My purpose in coming to the forum is not so much to speak about it as about clause (3)-I want to draw the attention of the House to clause (3) of this article. I want them to vote on it knowing fully the implications. It says: “Subject to the provisions of the next two succeeding articles, no money shall be drawn from out of the Consolidated Fund of India except under appropriation made by law passed in accordance with the provisions of this article.” Article 95 provides for supplementary or excess grants. Therefore, clause (3) means that for the purpose of supplementary and excess grants money can be drawn without the vote of Parliament. Is that the purpose? I can understand expenditure being incurred by the Government at their own risk, but payment should be deferred till vote is given by Parliament. But as the clause stands payments can be made by someone or other out of the Consolidated Fund without a vote of Parliament. I think that more or less nullifies the entire effort to see that no money is paid without a vote. Therefore, I suggest that clause (3) must go and necessary provision should be made in article 95. I suggest that this is essential to make the law effective.
