concede.

Doctor Saheb is here, well, at that time, some of my colleagues, probably, had reservations. There were several questions we used to raise. When new ideas come up, doubts will come up - that every Indian must be given a unique identity; issues of citizenship came up, and these are legitimate issues.

The UPA Bill, at that time, confined itself, to creating an authority. Mr Nilekani was created as the authority. He brought in the technology; he brought in the expertise; then, core information, core biometric information and personnel data will be fed in, some privacy provisions, and the Bill stopped with that. It wasn't a Money Bill. It was a Bill only for the creation of a UID authority.

That Bill today stands altered. One principal idea is borrowed from that Bill, that UID will be the machinery, which will be used for distribution of government money as subsidies. But the core purpose of the Bill will be how money is to be spent, so that the money is spent in a targeted manner, it must reach the persons to whom the benefits are to be conferred and those persons are the persons who are entitled to the subsidies. Now, questions have been raised. I have seen, in the LPG, where direct benefits transfer has been used, 25 per cent has been saved. These five crore families, which will get free gas connection will, actually, get it from the money saved from this. The state government of Telangana and the state government of Andhra Pradesh have already started using this in several other areas itself. So, every state government will, then, be able to ensure that subsidy has reached the right person itself. That is the whole objective.

Now, one question which has been raised, and I have seen a lot of articles coming, which mention the privacy provisions have been violated. I have seen my good friend, Jairam Ramesh, has proposed along with some other members several amendments to the Bill. I have, in fact, analysed each one of his amendments; I will address the House after he moves those amendments. Most of those amendments are against the UPA Bill itself. So, the provisions of the UPA Bill today are being damned by these amendments and we have borrowed those ideas. ... (Interruptions)... I think Jairam Ramesh's stand on these issues depends on where he sits. If he sits this side, his stand is different and if he sits that side, his stand is different.

---

Edited excerpts from Finance Minister Arun Jaitley's speech in the Rajya Sabha on March 16 explaining why the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Bill, 2016, should be classified as a Money Bill