Trickeries of the money bill (Tribunals Case judgment awaited)

Excellent study material for all civil services aspirants - begin learning - Kar ke dikhayenge!

 Trickeries of the money bill (Tribunals Case judgment awaited)

---

Read more on - Polity | Economy | Schemes | S&T | Environment

---

• Challenging the judicial tribunals : The Revenue Bar Association (RBA) v. Union of India case had challenged the provisions of the Finance Act, 2017 in which the structure and functioning of various judicial tribunals was challenged. The SC verdict may have a big impact on the working of Indian constitutional arrangements. 
• What Finance Act does : It is enacted at the beginning of each Accounting Year, and gives effect to GoI's fiscal policies. In 2017, it was too wide-ranging, in addition to setting the fiscal agenda.

1. It changed the structure of 26 existing judicial bodies, each governed by a separate statute covering how members would be selected or removed, etc.
2. The Act abolished some of them, and repealed the standards given in different statutes.
3. The Union Govt got an unrestrained right to make any kind of rules to govern the Tribunals.

• Argument of petitioners : They said that judicial independence was thwarted. The Executive got what was a legislative function. Many of these - NGT, ITAT, NCLT and IDT - were given roles that earlier was the higher judiciary's domain. The Executive taking over appointments to these went against the "separation of powers".
• One example of discrepancy : Earlier, the Chairman of any judicial tribunal was considered equivalent to CJ of High Courts. But now, in 13 different tribunals, a person who is merely qualified to be appointed as judge of HC can become the presiding officer.
• Finance Act had the draft law as Money Bill : The substantive changes were made by a draft law that entered Parliament as a money bill, and the Rajya Sabha sanction was dodged!
• What the Constitution is : As per Dr Ambedkar, the constitution had not only a charter of rights, but a foundation for republican governance. He wanted constitutional morality to be diffused through the society. That is why he did not want to leave the micro aspects of administration to the wisdom of later legislatures. (he feared democracy would simply wither and die away) 
• Article 110(1) : It grants to the LS Speaker the authority to certify if a draft law is a money bill or not. It includes many subjects like imposition or abolition of a tax, declaring any expenditure to be charged on CFI, and other matters. But just because "one part of it contains provision for taxation" won't make a draft law a money bill. Implication - any substantive law cannot be reshaped into a money bill by trickery!
• Beyond judicial review : The GoI argued that LS speaker's decisions are beyond judicial review. How? The Article 110(3) states that Speaker's decision will be final. But in many cases, the SC has indicated contrarywise. Speaker's powers are derived from the Constitution, and it has to be within that limit only.
• Money Bill : The provision was made to ensure that the Rajya Sabha would not be able to bring down a govt. by refusing it access to exchequer for everyday governance. Nothing more.
• Summary : The substantial change in the structure of the Tribunals via the Finance Act 2017 was a major move, that by adopting the Money Bill route, prevented the Rajya Sabha from having any say.

Read more on - Polity | Economy | Schemes | S&T | Environment

Join UPSC Self Prep course | Online Course (PT Gurukul)  | Covid Special Course | Join PT courses

* Content sourced from free internet sources (publications, PIB site, international sites, etc.). Take your own subscriptions. Copyrights acknowledged.