Article 113 of the Costitution of India with Case law
Article 113 of the Constitution of India
Title: Procedure in Parliament with respect to estimates
🔹 Text of Article 113:
(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 Lok Sabha, and the Lok Sabha shall have power to assent, or to refuse to assent, to any demand, or to assent to it 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.
📘 Explanation:
Article 113 lays down the procedure in Parliament regarding the approval of government expenditure (the “estimates”) which are part of the Annual Financial Statement (Union Budget) under Article 112.
🔸 There are two types of expenditures:
Expenditure charged upon the Consolidated Fund of India
Not subject to vote in Parliament (but can be discussed).
Examples: Salaries of the President, Supreme Court judges, CAG, etc.
Other Expenditures (Votable)
Presented as Demands for Grants to the Lok Sabha.
Lok Sabha may approve, reduce, or reject these.
🔸 President’s Recommendation:
Every demand for a grant must be recommended by the President before being presented.
⚖️ Important Case Laws on Article 113:
1. Union of India v. P. N. Menon, (1994) 4 SCC 68
Issue: Whether the Parliament could alter budgetary allocations or not.
Relevance: Reiterated that votable expenditures are under the exclusive control of the Lok Sabha, while charged expenditures are not subject to voting.
2. M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India, (1979) 3 SCC 431
Relevance: Clarified that legislative procedures like budget discussions (under Articles 112–117, including Article 113) are a part of parliamentary privilege and fall outside the scope of judicial review, except for constitutional violations.
3. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1
Relevance: Discussed legislative powers and fiscal federalism. While not directly interpreting Article 113, it touched upon financial control of the Union over states via grants.
4. Shubh Narain v. Union of India, AIR 1972 All 295
Relevance: The court held that even though Parliament cannot vote on charged expenditures, it can discuss and express opinions, reaffirming the essence of Article 113(1).
📝 Summary of Article 113:
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Estimates involved | Annual Budget (Article 112) |
| Charged Expenditures | Not votable, but discussable |
| Other Expenditures | Presented as Demands for Grants, votable in Lok Sabha |
| Authority to Present Grants | President's recommendation is mandatory |
| Voting Power | Lies solely with Lok Sabha, not Rajya Sabha |
RELATED Blog
0 comments