Article 283 of the Costitution of India with Case law
Here is a detailed explanation of Article 283 of the Constitution of India along with relevant case law:
🔷 Article 283 – Custody, etc., of Consolidated Funds, Contingency Funds and Moneys Credited to the Public Accounts
🔹 Text of Article 283:
283(1):
The custody of the Consolidated Fund of India, the Contingency Fund of India and the moneys standing to the credit of the Public Account of India, and the payment of moneys into such Fund or the withdrawal of moneys therefrom, shall be regulated by law made by Parliament.
283(2):
The custody of the Consolidated Fund of a State, the Contingency Fund of a State and the moneys standing to the credit of the Public Account of a State, and the payment of moneys into such Fund or the withdrawal of moneys therefrom, shall be regulated by law made by the Legislature of the State.
🔹 Key Features of Article 283:
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Applicable To | Both Union and States |
| Covers | Consolidated Fund, Contingency Fund, and Public Account |
| Regulation Authority | Parliament (for Union), State Legislature (for States) |
| Objective | Ensure proper management, deposit, and withdrawal of government funds |
| Nature | Procedural and financial control mechanism |
🔹 Definitions:
Consolidated Fund: All revenues received by the government, loans raised, and money received in repayment of loans.
Contingency Fund: Emergency fund at the disposal of the President or Governor for unforeseen expenditures.
Public Account: All other public money received (e.g., provident funds, small savings, etc.), not part of Consolidated Fund.
🔹 Relevant Case Law:
✅ State of Kerala v. Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (1973) 2 SCC 713
Issue: Constitutional validity of state expenditure and regulation of funds.
Held: The regulation of the Consolidated Fund is subject to state legislation under Article 283(2). The state legislature is competent to make laws regarding the custody and appropriation of funds within its domain.
✅ Comptroller and Auditor General of India v. K.S. Jagannathan, (1986) 2 SCC 679
Context: Discussed the role of financial discipline and accountability of public funds.
Relevance: Reiterated the constitutional importance of Articles 266 to 283 in maintaining transparency and legality in financial administration.
✅ Union of India v. Prem Chand Gupta, AIR 1970 SC 1291
Issue: Misuse or mismanagement of funds.
Held: Any withdrawal from public funds must strictly follow the procedures laid down by Parliament or state legislature under Articles 266–283, reinforcing the sanctity of Article 283.
✅ Common Cause v. Union of India, (1996) 6 SCC 530
Issue: Misutilization of public funds.
Observation: The court stressed that no expenditure from the Consolidated Fund can be incurred without proper authorization under constitutional provisions, including Article 283.
🔹 Summary Table:
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Article | 283 |
| Covers | Custody and regulation of financial funds |
| Fund Types | Consolidated Fund, Contingency Fund, Public Account |
| Union Regulation By | Parliament |
| State Regulation By | State Legislature |
| Key Cases | Kerala v. Gwalior Rayon, CAG v. Jagannathan, Common Cause |
| Purpose | Financial discipline, proper custody and withdrawal of public money |
🔹 Conclusion:
Article 283 plays a crucial role in ensuring financial accountability in both Union and State Governments. It empowers the respective legislatures to frame laws governing the flow and custody of public funds, maintaining fiscal discipline under constitutional control.
RELATED Blog
0 comments