|The use of the word 'only' (in context of taxations or expenditure provisions) in the definition of the money bill, according to some Constitutional experts was meant to safeguard the Upper House against the abuse of this provision by the lower house. This special procedure is limited only to Money Bills as against any other bill that cannot be treated as a money bill simply by adding some financial clause. The first speaker of Lok Sabha G V Malvankar, said that if a Bill substantially deals with the imposition of a tax, it should be certified as a Money Bill.|
|The Centre argued that there is no scope of judicial scrutiny in matters relating to passage of bills in Parliament. The court rejected this plea. Terming the Centres contention far-fetched, the bench said if such a blanket exemption were to be granted, then it would open floodgates to deviation from any constitutional provision governing the functioning of Parliament and its legislative procedure. At the same time, it said that scope of judicial review in matters such as money bill was "extremely limited" in deference to the speaker's certification.|
|On the power to review a legislation, the court said, "Since the Constitution explicitly provides a self-contained detailed procedure for enactment of legislation, and does not suggest that mere assent of the President to a law, by whatsoever method adopted, would become a valid law, it is necessary that this court being the highest constitutional forum for judicial review is provided with enough space for enforcement and protection of the constitutional scheme."|
|The Adhar Judgement was thus pronounced in the following words: "Upon an extensive examination of the matter, we notice that the majority in Puttaswamy case pronounced the nature of the impugned enactment without first delineating the scope of Article 110(1) and principles for interpretation or the repercussions of such process. It is clear to us that the majority dictum in the case did not substantially discuss the effect of the word 'only' in Article 110(1) and offers little guidance on the repercussions of a finding when some of the provisions of an enactment passed as a money bill do not conform to Article 110 (1) (a) to (g)."|
A) To specify and clarify
B) Meant to safeguard the upper house
C) Meant to safeguard the lower house
D) Meant to safeguard the speaker
Correct Answer: B
Solution :(b) The use of the word only (in context of taxations or expenditure provisions) in the definition of the money bill, according to some Constitutional experts was meant to safeguard the Upper House against the abuse of this provision by the lower house.
You need to login to perform this action.
You will be redirected in 3 sec