The Budget session of Parliament that concluded on Wednesday was an eventful one. Lok Sabha clocked in 108% of the originally scheduled hours, while Rajya Sabha did 86%. The Budget dates were advanced to enable the discussion and passing before the beginning of the financial year. Several important Bills were passed. However, there were several instances when Parliament failed to perform its role in scrutinising Bills before passing them. This Session, 20 Bills were introduced, and to date none of these have been referred to standing committees of Parliament; one Bill — the constitutional amendment to create a national commission for backward classes — was passed by Lok Sabha and then referred by Rajya Sabha to a select committee.
In the last three years, just 29% of Bills have been referred to parliamentary committees. This is in contrast to the 60% and 71% of bills examined by committees in the 14th and 15th Lok Sabhas, respectively. The important contribution of committees is evident in the progress of the Bills referred to them. The Mental Healthcare Bill passed this session and the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Bill passed by Lok Sabha this week incorporated most of the changes recommended by the committees.
Some problematic Bills
Three Bills passed by Parliament may face constitutional challenges. The Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Bill follows up on the demonetisation exercise. It provides a limited time period for citizens who were abroad between November 9 and December 30 to exchange their notes. Indian residents could do that until the end of March 2017, and NRIs till June. The Bill also made it an offence to hold more than 10 pieces of the old notes (25 for research or numismatic purposes). This Bill raises two significant constitutional issues. First, the notification of November 8 that denotified the notes allowed time till December 30 for depositing these, and said that any person unable to do so would be given further time to deposit them at specified RBI branches. On December 30, an ordinance was issued (the Bill is identical to the ordinance) that provided further time only to citizens who were abroad till that date. This is akin to expropriation of property without any compensation and may violate Article 300A of the Constitution. Also, if holding the notes is made a criminal offence on December 30, and a person having them that day cannot deposit or exchange them, then this is effectively making an action an offence with retrospective effect and may be seen as a violation of a fundamental right.
The second Bill is the Finance Bill . Other than amending tax rates, it allowed the process of appointment, removal and service conditions of members of appellate tribunals to be determined by rules. That is, the terms of engagement of quasi-judicial bodies will be determined by the Central government by notification instead of being specified in the Act. This provision may contravene several judgments that lay out the independence of the judiciary as a basic feature of the Constitution. Another provision of the Finance Bill permits income tax officers to refuse to disclose to any court or tribunal the information that formed the basis for a raid; this may contravene the principle of judicial review of executive action.
The third Bill is the Enemy Property Bill which vests the rights over enemy property with the Central government. This amendment has been made with retrospective effect (going back four decades), and will affect all property that may have been sold (and resold) since then. The Bill also bars any court from hearing cases related to enemy property. These provisions may not adhere to principles of due process and judicial review.
Taxation Laws Bill
The Taxation Laws (Amendment) Bill, that was introduced in Lok Sabha and passed within a week, too raises some concern. It makes several amendments related to the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax. In addition, it adds a section to the Customs Act, which requires various authorities to disclose to the customs officer any information required. The question is whether Lok Sabha examined the appropriateness of giving such powers to the customs officer.
Except the Enemy Property Bill, the other three were not referred to committees and were passed as Money Bills. The Enemy Property Bill was examined by a select committee of Rajya Sabha, and a note of dissent signed by six of its 23 members pointed out constitutional issues, but the suggested changes were not incorporated by Parliament while passing it.
The key lesson is the importance of detailed scrutiny by Parliament. Perhaps, it may be advisable to move to a system like that of the British Parliament where every Bill goes through the committee stage in each House. That may take more time to pass a Bill but will ensure that there is adequate deliberation by parliamentarians before they pass a Bill.
M.R. Madhavan is the President and co-founder of PRS Legislative Research
