(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.

Debate Summary

Draft Article 93, Draft Constitution 1948

(1) So much of the estimates as relates to expenditure charged upon the revenues 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 these 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.

 

Draft Article 93 (Article 113, Constitution of India 1950) was debated in the Constituent Assembly on 10 June 1949. It stated that the estimated expenses of the Government of India should be submitted to Parliament for approval in the form of ‘demand for grants’. Further, it declared that certain items of expenditure need not be put to vote in the Parliament – though they could be discussed in both Houses.  

One Member opposed the Draft Article as he believed in the supreme authority of Parliament in deciding over the country’s financial matters. He objected to the Draft Article’s specification that certain items of expenditure did not require the Parliament’s vote of assent or dissent. He felt this policy was a legacy of the colonial regime where the British authorities would have preferred to hide certain items of expenditure from the people of India. In independent India, he argued, Parliament as the sovereign body, ‘should have the right to discuss every item of expenditure and also to vote upon it’. The Member’s argument was not taken up for further discussion in the Assembly. 

The Chairman of the Drafting Committee moved an amendment to rename ‘revenues of India’ to ‘Consolidated Fund of India’. 

The Assembly accepted the amendment brought in by the Drafting Committee Chairman and adopted the Article on 10th June 1949.