Issue 4: Whether the impugned legislation is a money bill under Article 110 of the

Bharat Nadu Constitution?

It is humbly contended before this Hon’ble Court that the impugned legislation, being the
Political Donations (Regulation) Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the PDR Act) is of the
nature of a Money Bill under Article 110 of the Bharat Nadu Constitution and has been
appropriately passed by the Union Parliament, not with an intention to bypass the scrutiny of
the Upper House as has been wrongfully alleged by the Petitioners.

In Bharat Nadu, Bills are particularly of the following types:

i. Ordinary Bill (Article 107)

ii. Financial Bill (Article 117)
iii. Money Bill (Article 110)

Article 110 (1) of the Bharat Nadu Constitution has laid down a concrete umbrella which
contains certain matters owing to which a Bill shall be deemed to be a Money Bill. However,
such a definition of Money Bill has to be construed quite strictly as has been provided under
Article 110 (2) which states that “A Bill shall not be deemed to be a Money Bill by reason
only that it provides for the imposition of fines or other pecuniary penalties, or for the
demand or payment of fees for licenses or fees for services rendered, or by reasons that it
provides for the imposition, abolition, remission, alteration or regulation of any tax by any
local authority or a body for local purposes”.

Article 109 of the Bharat Nadu Constitution provides for the procedure required to introduce
a Money Bill in the Union Parliament which differs from the procedure for introducing the
other Bills since it does not need to be approved by both the Houses of the Parliament. A
Money Bill cannot be introduced in Rajya Sabha, i.e., the Upper House, as per Article 109(1).
That is, the Money Bill, after it has been introduced and subsequently, passed in the Lok
Sabha, i.e., the Lower House, shall be sent to the Upper House, only for suggesting
recommendations to the Bill. Lok Sabha can either accept or reject all or any of the
recommendations forwarded by the Rajya Sabha. Three situations can arise out of this:

 Lok Sabha accepts all or any of the recommendations and thereby, the Money Bill shall be
deemed to have been passed by both the Houses of Parliament along with the
recommendations of the Upper House and duly accepted by the Lower House1.

1
Article 109(3) of Bharat Nadu Constitution
 Lok Sabha does not accept any of the recommendations and thereby, the Money Bill shall
be deemed to have been passed by both the Houses wherein it has been passed by the
Lower House without incorporating the recommendations made by the Upper House2.
 However, if the recommendations have not been made within a period of 14 days from the
date of the receipt of the Bill, the Bill shall be deemed to have been passed by both the
Houses at the expiration of such a period3.

Recently, the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and
Services) Bill, 2016, was certified as a Money Bill by the Speaker of Lok Sabha, and was
subsequently enacted as the Aadhar Act, after rejecting the recommendations made by the
Upper House. Immediately after the enactment, a writ petition was filed before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court wherein the Speaker’s decision to treat the Aadhar Bill as a Money Bill was
challenged4. Hence, in the ensuing Aadhaar card judgement 5, one of the issues involved was
whether the Aadhaar Bill can be considered as a ‘Money Bill’ within the meaning of Article
110 of the Constitution of India and whether the same has been appropriately certified by the
Speaker of the Lower House. At the same time, it was submitted by the Petitioners that even
though Article 110 (3) states that the decision of the Speaker of the Lower House is final as to
whether a Bill is a Money Bill or not, therefore “virtually excluding the Rajya Sabha from the
legislative process and depriving the Hon’ble President of his power of return”, it does not
necessarily mean that such a decision cannot be subjected to judicial scrutiny. It was argued
that Section 7 of the Bill which is the “heart and soul” of the Bill stated that subsidies,
benefits and services shall be provided from the Consolidated Fund of India due to which the
Bill appeared to in the nature of the Money Bill, although the other provisions weren’t of the
same nature. As a result of which, the entire Bill was bound to fail, since there is no provision
for severing clauses in the Indian Constitution, unlike Section 55 of the Australian
Constitution. However, in response to the same, the legislative intent of Section 7 and object
of the Act was critically analysed. It was held by the Court that Section 7 which is the core
provision has substantial nexus with the appropriation of funds from the Consolidated Fund
of India and is directly connected with Article 110 of the Constitution. The Court was of the
opinion that the Bill was rightly introduced as Money Bill since the main provision is a part

2
Article 109(4) of Bharat Nadu Constitution
3
Article 109(5) of Bharat Nadu Constitution
4
Jairam Ramesh v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) 231 of 2016
5
K.S. Puttaswamy and Another v. Union of India and Another, (2019) 1 SCC 1
of Money Bill under Article 110 (1) and the other provisions are only incident and therefore,
covered by Article 110 (g) of the Constitution.

Here, the PDR Act was introduced with the main object was to enable the furtherance of the
Electoral Bond Scheme, wherein an electoral bond shall act as an instrument that can be used
by individuals and corporations incorporated in Bharat Nadu to make donations to political
parties. Bonds can be purchased in denominations ranging from Rs 1,000 to Rs 1 crore from
the Bharat Nadu Daan Bank using a KYC compliant bank account, with no upper limit on the
donation amount. At the same time, the 'Bharat Nadu Daan Bank' was constituted exclusively
to handle donations to political parties by giving it the power to issue Electoral Bonds. The
Act has made the following amendments to the existing legislations:

a) Section 31 of the Reserve Bank of Bharat Nadu Act, 1934, through Section 3 of the
PDR Act;
b) b) Section 29C of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RoPA), through
Section 4of the PDR Act;
c) c) Section 13A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, through Section 5 of the PDR Act; and
d) d) Section 182 of the Companies Act, 2013, through Section 6 of the PDR Act.

The nature of the amendments clearly fall within the meaning of ‘Money Bill’ under Article
110 (1) of the Bharat Nadu Constitution. At the same time, the legislative intent behind
introduction of such an Act was to “cleanse corruption in political funding”.

It is thereby humbly submitted that the said Bill in the nature of a Money Bill and has been
appropriately certified by the Speaker of the Lower House of the Parliament.