Modi sarkar should stop passing every legislation as Money Bill

It has been coming for a long time. In the spring of 2015 when it became certain that the government's insistence on passing an amendment to the United Progressive Alliance's Land Acquisition Bill - which the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) as Opposition party supported in August 2013 - was not cutting much ice with the Congress party and others, especially the Left, its chief articulators began threatening that they will use the "joint session route" for all such contentious legislations.

This team of argumentative BJP leaders, led by Arun Jaitley contended that this was the only way for government to function and fulfil its electoral promises because democracy was being "subverted by the tyranny of the unelectable leaders and their parties."

For the lay person this was supposed to convey that though the BJP had absolute majority in Lok Sabha, the disruptive (anti-national was not a cuss-word last year) Opposition was blocking vital legislation by not allowing Rajya Sabha to function and take up passage of bills crucial for India's development and growth. It is a different fact that Jaitley downward, the majority of these spokespersons were part of the unelectable ensemble. Even a disproportionately large number of Cabinet ministers, including those holding vital portfolios, were members of Rajya Sabha and not the Lower House.

Towards the end of last year's Budget session, Jaitley, in his capacity as finance minister, "inserted other laws into the budget" and also brought up in the Upper House the Black Money Bill in a debatable manner. The Opposition argued that after having launched a broadside against Rajya Sabha and realising that its threat to hold repeated joint sittings was not constitutionally permissible, it was trying to pass off "difficult legislations" as Money bills.

This category of bills cannot be amended in Rajya Sabha which can only recommend amendments in a Money Bill. The Upper House however must return all Money bills to Lok Sabha within fourteen days from the date of their receipt. It is open to Lok Sabha to accept or reject any or all of the recommendations of Rajya Sabha.

On May 12, 2015, CPI(M) Rajya Sabha member, KN Balagopal wrote to the Rajya Sabha chairman stating 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." There was a heated discussion in the House when the Black Money Bill was introduced as Money Bill. Vice-President Hamid Ansari who was in the chair at this time, ruled that the decision on what constitutes a Money Bill, is the exclusive domain of the Lok Sabha Speaker and there was little which he could do. At that point Sitaram Yechury suggested that steps should be initiated to lay down criteria for deciding whether a Bill is a Money Bill or not. This suggestion has possibly not been taken up.

In August last year, at an informal briefing with journalists, senior BJP leaders told journalists that Money Bill route was being firmed up for all troublesome bills which were either being blocked by Opposition or not coming up in Rajya Sabha at all because of repeated adjournments. But this threat remained on paper till this week when the Aadhar Bill was introduced and passed by Lok Sabha on Friday, March 12, as a Money Bill. In the course of a debate - rendered largely infructuous because of the government majority - Jaitley rejected the demand to refer Bill to Standing Committee though certain matters related to violation of privacy were flagged.

The Bill is now likely to be taken up for discussion in Rajya Sabha, though even a majority sentiment for a wider reference and examination of the Bill is not expected to force any rethink on government's part. Technically speaking, the government has stretched its argument beyond reason by pushing the Aadhar Bill as a Money Bill. There are several criteria laid down under Article 110 under which a Bill can qualify to be a Money Bill. But there are doubts whether Aadhar Bill can be termed as one. However, since the Constitution also lays down that the Speaker's decision on this matter - whether the Bill can be treated as Money Bill or not, "shall be final", there is little that the opposition can do except accept recommend a few amendments well aware that they will be rejected by government.

However, in an article in The Indian Express, former secretary general of Lok Sabha has argued that not only is the contentious legislation "not a Money Bill" but also that the power of the Speaker on the issue "cannot be seen as a convenient tool to deal with an inconvenient Second Chamber." He argues that the "Speaker's decision needs to be in conformity with the constitutional provisions. If not, it is no decision under the Constitution."

This, therefore, raises the spectre of the Aadhaar Bill and future attempts of BJP to pass other legislations in Lok Sabha only under the garb of being money bills being challenged in court - eventually a Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court.

It is worthwhile to recall that the Constituent Assembly deliberated if independent India should opt for a unicameral or bicameral system. India's constitution makers eventually opted for two Houses (introduced under Morley-Minto Reforms in 1919) because they wished to "delay legislation which might be the outcome of passions of the moment until passions have subsided and calm consideration could be bestowed". By circumventing the Upper House the government is avoiding reasoned debate and displaying scant regard for the system which was put together painstakingly by the Constituent Assembly.

Politically, this sets a bad precedent because once the Rajya Sabha's position is subverted and laws which do not qualify to be treated as money bills are passed routinely as such, every subsequent government - whether headed by BJP or other parties - will use similar tactic. This will only weaken democracy when the need is to strengthen it. The government's argument is that the Congress - or rather one family, as Modi puts it - is disallowing Rajya Sabha to function. But then this is not the first government which has not had majority in the Upper House.

If the Vajpayee government and UPA-I could eventually get work done in this House, then it simply means that it was more tactful in its parliamentary management and that parliamentary ministers performed better than the present team. Instead of pointing fingers at others, it is time for this regime to look inwards and decide if it is not stretching its campaign of ushering a Congress-mukt Bharat beyond reasonable limit.