Amid the slugfest over special status to Andhra Pradesh, former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh today spoke up on the issue, asking the Rajya Sabha to fulfill the commitments made by him in this regard over two years back as the House took up a private member bill on the issue.
The 'Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Bill', moved by Congress member K V P Ramachandra Rao, was, however, referred to Lok Sabha Speaker Sumitra Mahajan for a decision on its fate, amid an uproar created by Congress which led to premature adjournment of the House for the day.
"The Constitution does not give any power to the Chair (of Rajya Sabha) to decide if it is Money Bill or not....The point is if the Chair has any doubt he cannot decide...In a way Chairman of Rajya Sabha is vested with zero power whether it is Money Bill or not...I am giving ruling...Since the matter is under doubt, I refer the matter to the Speaker," Deputy Chairman P J Kurien said.
If it is declared as Money Bill, there cannot be any discussion on it in the Rajya Sabha.
Earlier, Manmohan Singh appealed to the House to honour commitments made by him on February 20, 2014 on the floor of the Rajya Sabha to grant Special Status to Andhra Pradesh.
It was perhaps for the first time that Singh had himself spoken on the issue over which NDA ally TDP and its government in Andhra Pradesh has locked horns with the BJP-led government at the Centre. TDP MPs have been agitating for the demand for a number of days, both inside and outside Parliament.
Finance Minister and Leader of the House Arun Jaitley raised objections to the Bill, saying Money Bill cannot be introduced in the Rajya Sabha.
Kurien said he was in no position to decide whether the Bill seeking special category status for Andhra Pradesh is a Money Bill or not.
While giving ruling, the Deputy Chairman said Rao had on August 7, 2015 introduced the Bill and since the matter was under doubt, he was referring the same to Lok Sabha Speaker.
This enraged the members of the Congress who trooped into well alleging that the government failed to keep its committment.
The Congress members were shouting "shame-shame" and slogans like "We want justice".
Amid protests, Kurien asked DMK MP Tiruchi Siva to introduce his Bill but as uproar continued, he adjourned the House for the day at 3.50 pm.
Earlier, Manmohan Singh argued that his Cabinet had also
approved an Ordinance for the same but it got delayed because the Model Code of Conduct for 2014 Lok Sabha polls came into force.
He said after his assurances, Jaitley, the then Leader of Opposition, had withdrawn his amendments expressing satisfaction.
However, Jaitley said, "I am a member of this House and I am disappointing myself and my colleagues but we must accept the reality that framers of the Constitution gave certain jurisdiction to Lok Sabha only".
The Finance Minister said the government stands by its commitment to fulfill all legal conditions set by the AP Reorganisation Act. "Will take steps to help AP financially. We will make sure that full justice is done to Andhra Pradesh" he said.
Jaitley said there seems to be a divergence on the promises made by then Prime Minister and efforts are on to reconcile and they are in advanced stage.
Jaitley argued that some matters rested with the Lower House and not the Upper House because Lok Sabha is an elected House.
He argued that a vote of non-confidence can only be held in the Lok Sabha just like a Money Bill can introduced in the Lok Sabha only.
He said if there was any doubt on whether a Bill was a Money Bill or not, the matter has to be referred to the Lok Sabha Speaker whose ruling will be final.
Kurien said he had tried to elicit opinion from different members and heard the legal luminaries.
However, he said he was referring the bill to the Speaker since confusion prevailed over it when it was at voting stage.
The Deputy Chairman also dismissed contention from Ram Gopal Yadav (SP) that the Bill should not be treated as Money Bill.
Kurien said if the Chair (of Rajya Sabha) considers the Bill as Money Bill, he can terminate it then and there and if the Chair has any doubt, he has to refer it to the Speaker whose openion shall be final.
"The Constitution does not give power to the Chair (of the Upper House) to decide ... And the crucial point is if the Chair has a doubt, he cannot decide," he said.
(Reopen PAR28)
The Finance Minister said the Lok Sabha has also the right to see the government go if a Money Bill is rejected in the Lower House.
"In Constitution, there is no distinction between Bill moved by the government and a private member. A government cannot survive a minority in the Lower House, but it can survive in the Upper House.
"A Money Bill can be voted only in the Lok Sabha and not in the Rajya Sabha," Jaitley said as he sought to buttress his argument that the Bill was a Money Bill because funds have to be appropriated from the consolidated fund of India.
"Assuming the govt is losing majority and the Money Bill is being voted out in the Lok Sabha, and the government has to resign, can the government stand up and say, now please treat it as a non-Money Bill? That option is not available," Jaitley said.
Congress leader Kapil Sibal objected to the interpretation by Jaitley, saying if one goes by what the Finance Minister said then all Bills introduced in Parliament will be a Money Bill.
He said this is so because all Bills will need to have some appropriation from the Consolidated Fund of India.
Leader of Opposition Ghulam Nabi Azad said it was not a question about the Bill being a Money Bill or not.
"If you give an assurance that promises made on the floor of the House by then Prime Minister will be met, then the private member bill can be withdrawn," Azad said.
