Article 109 of the Costitution of India with Case law
📘 Article 109 of the Constitution of India – Special procedure in respect of Money Bills
🔹 Text of Article 109:
(1) A Money Bill shall not be introduced in the Rajya Sabha.
(2) After a Money Bill has been passed by the Lok Sabha, it shall be transmitted to the Rajya Sabha for its recommendations and the Rajya Sabha shall within a period of fourteen days from the date of its receipt of the Bill, return the Bill to the Lok Sabha with its recommendations.
(3) If the Lok Sabha accepts any of the recommendations of the Rajya Sabha, the Money Bill shall be deemed to have been passed by both Houses with the amendments recommended by the Rajya Sabha and accepted by the Lok Sabha.
(4) If the Lok Sabha does not accept any of the recommendations of the Rajya Sabha, the Money Bill shall be deemed to have been passed by both Houses in the form in which it was passed by the Lok Sabha without any of the amendments recommended by the Rajya Sabha.
(5) If a Money Bill passed by the Lok Sabha is not returned to that House by the Rajya Sabha within fourteen days, it shall be deemed to have been passed by both Houses at the expiration of the said period in the form in which it was passed by the Lok Sabha.
🧾 Explanation:
Article 109 establishes the special legislative procedure for Money Bills, clearly limiting the role of the Rajya Sabha. It ensures the primacy of the Lok Sabha in matters relating to public finance.
Only the Lok Sabha can introduce a Money Bill.
Rajya Sabha has no power to amend a Money Bill. It can only recommend changes, which the Lok Sabha may accept or reject.
If the Rajya Sabha doesn’t act within 14 days, the Bill is deemed passed in its original form by both Houses.
⚖️ Important Case Law on Article 109:
🔹 1. Mohd. Saeed Siddiqui v. State of U.P., (2014) 11 SCC 415
Issue: Whether a Bill was rightly certified as a Money Bill.
Observation: The Court held that the Speaker’s certification of a Money Bill is final and cannot be questioned in court (as per Article 110(3)).
🔹 2. Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd., (2020) 6 SCC 1
Context: Challenge to the Finance Act, 2017 being certified as a Money Bill.
Relevance: The Supreme Court expressed serious doubt on whether certain provisions (like tribunals) could be included in a Money Bill.
Held: The Speaker’s decision is subject to judicial review, though only on limited grounds, such as constitutional violation or mala fides.
Referred the issue to a larger bench, overruling Mohd. Saeed Siddiqui in part.
🔹 3. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (Aadhaar Case), (2019) 1 SCC 1
Issue: The Aadhaar Act, 2016 was passed as a Money Bill.
Dissenting opinion (Chandrachud J.): Strongly criticized the classification, stating it violated Article 110 and hence Article 109’s procedure was misused.
Importance: Highlights concerns about misuse of Article 109 to sidestep Rajya Sabha.
📝 Key Takeaways:
Lok Sabha holds supremacy in passing Money Bills.
Rajya Sabha's role is purely recommendatory.
Speaker’s certification of a Money Bill has been judicially questioned.
Misclassification of ordinary Bills as Money Bills can lead to constitutional challenges.
RELATED Blog
0 comments