Article 113

Article 113 of the Constitution of India defines the procedure Parliament must follow in dealing with financial estimates, particularly those concerning the allocation, approval, and control of government expenditure. This article ensures a structured financial process, allowing for both executive initiative and legislative oversight, thereby maintaining accountability and transparency in the management of public funds.

Constitutional Framework and Purpose

Article 113 functions as an extension of Article 112, which mandates the presentation of the Annual Financial Statement (Union Budget) before Parliament. Once the statement has been laid before both Houses, Article 113 provides the mechanism for its consideration and approval, specifically with regard to government expenditure.
The article distinguishes between two categories of expenditure — those charged on the Consolidated Fund of India and those subject to the vote of Parliament, thereby preserving a balance between executive authority and parliamentary control.

Expenditure Charged on the Consolidated Fund of India

Under Clause (1) of Article 113, certain expenditures are charged directly on the Consolidated Fund of India and therefore do not require approval by a vote of Parliament. These include constitutionally guaranteed expenditures such as:

• Salaries and allowances of the President, Vice President, and Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts.
• The Comptroller and Auditor-General of India (CAG) and other constitutional authorities.
• Debt charges for which the Government of India is liable.
• Any other expenditure declared by the Constitution or by Parliament to be charged on the Fund.

While Parliament cannot vote on these expenditures, both Houses retain the right to discuss them. This provision ensures transparency without infringing upon the independence of key constitutional offices whose functioning must remain free from political influence.

Expenditure Not Charged on the Consolidated Fund

Under Clause (2), expenditures that are not charged on the Consolidated Fund are presented to the Lok Sabha as Demands for Grants. Each ministry or department of the Union Government presents a separate demand for the funds required for its functioning during the financial year.
The Lok Sabha, as the directly elected House of the people, has the authority to:

• Approve the demand in full.
• Reduce the demand (through mechanisms such as a cut motion).
• Reject the demand entirely.

The Rajya Sabha may discuss these demands but cannot vote on them. This ensures that financial control rests with the House of the People, reinforcing the principle of democratic accountability in fiscal matters.

Requirement of Presidential Recommendation

According to Clause (3) of Article 113, no demand for a grant may be made except on the recommendation of the President of India. This condition ensures that the executive branch initiates all financial proposals in Parliament, maintaining coherence in fiscal policy and preventing arbitrary financial commitments by individual legislators.
The President acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers, thereby linking the executive’s financial responsibilities with its political accountability to Parliament.

Key Financial Concepts

To understand the working of Article 113, two important financial concepts are central:

• Consolidated Fund of India: The principal government account into which all revenues, loans, and receipts are credited. All expenditure, whether charged or voted, is met from this fund.
• Demands for Grants: The formal requests made by various ministries or departments for funds from the Consolidated Fund of India to meet their operational and developmental requirements.

These demands form the foundation for subsequent financial legislation, such as the Appropriation Bill and the Finance Bill.

Related Constitutional Provisions

Article 113 operates within a comprehensive constitutional framework that regulates the Union’s financial administration:

• Article 112: Provides for the Annual Financial Statement, presenting estimates of receipts and expenditure.
• Article 114: Authorises expenditure from the Consolidated Fund of India through the Appropriation Bill.
• Article 115: Deals with Supplementary, Additional, and Excess Grants to meet unanticipated expenses during the financial year.
• Article 116: Provides for Votes on Account, Votes of Credit, and Exceptional Grants to manage temporary or urgent financial requirements.

These provisions collectively ensure continuous legislative oversight over the government’s financial operations.

Significance of Article 113

Article 113 serves as a cornerstone of India’s parliamentary financial control mechanism. Its constitutional significance can be summarised as follows:

• It empowers the Lok Sabha to exercise authority over government expenditure, upholding the democratic principle that public money must be spent only with the consent of the people’s representatives.
• It clearly differentiates between charged and votable expenditures, thereby safeguarding the autonomy of constitutional offices while maintaining fiscal accountability.
• It ensures transparency by mandating open discussion of all expenditures, even those not subject to a vote.
• It links the executive and legislature through the President’s recommendation, ensuring that fiscal policy remains coherent and constitutionally valid.

Thus, Article 113 reinforces the financial sovereignty of Parliament while preventing misuse or mismanagement of public funds.

Practical Implications and Legislative Process

In practice, after the presentation of the Union Budget under Article 112, the Demands for Grants are discussed and voted upon in the Lok Sabha. The process involves:

1. General Discussion: Members discuss the overall financial policy and priorities.
2. Detailed Consideration: Individual demands are examined by Departmental Standing Committees and debated in the House.
3. Voting on Demands: The Lok Sabha approves, reduces, or rejects demands through a formal vote.
4. Appropriation Bill: Following approval, the Appropriation Bill is introduced under Article 114 to authorise withdrawal of funds from the Consolidated Fund.

This step-by-step process ensures systematic financial planning and accountability in public expenditure.

Historical Context

The procedures embodied in Article 113 draw inspiration from the British parliamentary system, where the “power of the purse” resides with the elected House of Commons. The framers of the Indian Constitution adopted this model to ensure legislative supremacy in financial matters, thereby protecting public funds from arbitrary executive use.
The Indian adaptation, however, introduced constitutional safeguards — such as the President’s recommendation — to maintain fiscal discipline and executive responsibility.

Judicial Perspective

While no Supreme Court case has directly interpreted Article 113, the judiciary has consistently upheld the sanctity of parliamentary financial procedures. Related judgments, such as Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980) and Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), reaffirm the constitutional principle that financial control is an integral aspect of India’s basic structure, embodying democratic accountability and separation of powers.

Constitutional Importance

Article 113 ensures that financial governance in India remains firmly under the oversight of Parliament. It balances executive initiative with legislative scrutiny, maintaining the constitutional equilibrium between efficiency and accountability. By establishing a clear procedure for managing public expenditure, it strengthens India’s fiscal framework and upholds the democratic principle that the government must justify every rupee it spends to the representatives of the people.