Finance Minister Arun Jaitley’s justification of using the route of money Bills to pass key legislation to bypass scrutiny by the Rajya Sabha has not cut ice with the Opposition, which alleged that the government was subverting parliamentary procedures.
On Tuesday, CPI(M) member K.N. Balagopal flagged the issue in a letter to the Rajya Sabha Chairman, warning that “if the wrong tendency to bypass the Council of States for passing important legislation through the ‘nomenclature’ of money Bill is not checked legally, it will affect the very basic structure of our Constitution and values.”
The issue was also raised in the Upper House on Wednesday when the government put up the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Bill, 2015, in the Rajya Sabha just hours before the close of the Budget Session.
With the government insisting that it was a ‘money Bill and citing the Speaker’s ruling to this effect, the Bill sailed through the Rajya Sabha despite the reservations of Opposition members who warned that a bad precedent was being set which would, in turn, undermine the importance of the Upper House.
As the Chair ruled that the decision on what constitutes a money Bill is the exclusive domain of the Lok Sabha Speaker, Opposition members in the Upper House said this should be specifically defined. They urged the Chair to communicate on their behalf to the Speaker that she should define the criteria for a money Bill.
Stating that his right as a member of the Upper House was being curtailed, Sitaram Yechury (CPI-M) said: “Can we not, from the Rajya Sabha, suggest to the Speaker that there should be some criteria for deciding whether a Bill is a Money Bill or not.’’
