Part V: The Union

Procedure in Financial Matters

Article 113: Procedure in Parliament with respect to estimates

--- Original Article ---

(1) So much of the estimates as relates to expenditure charged upon the Consolidated Fund of India shall not be submitted to the vote of Parliament, but nothing in this clause shall be construed as preventing the discussion in either House of Parliament of any of those estimates.

(2) So much of the said estimates as relates to other expenditure shall be submitted in the form of demands for grants to the House of the People, and the House of the People shall have power to assent, or to refuse to assent, to any demand, or to assent to any demand subject to a reduction of the amount specified therein.

(3) No demand for a grant shall be made except on the recommendation of the President.

Explanations

Article 113 of the Constitution of India outlines the procedure that must be followed in Parliament concerning the estimates of government expenditure. This Article distinguishes between two types of expenditures: those charged upon the Consolidated Fund of India and other expenditures that require parliamentary approval. It ensures a structured financial process, empowering Parliament to scrutinize and approve demands for grants while maintaining the authority of the executive.

Clause-by-Clause Explanation

Clause (1): Expenditure Charged Upon the Consolidated Fund of India

Clause (1) establishes that expenditure charged upon the Consolidated Fund of India, such as salaries of the President, judges, and debt-related payments, does not require the approval of Parliament through a vote. However, it permits discussion on these expenditures in either House of Parliament. This ensures transparency and accountability while respecting constitutional limitations.

Clause (2): Demands for Grants and the Role of the House of the People

Clause (2) states that other forms of government expenditure not charged upon the Consolidated Fund must be presented to the House of the People in the form of demands for grants. The House has the authority to approve, reject, or reduce these demands. This empowers the legislative body to review the government’s financial proposals, ensuring that the executive’s financial control is subject to legislative oversight.

Clause (3): Presidential Recommendation for Grants

Clause (3) emphasizes that no demand for grants can be made without the President's recommendation. This ensures that financial proposals submitted to Parliament come with the executive's approval, maintaining the balance of powers between the legislature and the executive.

Real-Life Examples

• A notable example of Article 113 in action was during discussions on the Union Budget. When a proposal for increased expenditure on social welfare was presented, the House of the People reviewed and debated the expenditure. While there was no direct vote on charged expenditures such as interest payments on government loans, extensive debates ensured proper scrutiny of all expenditures.

Historical Significance

Article 113 reflects the balance of power between the executive and legislature in financial matters, a key feature of parliamentary democracy. Its roots can be traced back to the British system, where similar procedures govern financial appropriations. By delineating the responsibilities of Parliament and the executive, Article 113 ensures fiscal accountability while upholding the principle of legislative oversight.

Legislative History

Article 113 of the Indian Constitution, initially drafted and deliberated as Article 93 of the Draft Constitution, was ultimately included in the Indian Constitution on June 10, 1949.

Debates and Amendments

During the constitutional debates, Professor K. T. Shah proposed an amendment to article 93 aimed at strengthening parliamentary oversight over financial matters. He criticized the practice of designating certain public expenditures as non-votable by placing them in the Consolidated Fund of India, which he argued limited parliamentary scrutiny. Shah asserted that while some expenditures might need to be charged on the revenues of India, Parliament should retain the authority to legislate and remove items from the non-votable list in future years. Despite his advocacy, Shah's proposal was ultimately negatived by the assembly.

Separately, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar proposed an amendment to clause (1) of article 93, substituting the term 'revenues of India' with 'Consolidated Fund of India'. Following deliberation, this amendment was accepted by the assembly. The amended Article 93 was later adopted and included in the final version of the Constitution.

References

• The Constitution of India - Article 113, Procedure in Parliament with respect to estimates.
• Constituent Assembly Debates - Debates surrounding Article 93 (Draft Article 93).
• Basu, D.D. "Commentary on the Constitution of India".
• Indian Parliament - Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha.
• Jain, M.P., "Indian Constitutional Law," 8th Edition - Financial procedures and accountability.