Move the Supreme Court

Despite the doubts raised by Somasekhar Sundaresan in his column, “It’s a tug-of-war out there” (April 6), it is worth approaching the Supreme Court to decide the constitutional validity of the government’s move to include certain provisions in a legislation under the garb of a Money Bill to bypass the Rajya Sabha.

Although the Constitution allows the Lok Sabha Speaker alone to decide whether a particular Bill is a Money Bill, the decision should be exercised in tune with the spirit of the provision. 
 

According to the definition of Money Bill under Article 110 of the Constitution, inclusion of matters in such a Bill should be explicable and discretion exceptional. 

If a Bill covers too many provisions or if these as are only remotely related to the money aspect, the matter would depend on the court’s discretion. This is what the Money Bill did: It included regulation of donation to political parties; powers to income tax officials to raid anyone, anytime, without giving any reason and without reference to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal; merger of eight tribunals and power to appoint judges on tribunals under various laws without the approval of Parliament; and Aadhaar card being made compulsory for filing income tax returns.

The Bill also amended a few provisions of existing laws such as Industrial Disputes Act, the Copyright Act and the Trademark Act. 

The discretion has not only been overstretched but is also being aimed at deliberately curtailing the role of the upper house in deciding policy issues. The government’s defence that it wants to avoid the Rajya Sabha because of its non-cooperation in passing key legislation does not justify an extreme action.

Y G Chouksey Pune

Letters can be mailed, faxed or e-mailed to: 

The Editor, Business Standard

Nehru House, 4 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg 

New Delhi 110 002 

Fax: (011) 23720201  ·  E-mail: letters@bsmail.in

All letters must have a postal address and telephone number