Parliamentary Legislative Procedure & Types of Bills
Joint Sitting, Money Bill, Financial Bills, Amendment Bills, Public & Private Member Bills — Comprehensive Notes
Joint Sitting of Parliament — Article 108
Meaning & Constitutional Basis
Article 108 empowers the President to summon a joint sitting of both Houses when a legislative deadlock occurs on an Ordinary Bill. The joint sitting is the Constitution’s mechanism for resolving inter-House disagreements — ensuring that the will of the numerically larger Lok Sabha prevails when the two chambers cannot agree. The joint sitting is presided over by the Speaker of Lok Sabha. In the Speaker’s absence, the Deputy Speaker presides; if neither is available, the Deputy Chairman of Rajya Sabha presides.
When Can It Be Called?
A joint sitting may be summoned under three deadlock conditions:
- Bill rejected by the other House (the House to which it was transmitted).
- Houses disagree on amendments — the originating House does not accept the amendments proposed by the other House.
- More than six months elapse from the date of receipt by the other House without the bill being passed.
The decision to summon a joint sitting rests with the President, acting on the advice of the Council of Ministers. It is not automatic — the President (i.e., the executive) exercises discretion on whether to invoke this mechanism. The bill is decided by a simple majority of the total number of members of both Houses present and voting.
Why It Is a Lok Sabha-Dominant Mechanism
In a joint sitting, the numerical strength of Lok Sabha (545 members) far exceeds that of Rajya Sabha (245 members). This means that even if Rajya Sabha unanimously opposes a bill, Lok Sabha’s majority is sufficient to secure passage. The joint sitting is thus structurally designed to break deadlocks in favour of Lok Sabha. This is consistent with the constitutional principle that the directly elected chamber should have the final word on ordinary legislation.
When Joint Sitting CANNOT Be Used
- Money Bill (Art. 110): No joint sitting — LS has overriding power; RS has 14-day advisory role only.
- Constitutional Amendment Bill (Art. 368): No joint sitting — both Houses must individually pass by special majority. Deadlock means the amendment fails.
- Bill passed by both Houses: Joint sitting is only for inter-House disagreement, not for other disputes.
| Year | Bill | Deadlock Reason | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1961 | Dowry Prohibition Bill, 1959 | RS proposed amendments not accepted by LS | Bill passed in joint sitting |
| 1978 | Banking Service Commission (Repeal) Bill, 1977 | RS rejected the Bill | Bill passed in joint sitting |
| 2002 | Prevention of Terrorism Bill (POTA), 2002 | RS rejected the Bill | Bill passed in joint sitting; contentious national security legislation |
Only three joint sittings have occurred in India’s parliamentary history — indicating that the provision serves more as a constitutional deterrent than a routine mechanism. The mere possibility of a joint sitting incentivises Rajya Sabha to negotiate rather than block legislation outright.
If a bill is pending at the time of dissolution of Lok Sabha and the President has already notified a joint sitting, the bill does NOT lapse. The joint sitting can be held even after the new Lok Sabha is constituted. This is one of the few exceptions to the general rule that bills pending in LS lapse on dissolution.
The joint sitting mechanism raises a fundamental question: does it serve cooperative bicameralism (enabling dialogue and resolution) or does it institutionalise Lok Sabha’s dominance (majoritarianism)? Proponents argue that the joint sitting is a democratic safety valve — preventing an indirectly elected Upper House from indefinitely blocking the will of the directly elected Lower House. Critics counter that it undermines the revisory function of Rajya Sabha and converts bicameralism into a formality. The rarity of joint sittings (only three in 75+ years) suggests that the threat itself serves the purpose — Rajya Sabha negotiates because it knows the ultimate consequence. The POTA joint sitting (2002) remains the most controversial, as it was used to push through security legislation that a majority of Rajya Sabha members opposed — raising concerns about executive overreach through procedural devices.
Money Bill — Article 110
Definition
Article 110(1) defines a Money Bill as a bill that contains only provisions dealing with one or more of the following matters:
- Imposition, abolition, remission, alteration, or regulation of any tax.
- Regulation of the borrowing of money by the Government of India.
- Custody of the Consolidated Fund or Contingency Fund of India; payment into or withdrawal from these funds.
- Appropriation of moneys out of the Consolidated Fund of India.
- Declaring any expenditure as charged on the Consolidated Fund.
- Receipt of money on account of the Consolidated Fund or Public Account, or custody/issue of such money, or audit of accounts of the Union or States.
- Any matter incidental to any of the above matters.
The word “only” is constitutionally critical. A bill that contains even one provision beyond these matters ceases to be a Money Bill — it becomes a Financial Bill (Category I) or an Ordinary Bill, depending on its content. This “only” test is the source of the most significant constitutional controversies regarding Money Bill classification.
Speaker’s Certification
Under Article 110(3), the Speaker of Lok Sabha certifies whether a bill is a Money Bill. This decision is final and conclusive — the Constitution explicitly provides that no court or House shall question the Speaker’s certification. This makes the Speaker the sole arbiter of one of the most consequential procedural questions in Indian legislative practice — whether Rajya Sabha will have substantive or merely advisory power over a particular piece of legislation.
Judicial Review Debate
The finality of the Speaker’s certification has been challenged constitutionally. In the Aadhaar case (K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, 2018), the majority (4:1) upheld the Speaker’s certification of the Aadhaar Act as a Money Bill. However, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud’s dissent argued that limited judicial review should be available where the certification is manifestly erroneous or involves a patent misclassification. The dissent characterised the misuse of Money Bill certification as a “fraud on the Constitution” that renders Rajya Sabha irrelevant. A larger bench reference on this issue was pending (as of the last available update — verify from current affairs for latest status).
Passage Procedure
- Appropriation Bill — authorises withdrawal from Consolidated Fund (Art. 114). Classic Money Bill.
- Finance Bill — gives effect to Budget taxation proposals. Certified as Money Bill by Speaker.
- Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery) Act, 2016 — certified as Money Bill; deeply controversial. Justice Chandrachud called it a “fraud on the Constitution” in dissent.
- Finance Act, 2017 — included provisions restructuring tribunals. Challenged as beyond Money Bill scope. (Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank, 2019 — SC struck down tribunal provisions inserted via Money Bill route.)
- Money Bill ≠ Finance Bill. The Finance Bill introduced after the Budget is typically certified as a Money Bill — but the term “Financial Bill” under Art. 117 is a separate, broader category. Do not conflate them.
- RS has 14 days — not 30 days, not “one session.” After 14 days, bill is deemed passed.
- RS can recommend amendments; it cannot amend or reject a Money Bill.
- The Speaker certifies a Money Bill; the President’s prior recommendation is needed for introduction (Art. 110(1)).
- No joint sitting for Money Bill. Ever. This is a frequently tested negative fact.
- The President cannot return a Money Bill for reconsideration (Art. 111 proviso).
Financial Bills — Article 117
A. Financial Bill Category I — Article 117(1)
A Financial Bill Category I contains provisions dealing with any of the matters specified in Article 110 (taxation, borrowing, Consolidated Fund, etc.) but also contains other matters that fall outside the Money Bill definition. The key distinction from a Money Bill is the word “only” — a Money Bill deals only with Art. 110 matters; a Financial Bill Category I deals with Art. 110 matters plus additional matters.
Procedure
- Can be introduced only in Lok Sabha (like a Money Bill).
- Requires the President’s recommendation for introduction.
- BUT — Rajya Sabha has full powers to amend or reject (unlike a Money Bill).
- If there is a deadlock, a joint sitting under Art. 108 is possible.
- The President can return the bill for reconsideration.
- A bill that imposes a new tax (Art. 110 matter) and creates a regulatory authority (non-Art. 110 matter) — e.g., a bill establishing a goods-and-services tax council with regulatory powers alongside the tax provisions.
- A bill providing for withdrawal from the Consolidated Fund and establishing a new public institution — the financial and non-financial provisions are combined.
B. Financial Bill Category II — Article 117(3)
A Financial Bill Category II is a bill that involves expenditure from the Consolidated Fund of India but does not contain any of the matters listed in Article 110. It does not deal with taxation, borrowing, or the Consolidated Fund mechanisms — it merely creates a charge or expenditure obligation that would need to be met from the Consolidated Fund.
Procedure
- Can be introduced in either House (unlike Money Bill and Financial Bill I).
- Requires the President’s recommendation before the bill can be considered (not for introduction — a subtle but crucial distinction from Financial Bill I).
- Rajya Sabha has full powers — can amend or reject.
- Joint sitting under Art. 108 is possible.
- Follows the procedure of an ordinary bill in all respects.
- A bill establishing a new commission (e.g., a National Human Rights Commission bill) that would involve expenditure from the Consolidated Fund for salaries and infrastructure — but does not deal with taxation or borrowing.
- A bill creating a new government scheme (e.g., a rural employment guarantee scheme) where the expenditure is charged or voted from the Consolidated Fund, but the bill itself does not amend any tax law.
Financial Bill I: President’s recommendation needed for introduction.
Financial Bill II: President’s recommendation needed for consideration (not introduction). This is a classic UPSC trap. The difference in timing (introduction vs consideration) determines whether the bill can even be tabled without executive consent or can be tabled but not proceeded with.
Comparative Table — Money Bill vs Financial Bill I vs Financial Bill II
| Feature | Money Bill (Art. 110) | Financial Bill I (Art. 117(1)) | Financial Bill II (Art. 117(3)) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutional Article | Article 110 | Article 117(1) | Article 117(3) |
| Content Scope | Only Art. 110 matters (tax, borrowing, Consolidated Fund, etc.) | Art. 110 matters plus other provisions | Does NOT contain Art. 110 matters; involves expenditure from Consolidated Fund |
| Introduction | Only in Lok Sabha | Only in Lok Sabha | Either House |
| President’s Recommendation | Required for introduction | Required for introduction | Required for consideration (not introduction) |
| Rajya Sabha Powers | Recommend only; 14-day limit | Full powers — can amend/reject | Full powers — can amend/reject |
| Joint Sitting (Art. 108)? | No | Yes | Yes |
| Speaker Certification? | Yes — mandatory, final, conclusive | No | No |
| President Can Return? | No (must assent or withhold) | Yes | Yes |
| Typical Examples | Appropriation Bill, Finance Bill | Bill with tax + regulatory provisions combined | Bill creating an institution involving Consolidated Fund expenditure |
| Key UPSC Trap | “All Finance Bills are Money Bills” — FALSE | Confused with Money Bill due to LS-only introduction | Confused with Financial Bill I; note “consideration” vs “introduction” |
The “Finance Bill” introduced after the Budget (the annual taxation legislation) is typically certified as a Money Bill by the Speaker. But the constitutional category “Financial Bill” under Art. 117 is a distinct classification. Do not equate the annual “Finance Bill” with “Financial Bill.” They overlap in name but differ fundamentally in constitutional treatment.
Constitutional Amendment Bill — Article 368
Purpose & Special Procedure
Article 368 vests Parliament with constituent power — the power to amend the Constitution itself. This power is distinguished from ordinary legislative power by a higher procedural threshold, reflecting the constitutional principle that the fundamental law of the land should not be as easily alterable as ordinary legislation.
Types of Amendments
A. Simple Majority (Outside Article 368)
Certain constitutional provisions can be amended by a simple majority of members present and voting — the same majority required for ordinary legislation. These are not technically amendments under Art. 368 but are alterations permitted by specific constitutional provisions. This is a frequently misunderstood point in UPSC. Examples include:
- Admission or establishment of new states (Art. 2)
- Formation of new states, alteration of boundaries, names (Art. 3)
- Citizenship provisions (Art. 11)
- Creation/abolition of Legislative Councils in states (Art. 169)
- Quorum in Parliament (Art. 100)
- Salaries and allowances of MPs (Art. 106)
- Use of official languages (Art. 343, 346)
- Fifth and Sixth Schedule (administration of Scheduled Areas and Tribal Areas)
B. Special Majority (Art. 368)
The standard Art. 368 amendment requires passage in each House by a special majority: a majority of the total membership of that House and a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting. This dual requirement is more stringent than either a simple majority or an absolute majority alone. Most constitutional amendments fall in this category.
Example: Fundamental Rights amendments, DPSP amendments, most structural changes to constitutional institutions (e.g., 42nd Amendment, 44th Amendment, 52nd Amendment inserting the Tenth Schedule).
C. Special Majority + Ratification by Half the States
The most rigorous procedure applies to amendments that affect the federal structure. In addition to the special majority in both Houses, ratification by the legislatures of not less than one-half of the states (by simple majority in each state legislature) is required. Provisions requiring this procedure include:
- Election of the President (Art. 54, 55)
- Extent of executive power of the Union and States (Art. 73, 162)
- Supreme Court and High Courts (Art. 124–147, Art. 214–231)
- Distribution of legislative powers (Seventh Schedule lists)
- Representation of states in Parliament
- Article 368 itself
Example: The 101st Constitutional Amendment (GST) required state ratification because it altered the distribution of legislative powers between the Centre and States. The 73rd and 74th Amendments (Panchayati Raj and Municipalities) also required ratification.
Procedure — Key Points
- Can be introduced in either House (Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha).
- Can be introduced by a Minister or a Private Member — no prior Presidential recommendation required.
- No joint sitting — if either House fails to pass by special majority, the amendment fails. There is no mechanism to resolve a deadlock on constitutional amendments.
- President’s assent: Under the 24th Amendment (1971), the President must give assent to a Constitutional Amendment Bill — cannot withhold it or return it for reconsideration.
The Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) held that Parliament’s amending power under Art. 368 is subject to the Basic Structure limitation — Parliament cannot amend the Constitution to destroy its basic structure. The Basic Structure includes: supremacy of the Constitution, republican and democratic form of government, secular character, separation of powers, federal character, judicial review, fundamental rights (core), and rule of law. This doctrine was reaffirmed in Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) and I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007). The Basic Structure doctrine gives the judiciary the final word on the limits of amending power — a unique Indian contribution to constitutional jurisprudence.
The constitutional amendment procedure embodies a deliberate balancing act between rigidity and flexibility. The three-tier structure (simple majority, special majority, special majority + ratification) ensures that routine matters can be updated easily while fundamental structural changes require broader consensus. The absence of a joint sitting mechanism for amendment bills protects Rajya Sabha’s veto — reflecting the federal principle that constitutional changes affecting states should not be railroaded by the Lower House alone. Critics argue the procedure is too rigid for a developing nation, while defenders (invoking Kesavananda Bharati) argue that rigidity is the price of constitutional supremacy. For GS-II, this tension between flexibility and constitutional sanctity is a recurring analytical theme.
Public Bill vs Private Member Bill
| Feature | Public Bill (Government Bill) | Private Member Bill |
|---|---|---|
| Introduced by | A Minister on behalf of the government | Any MP who is not a Minister |
| Drafting | Drafted by the Law Ministry / concerned department | Drafted by the individual MP (or with assistance from legislative staff) |
| Notice Period | 7 days | 1 month |
| Agenda Time | Any day of the week | Only on Fridays (2:30 PM onwards) — limited time |
| Government Support | Full government backing; whip enforced | No government backing; often no whip (may even be opposed) |
| Success Rate | Very high — almost all pass | Extremely rare; only 14 private member bills have been passed since 1952 |
| Political Reality | Executive controls legislative calendar; passage virtually guaranteed | Signalling device; raises issues; rarely progresses beyond introduction |
Significance of Private Member Bills
Despite their near-zero success rate, private member bills serve essential democratic functions. They allow individual MPs to place issues on the legislative agenda that the government may neglect, signal public opinion on emerging concerns, provoke public debate, and sometimes catalyse government action — the government may introduce its own version of a policy originally proposed through a private member bill. They also test the independence of MPs vis-à-vis party discipline.
Historical Examples
- The last private member bill passed in Lok Sabha was the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Bill, 1968 — over five decades ago.
- In Rajya Sabha, the Rights of Transgender Persons Bill, 2014 (introduced by Tiruchi Siva) was passed — a rare instance. The government subsequently introduced its own version.
- Numerous private member bills on issues like Uniform Civil Code, population control, anti-corruption, and electoral reforms have been introduced but never passed. (Verify from current affairs for latest private member bills introduced.)
| Feature | India | UK | USA |
|---|---|---|---|
| Success Rate | Negligible (14 passed in 70+ years) | Low but measurable; some pass each session via ballot, ten-minute rule, or presentation | High by comparison; members drive legislation; executive separate |
| Party Discipline Impact | Tenth Schedule makes crossing party lines near-impossible | Strong whip but no anti-defection law; free votes possible | Weak party discipline; members vote independently |
| Executive Control | Dominant — controls agenda, whip, business schedule | Significant but conventions allow private members’ time | Minimal — Congress sets its own agenda |
| Committee Role | Limited for private member bills | Committees may adopt and advance PMBs | Committees are gatekeepers; can advance or kill bills |
The Indian Parliament’s executive dominance — reinforced by the anti-defection law — makes the private member bill the weakest legislative instrument. In the US, individual members drive legislation through powerful committees. In the UK, a more balanced middle ground exists. India’s reform path lies in strengthening committee systems and allocating more floor time for private member discussions.
UPSC Orientation — Prelims Quick Revision
One-Line Definitions
| Bill Type | Core Definition | Key Article |
|---|---|---|
| Ordinary Bill | Any bill that is not a Money, Financial, or Amendment Bill | Art. 107–111 |
| Money Bill | Bill dealing ONLY with taxation, borrowing, Consolidated Fund matters | Art. 110 |
| Financial Bill I | Contains Art. 110 matters + other provisions | Art. 117(1) |
| Financial Bill II | Involves Consolidated Fund expenditure but NOT Art. 110 matters | Art. 117(3) |
| Constitutional Amendment Bill | Bill to amend any provision of the Constitution | Art. 368 |
Joint Sitting Applicability Matrix
| Bill Type | Joint Sitting (Art. 108)? | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Ordinary Bill | ✅ Yes | Standard deadlock resolution |
| Money Bill | ❌ No | LS has overriding power; no deadlock possible |
| Financial Bill I | ✅ Yes | RS has full powers; deadlock possible |
| Financial Bill II | ✅ Yes | RS has full powers; deadlock possible |
| Constitutional Amendment Bill | ❌ No | Both Houses must individually pass by special majority |
Rajya Sabha Powers — Quick Matrix
| Bill Type | RS Can Amend? | RS Can Reject? | Time Limit for RS? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ordinary Bill | ✅ Yes | ✅ Yes (triggers joint sitting possibility) | 6 months (Art. 108 trigger) |
| Money Bill | ❌ Recommend only | ❌ No | 14 days |
| Financial Bill I | ✅ Yes | ✅ Yes | No specific limit |
| Financial Bill II | ✅ Yes | ✅ Yes | No specific limit |
| Constitutional Amendment Bill | ✅ Yes (must pass by special majority) | ✅ Yes (kills the bill) | No limit |
PYQ Heat Map — Trend-Based Analysis
| Topic | Frequency | Why UPSC Asks It |
|---|---|---|
| Money Bill — Definition, RS powers, Speaker certification | HIGH | Tests constitutional literacy; multiple trap options possible; Aadhaar controversy gave it current affairs angle |
| Joint Sitting — When possible/not possible | HIGH | Negative facts (when NOT possible) are classic traps; tests bicameralism understanding |
| Financial Bill I vs II distinction | MEDIUM | Tests precision; introduction vs consideration distinction is nuanced |
| Constitutional Amendment types | HIGH | Simple vs special vs ratification — tests knowledge of specific articles and examples |
| Basic Structure Doctrine | HIGH | Regularly tested in both Prelims (factual) and Mains (analytical) |
| Private Member Bills | LOW | Occasionally tested; more Mains-relevant for essays on parliamentary decline |
| Ordinary Bill passage procedure | MEDIUM | Tests step-by-step procedural knowledge; combined with joint sitting questions |
| Money Bill vs Financial Bill comparison | HIGH | UPSC loves comparison-based questions with tabular trap options |
UPSC Mains Questions
Q1. “The Money Bill route has been increasingly used to bypass Rajya Sabha’s revisory function.” Critically examine with reference to recent controversies. (250 words)
Q2. Distinguish between Money Bill, Financial Bill Category I, and Financial Bill Category II with respect to their constitutional provisions and Rajya Sabha’s role. (150 words)
Q3. Is the joint sitting mechanism under Article 108 a tool for cooperative bicameralism or for institutionalising Lok Sabha’s dominance? Discuss. (250 words)
Q4. Explain the procedure for amendment of the Constitution under Article 368. Why does the Constitution provide for different types of majorities? (150 words)
Q5. “The Speaker’s certification of a Money Bill is final and beyond judicial review.” Examine the constitutional basis and the arguments for introducing limited judicial review. (250 words)
Q6. “The Basic Structure doctrine is the judiciary’s contribution to Indian constitutionalism.” Discuss its evolution and significance for the amending power of Parliament. (250 words)
Q7. What is the significance of private member bills in Indian parliamentary democracy? Why do they rarely succeed? (150 words)
Q8. “The anti-defection law has converted Parliament from a deliberative body into a voting machine.” Discuss in the context of private member bills, cut motions, and financial legislation. (250 words)
Q9. Under what circumstances can a joint sitting of Parliament be called? Why is it not available for Money Bills and Constitutional Amendment Bills? (150 words)
Q10. “Rajya Sabha’s role in the legislative process ranges from co-equal to advisory depending on the nature of the bill.” Examine this statement with constitutional references. (250 words)
Q11. Evaluate the implications of the Supreme Court’s observations in the Aadhaar case regarding the misuse of the Money Bill route. Should Article 110 be amended? (250 words)
Q12. Explain the three categories of constitutional amendments in India with examples. Why is no joint sitting permitted for constitutional amendment bills? (150 words)
Answer Writing Frameworks
Framework — Q1: Money Bill Route Bypassing Rajya Sabha
Framework — Q3: Joint Sitting — Cooperative Bicameralism or Majoritarianism?
Framework — Q5: Speaker’s Money Bill Certification & Judicial Review
Framework — Q6: Basic Structure Doctrine
Framework — Q10: Rajya Sabha’s Variable Role
Framework — Q7: Private Member Bills — Significance
Prelims MCQs — With Answers & Explanations
A joint sitting under Article 108 can be called for:
- An Ordinary Bill only
- An Ordinary Bill and Financial Bill I
- An Ordinary Bill, Financial Bill I, and Financial Bill II
- All types of Bills including Constitutional Amendment Bills
Show Answer
With respect to a Money Bill, Rajya Sabha can:
- Amend and return it to Lok Sabha
- Reject it outright
- Recommend amendments within 14 days
- Hold it indefinitely
Show Answer
Consider the following statements about Financial Bill Category I:
1. It can be introduced in either House.
2. The President’s recommendation is required for its introduction.
3. Rajya Sabha has full powers to amend or reject it.
Which of the above is/are correct?
- 1 and 3 only
- 2 and 3 only
- 1, 2, and 3
- 3 only
Show Answer
Which of the following amendments to the Constitution require ratification by legislatures of not less than half the states?
1. Amendment to Article 368 itself
2. Amendment to the Seventh Schedule
3. Amendment to Article 19 (Fundamental Rights)
- 1 and 2 only
- 2 and 3 only
- 1, 2, and 3
- 1 only
Show Answer
The Speaker’s certification of a Money Bill under Article 110:
- Can be challenged in the Supreme Court
- Is subject to approval by the President
- Is final and cannot be questioned in any court or by either House
- Requires endorsement by the Deputy Speaker
Show Answer
A Constitutional Amendment Bill can be introduced:
- Only in Lok Sabha
- Only in Rajya Sabha
- In either House of Parliament
- Only by a Minister with prior Presidential recommendation
Show Answer
How many joint sittings of Parliament have been held in India?
- One
- Two
- Three
- Five
Show Answer
The key difference between Financial Bill Category I and Category II regarding President’s recommendation is:
- Category I needs it for introduction; Category II needs it for consideration
- Category I needs it for consideration; Category II needs it for introduction
- Both need it for introduction
- Neither requires President’s recommendation
Show Answer
Consider the following statements:
1. The President can return a Money Bill for reconsideration.
2. The President must give assent to a Constitutional Amendment Bill passed by both Houses.
Which is/are correct?
- 1 only
- 2 only
- Both 1 and 2
- Neither 1 nor 2
Show Answer
Who presides over a joint sitting of Parliament under Article 108?
- Chairman of Rajya Sabha
- Speaker of Lok Sabha
- The senior-most member of Parliament
- A person nominated by the President
Show Answer
Frequently Asked Questions
Can Rajya Sabha stop a Money Bill?
No. Rajya Sabha has no power to amend, reject, or block a Money Bill. Under Article 109, RS can only recommend amendments within 14 days. If it fails to return the bill within 14 days, the bill is deemed passed by both Houses in the form in which it was passed by Lok Sabha. Lok Sabha is free to accept or reject any recommendations made by RS. The Money Bill procedure is the clearest expression of Lok Sabha’s financial supremacy.
Can a joint sitting be called for a Constitutional Amendment Bill?
No. Article 108 specifically excludes Constitutional Amendment Bills from the joint sitting mechanism. If either House fails to pass a Constitutional Amendment Bill by the required special majority, the amendment simply fails. There is no deadlock resolution mechanism — this is by constitutional design. The requirement that both Houses independently approve amendments by special majority protects the federal structure and prevents Lok Sabha from overriding Rajya Sabha on fundamental constitutional changes.
Is the Speaker’s decision on Money Bill classification final?
As per the constitutional text (Article 110(3)), yes — the Speaker’s certification is “final” and “shall not be called in question in any court.” However, the judicial debate has evolved. Justice Chandrachud’s dissent in the Aadhaar case (2018) argued for limited judicial review where the Speaker’s certification is “manifestly erroneous.” A larger bench reference on this question was pending as of the last update. The constitutional text remains clear, but the academic and judicial consensus is shifting toward some form of limited review to prevent abuse of the Money Bill route. (Verify from current affairs for latest bench status.)
What is the difference between Financial Bill Category I and Category II?
Financial Bill I (Art. 117(1)): Contains Art. 110 matters (taxation, Consolidated Fund, etc.) PLUS other non-financial provisions. Introduced only in Lok Sabha. President’s recommendation needed for introduction. RS has full powers. Joint sitting possible.
Financial Bill II (Art. 117(3)): Does NOT contain Art. 110 matters but involves expenditure from the Consolidated Fund. Can be introduced in either House. President’s recommendation needed for consideration (not introduction). RS has full powers. Joint sitting possible.
The critical distinction: Category I = Art. 110 matters + extras (LS-only introduction); Category II = No Art. 110 matters, just Consolidated Fund expenditure (either House introduction). Also, recommendation timing differs: introduction vs consideration.
Can a private member bill become law?
Yes, constitutionally there is no bar — a private member bill follows the same legislative procedure as a government bill. However, in practice, it is extraordinarily rare. Only 14 private member bills have been passed in Indian parliamentary history since 1952. The last one in Lok Sabha was in 1970. Executive control of the legislative calendar, party discipline under the Tenth Schedule, limited Friday afternoon time, and the absence of a committee pathway for private member bills all contribute to their near-zero success rate. Their significance lies more in signalling and agenda-setting than in actual legislative outcomes.
Why can’t the President return a Money Bill for reconsideration?
Under Article 111, the President can return a bill for reconsideration — but the proviso to Article 111 specifically excludes Money Bills from this power. The President can either assent to or withhold assent from a Money Bill. Since the Money Bill is introduced on the President’s own recommendation (acting on ministerial advice under Art. 74), returning it would be constitutionally contradictory. The practical effect: once a Money Bill is passed by Lok Sabha (and transmitted through RS), Presidential assent is virtually automatic.
What happens if a bill is pending when Lok Sabha is dissolved, but a joint sitting has been notified?
Under Article 108(5), if the President has notified a joint sitting before the dissolution of Lok Sabha, the bill does NOT lapse. The joint sitting can proceed with the newly constituted Lok Sabha and the continuing Rajya Sabha. This is an important exception to the general rule that bills pending in Lok Sabha lapse upon dissolution. However, if no joint sitting notification has been issued before dissolution, the bill lapses.
Does the “simple majority” category of constitutional amendment actually use Article 368?
No — and this is a critical conceptual clarification. Amendments that require only a simple majority (like creation of new states under Art. 3, or citizenship provisions under Art. 11) are not amendments under Article 368. They are alterations permitted by the specific constitutional provisions themselves. Article 368 governs only amendments requiring special majority (with or without state ratification). The Constituent Assembly deliberately placed certain provisions outside Art. 368’s ambit to allow flexibility for routine administrative and territorial changes. UPSC frequently tests this distinction.
Who certifies a Financial Bill as Category I or Category II?
There is no formal certification process for Financial Bills analogous to the Speaker’s Money Bill certification under Art. 110(3). The classification depends on the bill’s content — if it contains Art. 110 matters plus other matters, it is Category I; if it involves Consolidated Fund expenditure without Art. 110 matters, it is Category II. The Speaker may make a ruling on classification if challenged, but there is no constitutionally mandated certification. This distinguishes Financial Bills from Money Bills, where Speaker certification is a formal constitutional requirement.
