Article 198 of the Costitution of India with Case law
🇮🇳 Article 198 of the Constitution of India
Topic: Procedure in Respect of Money Bills in the State Legislatures
🔹 Text of Article 198:
(1) A Money Bill shall not be introduced in a State Legislative Assembly except on the recommendation of the Governor.
(2) After a Money Bill has been passed by the Legislative Assembly, it shall be transmitted to the Legislative Council (if there is one) for its recommendations, and the Legislative Council shall, within 14 days, return the Bill with or without recommendations.
(3) If the Legislative Assembly accepts any of the recommendations made by the Council, the Money Bill shall be deemed to have been passed by both Houses with the amendments recommended by the Council and accepted by the Assembly.
(4) If the Assembly does not accept any of the recommendations of the Council, or if the Council does not return the Bill within 14 days, the Bill is deemed to have been passed by both Houses in the form in which it was passed by the Assembly.
🧾 Explanation:
Article 198 provides the procedure for the passage of Money Bills in States with a bicameral legislature.
It mirrors Article 110 & 111 (Union Parliament) but is adapted for State use.
The Legislative Council has advisory power only, not the authority to block or amend a Money Bill.
💡 What is a Money Bill?
Defined under Article 199, a Money Bill deals with:
Taxation
Borrowing of money
Expenditure from the Consolidated Fund
Any matter related to financial obligations of the State
🏛️ Important Case Laws Related to Article 198 (and its Union analogs):
🧑⚖️ 1. Mohd. Saeed Siddiqui v. State of U.P. (2014) 11 SCC 415
Concerned classification of a Bill as a Money Bill in Uttar Pradesh.
The Supreme Court ruled that once the Speaker certifies a Bill as a Money Bill, it is final and binding, and cannot be questioned in court.
However, the dissent in later cases challenged this absolutism.
🧑⚖️ 2. Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd. (2020) 6 SCC 1
Though about Article 110 (Parliament), this case cast serious doubt on the Mohd. Saeed Siddiqui ruling.
A larger bench may reconsider the extent to which a Speaker’s certification is immune from judicial review.
🧑⚖️ 3. K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (2011) 9 SCC 1
Concerned the legislative competence and financial implications of State laws.
Reiterated that financial Bills must conform strictly to constitutional procedures (like Article 198).
📌 Key Features of Article 198:
| Feature | Provision |
|---|---|
| Bill Type | Money Bill |
| Introduced by | Only in Legislative Assembly (not in Council) |
| Governor's Role | Must recommend the introduction |
| Legislative Council's Role | Can only recommend, not amend or reject |
| Time Limit for Council | 14 days |
| If no action by Council | Deemed passed by both Houses |
| Binding power of Assembly | Final say rests with the Assembly |
🔁 Comparison with Union Procedure (Articles 110 & 111):
| Feature | Parliament (Art. 110–111) | State (Art. 198) |
|---|---|---|
| Introduced in | Lok Sabha only | Legislative Assembly only |
| Upper House power | Rajya Sabha – recommend only | Legislative Council – recommend only |
| Time Limit | 14 days | 14 days |
✅ Conclusion:
Article 198 enshrines the supremacy of the Legislative Assembly in financial matters.
The Legislative Council has no veto or amending power over Money Bills.
While judicial review over the Speaker’s decision is limited, courts are increasingly re-examining whether such power should be absolute.
RELATED Blog
0 comments