Polity

Context: In response to challenges against the Centre's use of the money bill route to pass significant legislations, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud has announced the formation of a seven-judge bench. Money bills, as defined by Article 110 of the Constitution, encompass provisions related to taxation, borrowing of money, fund custody, appropriation, expenditure declarations, and more. They hold a unique status in India's parliamentary process, with a special procedure for their passage. Only the Lok Sabha can introduce money bills, which require the President's recommendation and the Speaker's certification.

The Rajya Sabha can offer recommendations but cannot amend or reject them. This distinction between money bills and ordinary bills, along with the Speaker's crucial role, has been a subject of judicial review, with the Supreme Court providing guidelines on when and how the Speaker's decisions can be challenged, ensuring the constitutional checks and balances are upheld.

What is a Money Bills?

Article 110 of the Constitution deals with the definition of money bills. It states that a bill is deemed to be a money bill if it contains ‘only’ provisions dealing with all or any of the following matters:

1. The imposition, abolition, remission, alteration or regulation of any tax;
2. The regulation of the borrowing of money by the Union government;
3. The custody of the Consolidated Fund of India or the contingency fund of India, the payment of moneys into or the withdrawal of money from any such fund;
4. The appropriation of money out of the Consolidated Fund of India;
5. Declaration of any expenditure charged on the Consolidated Fund of India or increasing the amount of any such expenditure;
6. The receipt of money on account of the Consolidated Fund of India or the public account of India or the custody or issue of such money, or the audit of the accounts of the Union or of a state; or
7. Any matter incidental to any of the matters specified above.

However, a bill is not to be deemed to be a money bill by reason only that it provides for:

1. the imposition of fines or other pecuniary penalties, or
2. the demand or payment of fees for licenses or fees for services rendered; or
3. the imposition, abolition, remission, alteration or regulation of any tax by any local authority or body for local purposes.

If any question arises whether a bill is a money bill or not, the decision of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha is final. His decision in this regard cannot be questioned in any court of law or in the either House of Parliament or even the president. When a money bill is transmitted to the Rajya Sabha for recommendation and presented to the president for assent, the Speaker endorses it as a money bill.

What is the procedure for passing of money bill in parliament?

• The Constitution lays down a special procedure for the passing of money bills in the Parliament. A money bill can only be introduced in the Lok Sabha and that too on the recommendation of the president. Every such bill is considered to be a government bill and can be introduced only by a minister.
• It cannot reject or amend a money bill. It can only make the recommendations. It must return the bill to the Lok Sabha within 14 days, whether with or without recommendations. The Lok Sabha can either accept or reject all or any of the recommendations of the Rajya Sabha.
• If the Lok Sabha accepts any recommendation, the bill is then deemed to have been passed by both the Houses in the modified form. If the Lok Sabha does not accept any recommendation, the bill is then deemed to have passed by both the Houses in the form originally passed by the Lok Sabha without any change.
• If the Rajya Sabha does not return the bill to the Lok Sabha within 14 days, the bill is deemed to have been passed by both the Houses in the form originally passed by the Lok Sabha. Thus, the Lok Sabha has more powers than Rajya Sabha with regard to a money bill. On the other hand, both the Houses have equal powers with regard to an ordinary bill.

Finally, when a money bill is presented to the president, he may either give his assent to the bill or withhold his assent to the bill but cannot return the bill for reconsideration of the Houses. Normally, the president gives his assent to a money bill as it is introduced in the Parliament with his prior permission.

Difference between Money Bill and Ordinary Bill

Role of the Speaker

• The speaker plays a powerful role in the matter of the money bill. If any question arises whether a bill introduced in Lok Sabha is a money bill or not then in such circumstances, the Speaker of Lok Sabha has the authority to declare and certify the bill as money bill before transmitting it to Rajya Sabha.
• The speaker is under no obligation to seek advice in this regard from anyone before arriving at any decision and his decision thereupon is final which cannot be further challenged. The purpose of certification of Money Bill is to ensure that the upper house cannot amend it by adding anything which is beyond the provisions of Article 110(1). If the speaker does not certify the bill as money bill then it will be considered just as a financial bill only.

Role of the Higher Judiciary in reviewing the Speaker’s decision:

• Article 122 explicitly bars courts from inquiring into the proceedings of Parliament. As the text of clause (1) suggests, this bar applies to any question on the ground of “irregularity of procedure”. The Supreme Court has, on several occasions, opined on the contours of this restriction.

So what has been the precedent of the Supreme Court?

• Keshav Singh’s case: It held that while legislative bodies are not subject to judicial control as far as their internal procedures are concerned, there are certain caveats to such a proposition. It was held that a court of law may question legislative procedure if the impugned action rests not on mere irregularity, but from an ‘illegality’ or ‘unconstitutionality’ of procedure.
• Ramdas Athavale v. Union of India: the Supreme Court extended that standard to article 122, as it pertains to procedural actions of Parliament.
• Raja Ram Pal v. Speaker, Lok Sabha: the Court had applied this standard to article 105 (3), which sought to import those privileges, powers, and immunities enjoyed by the House of Commons into the Indian scheme (as an interim measure, until the Indian Parliament itself legislates on those matters). This case dealt with the expulsion of certain members of Parliament, by the Speaker. A plain reading of this clause and Parliamentary practices in the House of Commons might suggest a finality to procedural decision of the Speaker in confirming the expulsion, in terms that are analogous to article 110. The Speaker’s decision was held to be open to judicial scrutiny, and the expelled members were reinstated by the Court.

Context: Arrests and questioning of individuals associated with NewsClick, a news portal, have highlighted concerns about the potential misuse of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) of 1967 and its implications for freedom of speech and expression.

UAPA, although originally designed to combat terrorism with a focus on national security, has evolved over the years into a tool criticized for suppressing dissent. It faces criticism for its vague definitions and the extensive discretionary powers it grants to the government in designating individuals as terrorists.

In this article, we will delve into the details of the UAPA, its amendments, and the significance of this law in contemporary India, as well as the challenges it poses to fundamental rights and civil liberties."

Historical background

• UAPA was first introduced, during the British era, in the form of the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1908, aimed at curbing dissent against the Crown.
• Post-independence, it remained in place, and in 1967, after wars with Pakistan and China, it was expanded to grant extensive powers for identifying unlawful associations and penalizing those involved in activities supporting India's secession.
• Amendments in 2004 introduced a chapter on 'terrorist activities,' while post the 2008 Bombay attacks, further amendments allowed for prolonged detention based on personal information, restricted anticipatory bail, and permitted the categorization of individuals as 'terrorists' in the 2019 amendment. 

About The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (Act)

• Act defines “Unlawful activity” as “any action taken by individual or association that leads to cession of a part of the territory of India, questions the sovereignty of India or disrupt the integrity of India etc.
• Powers with the government: Under the Act, Central government can declare a person or an organization as a terrorist/ terrorist organisation, if it/ he:
  • commits or participates in acts of terrorism, prepares for terrorism, promotes terrorism, or is otherwise involved in terrorism.
  • Government can impose all-India bans on associations which are declared ‘unlawful’ under the Act.
  • Both Indian nationals and foreign nationals can be charged under the Act.
  • Also, Act holds offenders accountable in the same manner if crime is committed on foreign land outside India.
• Investigating powers: Cases can be investigated by both State police and National Investigation Agency (NIA).
• Appeal mechanism: It provides for tribunal to review or to hear an appeal against the ban.

Significance of UAPA law in the contemporary times for India 

• To uproot terrorism from India: Terrorists and insurgents continue to receive material support and funds.
• Focus on individuals: Not designating individuals as terrorists, would give them an opportunity to circumvent the law and they would simply gather under a different name and keep up their terror activities.
  • This is also important in the context of lone wolf attacks, which do not belong to any organisation.
• Quickens process of justice delivery by empowering officers in the rank of Inspector to investigate cases and investigation has to be completed within 90 days.
• Reduces delay in attaching proceeds: Act allows seizure of property connected with terrorism without taking approval of Director General of Police in case investigation is conducted by an officer of National Investigation Agency (NIA). 

Challenges Posed by the UAPA Act, 2019:

• Erosion of Fundamental Rights, including Article 14, 19(1)(a), 21: The Act denies individuals labeled as terrorists the opportunity to present their case before arrest, allowing detention for up to 180 days without a formal charge sheet, thus significantly infringing upon their fundamental rights.
• Contrary to the Principle of 'Innocent Until Proven Guilty': The Act contradicts universally recognized principles by not upholding the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty, which is a fundamental tenet of justice.
• Excessive Discretionary Authority: There is a lack of objective criteria for classifying individuals as terrorists grants the government almost unchecked authority to designate anyone as a terrorist, posing a significant risk of misuse of power.
• Ambiguous and Unclear Definitions: Vagueness in definitions of terms like "terrorism" and its broad definition of 'unlawful activity' create confusion and leave room for differing interpretations, impacting the Act's effectiveness and fairness.
• Concerns in the Appeals Process: While the Act provides for appeals, the establishment of a government-appointed three-member review committee, potentially including serving bureaucrats, raises concerns about the independence and fairness of the appeals process.
• Low Conviction Rates: The fact that less than 3% of cases registered under the UAPA Act between 2016 and 2020 (PUCL report) resulted in convictions underscores significant challenges in effectively prosecuting cases under the Act, although this is less immediate but still a notable issue.

With a low conviction rate and concerns regarding the appeal process, the UAPA remains a subject of intense debate, where striking a balance between national security and safeguarding civil liberties remains a challenging task. The ongoing dialogue surrounding the UAPA highlights the need for continued scrutiny, refinement, and thoughtful consideration of its provisions to ensure a just and equitable legal framework in India.

Context: The INDIA bloc recently announced that it would boycott 14 television news anchors as it did not did not want to legitimise a “hate-filled narrative.” 

About:

• Censorship, a term referring to the official prohibition or restriction of various forms of expression, such as films, books, and television, has remained a contentious issue in democracies worldwide. Its purpose is to safeguard the political, social, and moral order, and it can be enforced by both local and national governmental authorities.
• In liberal democracies, censorship often clashes with the cherished principles of freedom of speech, expression, and access to information. While denying these freedoms, censorship is also justified on grounds ranging from political concerns, like sedition and national security, to religious matters, such as blasphemy, and moral issues, like obscenity. Additionally, it can play a role in maintaining social order.

Legal Provisions for Restrictions on Free Speech

• The current framework for censorship includes constitutional provisions, such as Article 19(2) allowing for reasonable restrictions and Article 359 allowing the suspension of Article 19 during emergencies. 
• Institutional and legislative frameworks like the IT Act 2000 and IT Rules, along with bodies like the Central Board of Film Certifications (CBFC) and the Press Council of India, also play a role in regulating censorship. 
• Various legal provisions, such as Section 95 of CrPC, Section 124A for sedition, and Sec 292 for obscenity, contribute to the overall regulatory landscape.

Reasons supporting the need for censorship in society and the nation as a whole

• Safeguarding Sovereignty and Security: Censorship can act as a preventive measure against terrorism and other potential threats.
• Guaranteeing Personal Liberty: It restricts harmful activities like cyberbullying, trolling, and defamation, thereby protecting individuals' rights.
• Limiting the Spread of Misinformation: By controlling the dissemination of fake news, censorship can help uphold the truth and protect the public from deception.
• Preventing Religious and Ethnic Violence: Hate speech, which is often politically sensitive, can be controlled through censorship to prevent the incitement of violence or social unrest.
• Protecting Children from Harmful Content: Censorship can shield young minds from exposure to psychologically damaging material.
• Fostering Social Solidarity: By avoiding insults to shared values, censorship aims to promote a cohesive society.

However, censorship brings forth several prevalent issues

• Threat to Democracy: Censorship may discourage dissent and curtail open discourse, posing risks to democratic principles.
• Curtailment of Freedom of Information: Citizens may be deprived of access to essential information due to excessive censorship.
• Self-Censorship: The fear of censorship may lead to individuals and media outlets restraining their expressions, leading to a chilling effect on free speech.
• Limiting Creativity and Autonomy: Stricter censorship can hinder artistic freedom and personal autonomy.
• Intolerance towards New Ideas: An environment of censorship can foster intolerance towards innovative and unconventional thoughts.
• Suppression of Marginalised Voices: Censorship might silence the voices of marginalised groups, further exacerbating societal inequalities.
• Implementation Challenges: There are several implementation challenges associated with censorship, including the lack of objective boundaries, potential for misuse, over-regulation, and abuse.

To move forward

some constructive steps can be taken

• Encouraging Self-Regulation: Involving civil society representation can aid in fostering responsible self-regulation.
• Empowering Citizens' Choices: Allowing citizens to decide and consume content, possibly through content warnings, can strike a balance between freedom and responsibility.
• Promoting Media Education: Providing professional media education and codifying media laws can enhance media responsibility.
• Limiting State Censorship Power: Ensuring that censorship measures are proportionate and restrained can prevent excessive interference.
• Objective Standards for Harm Prevention: Censorship should primarily address instances of actual harm based on clear and objective criteria.
• Non-Punitive Approaches: Adopting proactive steps, such as public education and encouraging diversity, can be more effective than punitive measures in addressing hate speech.

In conclusion, censorship presents a multifaceted dilemma, as it seeks to maintain order and security while also safeguarding fundamental freedoms. Striking the right balance between these objectives requires thoughtful deliberation and measures that uphold democratic principles without compromising societal well-being.