Article 109

Article 109 of the Constitution of India establishes a special legislative procedure applicable exclusively to Money Bills. It ensures that matters related to public finances remain primarily under the control of the Lok Sabha, which directly represents the people. This article safeguards democratic accountability by granting the elected chamber greater authority in fiscal and budgetary matters.

Definition and Scope of Money Bills

A Money Bill is defined under Article 110 of the Indian Constitution. It relates solely to financial matters such as:

• The imposition, abolition, remission, alteration, or regulation of taxes.
• The borrowing of money by the Government of India.
• The custody of the Consolidated Fund of India or the Contingency Fund of India, and payments made into or withdrawals from these funds.
• Appropriation of money out of the Consolidated Fund.
• Receipt of money on account of the Consolidated Fund or the Public Account of India.

Any Bill that contains provisions outside these financial subjects cannot be classified as a Money Bill. The Speaker of the Lok Sabha certifies whether a Bill is a Money Bill, and this decision is final.

Introduction and Passage of Money Bills

Money Bills can be introduced only in the Lok Sabha and not in the Rajya Sabha. This restriction ensures that financial matters remain under the control of the directly elected representatives. The Bill must also receive the recommendation of the President before being introduced.
Once a Money Bill is passed by the Lok Sabha, it is transmitted to the Rajya Sabha for consideration. However, unlike ordinary legislation, the Rajya Sabha’s powers over a Money Bill are significantly limited.

Role of the Rajya Sabha

The Rajya Sabha cannot amend or reject a Money Bill. It may, however, recommend changes to the Bill. These recommendations must be returned to the Lok Sabha within 14 days from the date of receipt. The Lok Sabha may either accept or reject any or all of these recommendations.

• If the Lok Sabha accepts the Rajya Sabha’s recommendations, the Bill is deemed to have been passed in the amended form.
• If it rejects the recommendations or if the Rajya Sabha fails to return the Bill within the stipulated 14 days, the Bill is deemed to have been passed in the form originally approved by the Lok Sabha.

This framework ensures that financial legislation cannot be delayed or blocked by the upper house.

Presidential Assent and Certification

After passage through Parliament as per Article 109, the Money Bill is presented to the President for assent under Article 111. The President may either give assent or withhold it but cannot return the Bill for reconsideration.
The Speaker’s certification that a Bill is a Money Bill is of great constitutional importance. It is endorsed on the Bill and serves as conclusive proof of its status. The judiciary generally refrains from questioning this certification, respecting the doctrine of separation of powers.

Judicial Interpretations

Several landmark cases have clarified the scope and interpretation of Article 109 and related provisions:

• Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): This case established the Basic Structure Doctrine, which limits Parliament’s powers to amend the Constitution, including procedures concerning Money Bills.
• Raja Ram Pal v. Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha (2007): The Supreme Court discussed the autonomy of legislative proceedings, including the certification of Money Bills by the Speaker, and reaffirmed judicial restraint in internal parliamentary matters.
• Mohd. Saeed Siddiqui v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2014): The Court reiterated that the Speaker’s decision regarding the classification of a Bill as a Money Bill is final and not subject to judicial review except in cases of gross illegality.

These rulings collectively uphold the sanctity of parliamentary procedure while ensuring accountability within constitutional limits.

Constitutional Significance

Article 109 embodies a crucial democratic principle — financial control by the people’s representatives. By vesting decisive authority in the Lok Sabha, it ensures that public funds and taxation remain accountable to the electorate. The Rajya Sabha’s advisory role provides an element of review without obstructing financial governance.
This arrangement mirrors the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy, where the lower house holds the “power of the purse”. It reflects the belief that since citizens directly bear the burden of taxation and expenditure, their elected representatives should primarily determine fiscal policy.

Relation with Other Constitutional Provisions

Article 109 functions in coordination with several other provisions:

• Article 110: Defines what constitutes a Money Bill.
• Article 111: Deals with the President’s assent to Bills.
• Article 117: Lays down the procedure for financial Bills that are not strictly Money Bills but still involve expenditure from the Consolidated Fund of India.

Together, these provisions form the constitutional framework for financial legislation in India.

Practical and Political Implications

The procedural distinction under Article 109 has significant implications for India’s fiscal administration:

• It grants the Lok Sabha complete control over the passage of the Annual Budget, taxation measures, and fiscal appropriations.
• The Rajya Sabha’s limited role prevents undue delays in the enactment of essential financial legislation.
• However, this concentration of authority has sometimes been criticised, especially when the Money Bill route is used for legislation that arguably extends beyond the strict financial subjects of Article 110.

Debates over the classification of certain bills, such as the Aadhaar Act, 2016, as Money Bills have raised constitutional and political questions regarding the balance of power between the two Houses.

Importance in Parliamentary Democracy

Article 109 reinforces the principle that financial accountability must lie with the chamber directly answerable to the people. It ensures transparency, continuity, and efficiency in fiscal management while preserving parliamentary sovereignty.