You are on page 1of 9

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SPEAKER

OF THE LOK SABHA

ARUN JAITLEY.FINANCE MINISTER


IN RESPONSE TO THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE HONORABLE LEADER OF
OPPOSITION MR. JYOTIRADITYA SCINDIA.

TABLE OF CONTENT

TABLE OF CONTENT............................................................................2
STATEMENT OF FACTS.........................................................................3
ISSUES FOR CONCIDERATION..............................................................4
I.

WHETHER AADHAR BILL, 2016 IS A MONEY BILL OR NOT?..........................4

SUBMISSIONS....................................................................................5
A.

WHAT IS A MONEY BILL.................................................................................... 5

B.

THE PRESENT BILL IS A MONEY BILL...................................................................6

C.

THERE IS NO THREAT TO PUBLIC SAFETY AND NATIONAL SECURITY..........................8

PRAYER..............................................................................................9

STATEMENT OF FACTS
The leader of opposition has challenged the introduction of the Aadhar Bill, 2016 as a money
Bill and accuses the Modi regime of fraudulently trying to bypass the Rajya Sabha where it
does not have a majority. Whereas, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley said that the Bill falls under
the definition of a Money Bill.

ISSUES FOR CONCIDERATION

I.

WHETHER AADHAR BILL, 2016 IS A MONEY BILL OR NOT?

SUBMISSIONS

A.

WHAT IS A MONEY BILL

Under Article 110 (1) of the Constitution, a Bill is deemed to be a Money Bill if it contains
provisions dealing with six specific matters [Article 110 (1)(a) to (1)(f)] broadly related to
imposing, abolishing or regulating a tax; regulating government borrowings; the
Consolidated and Contingency Funds of India; and any matter incidental to any of the
matters specified in (the previous six) sub-clauses [Article 110(1)(g)]. The expression
incidental to makes the definition of a Money Bill comprehensive.
If any question arises whether a Bill is a Money Bill or not, Article 110(3) says, the
decision of the Speaker of the House of the People thereon shall be final. Under Article
109(1), a Money Bill cannot be introduced in Rajya Sabha. Once passed by Lok Sabha, it is
sent to Rajya Sabha along with the Speakers certificate that it is a Money Bill for its
recommendations. Rajya Sabha cannot reject or amend the Bill, and must return it within 14
days, after which Lok Sabha may accept or reject its recommendations. In either case, the Bill
is deemed to have been passed by both Houses. Under Article 109(5), if Rajya Sabha fails to
return the Bill to Lok Sabha within 14 days, it is deemed to have been passed anyway. NonMoney Bills cannot become law unless agreed to by both Houses. In case of a deadlock (if,
for example, Rajya Sabha, where the government does not currently have a majority,
continues to block legislation indefinitely), Article 108 provides for a joint sitting of both
Houses. The Lok Sabha Speaker presides, and the Bill is passed if it is backed by a majority
of the total number of members of both Houses present and voting. This question does not
arise in the case of a Money Bill, since it does not go to a joint sitting, and Lok Sabha can
override the wish of Rajya Sabha.

B.

THE PRESENT BILL IS A MONEY BILL.

The present bill in the Lok Sabha is a text book example of a money bill. Article 110 defines
what a Money Billis. 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 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. 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. 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.
Hence the basic purpose of the bill is to empower the state to distribute the resource of the
state to the deserving people, save revenue so that it doesnt go to undeserving people. Which
is also reiterated by the study on the bill by the PRS legislative research, which states that the
primary purpose and the major provision of the bill deals with provide for targeted delivery
of subsidies and services to individuals residing in India by assigning them unique identity
numbers, called Aadhaar numbers.1 The focus of the bill is that subsidies should now be
targeted and hence this bill is a textbook example of a Money Bill and all the machinery
created for distribution and handling of the fund would come under the incidental clause (g)
of Article 110 of the Constitution of India.2

1http://www.prsindia.org/billtrack/the-aadhaar-targeted-delivery-of-financial-and-othersubsidies-benefits-and-services-bill-2016-4202/
2 Article 110, The Constitution Of India.

C.

THERE IS NO THREAT TO PUBLIC SAFETY AND NATIONAL SECURITY.

The contention raised by the honorable opposition that there is an issue of National Security
and public safety involved as there can be misuse of the biometric data and hence the bill
should not be considered to be a money bill and a Financial bill is baseless. The bill has a
specific provision i.e chaper VII of the Aadhar Bill 2016 for the protection of the information
collected. Section 28 of the chapter states that no information can be shared without the
consent of the individual, and the biometrics cannot be shared even with the consent of the
individual. Section 29(3) states that there is a restriction on the sharing of the biometric data.
The chapter specifically deals with the details of the protection programed of this data. The
chapter also states that no court inferior than the district court can ask for this data. It is also
provided that this biometric data cannot be shared with any private organization and that it
cannot be used for any other purpose.
Hence keeping all the things above stated in mind it humbly submitted that the present act is
a textbook example of a money bill, whose basic purpose is to bill is to empower the state to
distribute the resource of the state to the deserving people, save revenue so that it doesnt go
to undeserving people and to set up a proper mechanism for that. It is also further submitted
that there is not threat of leaking of the data collected and therefore no threat to public safety.

PRAYER
Hence it is humbly prayed before the honorable Madame speaker to consider the bill as a
money bill and as empowered under Article 110(3) of the Constitution Of India.