MANOHAR LAL SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a practising advocate, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for appropriate direction to the respondents to provide equal opportunity to the petitioner and other citizens to file their representations and objections and participate in the discussion pertaining to the Lokpal Bill in the same manner and time as that has been allowed to the five member NGO and further to declare the entire process of the drafting committee and actions related to as it unconstitutional being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. That apart, it has been prayed to declare the respondents? action dated 4 th August, 2011 as ultra vires the rules of the House and to further declare the action of the respondents in introducing any of the Lokpal Bills, including government bill and private bills, as unconstitutional being violative of Article 117 of the Constitution and to direct the respondents to disclose all true facts and details about the subject matter upon the Lokpal Bill i.e. annual extra cost to the country and other ancillary aspects.

(2.) It is submitted by Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, who has appeared in person, that the Lokpal Bill, as is discernible, is basically a money bill and, therefore, the presidential consent is necessary prior to the introduction of such a bill in the Parliament. It is his further submission that the procedure adopted by the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs and Ministry of Law and Justice is absolutely contrary to the provisions of the Constitution and the rules framed under Article 118 of the Constitution, which pertain to bill originating in the House. It is urged by him that when a Bill postulates expenditure from the Consolidated Fund, a specified particular procedure has to be followed and every citizen has a right to know and the same cannot be smothered or scuttled. The petitioner would contend that the respondents are under obligation to furnish all requisite information and unless the same is done, the whole exercise shall fall foul of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. To bolster the said submission, he has commended us to the decision of the Constitution Bench in Ramdas Athawale Vs. Union of India and Others, 2010 4 SCC 1. Mr. Sharma has further canvassed that others also should have the opportunity to submit bills to the government for introducing before the Parliament.

(3.) Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, learned Additional Solicitor General, resisting the submissions put forth by Mr. Sharma, has contended that whether the Bill is a money bill or not is to be determined by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha under Article 110 of the Constitution. He would further submit that at the bill or pre Bill stage, the power of judicial review is not to be invoked in view of the Division Bench?s decision dated 2 nd May, 2011 of this Court in W.P.(C) 2671/2011 titled Hemant Baburao Patil Vs. Union of India and Others.