Page 1 of 27

SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD

MOOT COURT 2020

TUTORIAL I, II, III & IV

MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER

BEFORE THE HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT OF BHARAT NADU

CIVIL APPELLANT/OROGINAL JURISDICTION

THE DEMOCRATIC REFORM PROJECT

VERSUS

THE UNION OF BHARAT NADU

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO 3067 OF 2020

Mr. Ramakant …Petitioner

VS.

Union of Bharat Nadu …. Respondent

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO 3717 OF 2020

Ms. Vishrutyi ...Petitioner

VS.

Bharat Nadu Dena Bank …Respondent

WITH

Mr X …Intervener
Page 2 of 27

TA
BLE OF CONTENT

List of Abbreviations 03
Index of Authorities 04
 Table of Contents 04-

05
 Books 04-

05
 Cases 04-

05
 Statutes 04-

05
Statement of Jurisdiction 06
Statement of Facts 07-10
Issues Raised 11
Summary of Arguments 12
Arguments Advanced 13
Issue-A: Whether the electoral bond scheme violates the basic structure of the Bharat 13-15
Nadu Constitution.
Issue B: Whether the denial of information about purchasers of Electoral Bonds by 16-21
Bharat Nadu Daan Bank is justified
Issue-C Whether the impugned legislation is a money bill under Article 110 of the 19-22
Bharat Nadu Constitution.
Issue-D: Whether the decision of the Speaker of the Upper House certifying a bill as 23-
'Money Bill' amenable to judicial review.
26
Prayer 27

LI
ST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& And
Page 3 of 27

AIR All India Report

Anr. Another
Hon’ble Honorable
No. Number
Ors. Others
r/w Read with
Retd. Retired
S./Sec. Section
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
St. State
u/s Under Section
v. Versus

IN
DEX OF AUTHORITIES

 BOOKS

1. Our Constitution by Subhash C. Kashyab

2. Inside Parliament: Views from the Front Row by Derek O'Brien
3. Parliamentary Procedure in India 3rd Edition by A. R. Mukherjea 
4. Handbook on the Right to Information Act by P.K Das
Page 4 of 27

 CASES

1. State of UP v. Raj Narain (1975) 4 SCC 428

2. Minerva mills Ltd., (1980) 3 SCC 625
3. Keshvananda Bharti case (1973) 4 SCC 225
4. Indira Gandhi Nehru case1975 Supp SCC 1
5. K. Sowbhagya v. Union of India WRIT PETITION NO. 14649 OF 2014
[HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA]
6. Ramlila Maidan Incident case (2012) 5 SCC 1
7. Kanwar Lal Gupta v. Amar Nath Chawla (1975) 3 SCC 646 : AIR 1975
SC 308
8. Common Cause v. Union of India (1996) 2 SCC 752
9. Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. &Ors. v. Union of India 1962] 3 S.C.R. 842at 866
10. , Government of India and Others v. Cricket Association of Bengal and
others (1995) 2 SCC 161
11. Justice K.S Puttaswamy&Ors. vs. Union of India, AIR 2017 SC 4161.
12. Kuldip Nayar&Ors. v. Union of India &Ors AIR 2006 SC 3127.
13. Binoy Viswam v. Union of India &Ors AIR 2017 SC 2967
14. Raja Ram Pal vs. Hon’ble Speaker of Lok Sabha (2007) 3 SCC 184
15. I.R Coelho vs. State of Tamil Nadu 2007) 2 SCC 1.
16. Roger Matthew Vs. South Indian Bank Ltd. &Ors.
17. Union of India v. Jyoti Prakash Mitter (1971) 1 SCC 396.
18. R (Jackson) vs. Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56 

 STATUTUES
1. Political (Donations) Regulations Act
2. The Political Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2017
3. Representation of the People Act, 1951
4. Income Tax Act, 1961
5. Companies Act, 2013
Page 5 of 27

6. Indian Constitution
7. Bharat Nadu Constitution

ST
ATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Court has the jurisdiction to try the instant matter under Article 32 of the Bharat
Nadu Constitution gives the right to individuals to move to the Supreme Court to seek justice
when they feel that their right has been ‘unduly deprived’. The apex court is given the authority
to issue directions or orders for the execution of any of the rights bestowed by the constitution as
it is considered ‘the protector and guarantor of Fundamental Rights’.
Page 6 of 27

The Counsels for the Petitioner most respectfully submit to this jurisdiction of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court.

ST
ATEMENT OF FACTS

a. Bharat Nadu is a federal united states and the elections are a normal exercising in
Bharat Nadu. The superintendence, path, and control of Parliamentary elections as
well as Assembly elections of the States and the Union Territories is vested in a
body known as the Election Commission of Bharat Nadu through distinctive
feature of Article 324 of the Constitution of Bharat Nadu.
Page 7 of 27

b. The essential statutory provisions which deal with donations to political events
are Section 29B of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RoPA) which
entitles parties to just accept voluntary contributions via any character or
corporation, except a Government Company, and Section 29C of the RoPA
which, inter alia, affords that every political celebration shall supply a report to
the Election Commission of Bharat Nadu regarding the info of contributions
received by way of it in extra of Rs 20,000 from any man or woman for you to
avail the income-tax remedy as in line with the provisions of Income-tax Act,
1961.
c. This gadget had resulted within the opaqueness of political funding, thereby
giving rise to a plethora of troubles. Since political events were not required to
reveal the call of the character or company if such donation does not exceed
Rs.20,000, the parties used to interrupt up the donations from numerous
questionable sources into elements now not exceeding Rs.20,000 and
consequently break out from the obligation of revealing the names. A file posted
by way of an independent civil society organization referred to as The Democratic
Reform Project revealed that greater than 50% of price range obtained through the
political parties came from unknown resources.
d. The twentieth Law Commission of Bharat Nadu at the same time as highlighting
the need for greater transparency and accountability in political birthday party
funding and expenditure noted, “cash, often from illegitimate sources,
consequences in “undisguised bullying" whilst it is used (each authorized and
unauthorised) to buy muscle electricity, weapons, or to unduly influence citizens
via liquor, coins, presents.
e. Five. Bharat Nadu People's Party (BNPP) is one of the two important political
events in Bharat Nadu together with the United National Congress Party (UNC).
It is likewise the most important political birthday celebration inside the world in
terms of club. The BNNP leaders these days have come into the information for
his or her favorable ties with the essential industrialists and company homes of
Bharat Nadu. BNNP is the largest political birthday party in terms of
representation in the Union Parliament. BNNP, in conjunction with its allies, has
Page 8 of 27

shaped a political alliance called the National Democratic Front (NDF), which
holds 282 out of 545 seats in the Lower House of the Union Parliament. Though
the NDF has a full-size majority within the Lower House, they do now not hold a
majority within the Upper House in which they hold eighty out of 245 seats.
f. Government of Bharat Nadu enacted the Political Donations (Regulation) Act,
2017 (PDR Act). The Act furnished for the introduction of Electoral Bonds as a
new tool for political donations, and the charter of a bank called the 'Bharat Nadu
Daan Bank' to system political donations. Additionally, a few different massive
changes had been made to 4 legislations thru the PDR Act, which became
exceeded as a cash bill by using the Union Parliament. The provisions in four
legislation which had been amended to allow the 'Electoral Bond Scheme' are as
follows
i. Section 31 of the Reserve Bank of Bharat Nadu Act, 1934, thru Section
three of the PDR Act;
ii. Section 29C of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RoPA), via
Section 4of the PDR Act;
iii. Section 13A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, through Section five of the
PDR Act; and
iv. Section 182 of the Companies Act, 2013, via Section 6 of the PDR Act.
g. 'Electoral Bond' as a brand new tool to make donations to the political events. An
electoral bond is an instrument that can be used by individuals and corporations
included in Bharat Nadu to make donations to political parties. Bonds may be
bought in denominations ranging from Rs 1,000 to Rs 1 crore from the Bharat
Nadu Daan Bank the use of a KYC compliant financial institution account,
without a top restriction on the donation quantity. Political events can encash the
electoral bond inside 15 days. The identity of the donor needs to be kept nameless
and known handiest to the Bank. No donation above Rs 2000 may be made
otherwise than by way of an Account Payee cheque drawn on a bank on an
Account Payee bank draft or use of digital clearing gadget via a bank account or
an electoral bond. A bank referred to as the 'Bharat Nadu Daan Bank' became
Page 9 of 27

constituted completely to address donations to political parties by using giving it

the electricity to problem Electoral Bonds.
h. This enactment was met with combined responses from the general public and
institutional stakeholders. It became lauded by one segment of the public as the
scheme could make certain traceability of the cash. On the other hand, some
expressed that the scheme had the potential to increase black money circulate and
money laundering.
i. The Democratic Reform Project raised objections on the character of the scheme
added with the aid of the enactment. They expressed that the Electoral Bond
scheme had paved the manner for nameless donations to political parties, which
goes to have excessive repercussions for transparency in political funding.
j. Mr. Ramakant, contended that the Act had now not met the situations specified in
Article one hundred ten of the Constitution of Bharat Nadu to be licensed as a
cash bill by using the Speaker of the House. The invoice became surpassed as a
cash bill in an effort to pass the scrutiny via the Upper House because the ruling
birthday party does now not have numbers in the Upper House to get the bill
exceeded. He added that the successive governments have misused the Money
Bill provision with a purpose to keep away from scrutiny of the Upper house and
feature followed similar processes to pass a few other enactments, thereby
undermining the bicameral nature of the Bharat Nadu Parliament. Similar
questions have been also raised in numerous other media platforms. On being
requested approximately this question in an interview, the Attorney General of
Bharat Nadu stated, “certification of a particular Act as a Money Bill is an inner
function of the Parliament. If there is any dispute, the Speaker applies his
thoughts and takes a selection. No you can actually query the bonafide selection
of the Speaker, and all members abide by means of the choice." Finding the
justification to be unsatisfactory, Mr. Ramakant filed a petition inside the
Supreme Court of Bharat Nadu hard the certification of Political Donations
(Regulation) Act as a Money Bill with the aid of the Speaker of the Lower House
and consequently quashing of the Act.
Page 10 of 27

k. Ms. Vishrutyi, filed an RTI software with the Bharat Nadu Daan Bank asking the
names of the people and businesses who've purchased an electoral bond and the
quantity of each bond. The Bank denied her request bringing up “the information
sought via the applicant cannot be disclosed as it's miles in a fiduciary potential,
disclosure of that's exempted underneath 8(1)(e) and eight(1)(j) of RTI Act,
2005." After arduous all attraction mechanisms and having acquired no pleasant
reply, she filed a petition in the Supreme Court of Bharat Nadu, contending that
denial of the information approximately donors is a violation of peoples' right to
understand approximately a count number of public hobby.
l. Mr. X, who has bought Electoral Bonds, filed an intervening utility contending
that revealing the identification of the client of the electoral bond violates his right
to privateness. Supreme Court admitted all the petitions and clubbed them
together for a commonplace hearing. The Court also introduced Mr. X as an
intervener.

IS
SUES RAISED

a) Whether the electoral bond scheme violates the basic structure of the Bharat Nadu
Constitution.
Page 11 of 27

b) Whether the denial of information about purchasers of Electoral Bonds by Bharat Nadu Daan
Bank is justified.

c) Whether the impugned legislation is a money bill under Article 110 of the Bharat Nadu
Constitution.

d) Whether the decision of the Speaker of the Upper House certifying a bill as 'Money Bill'
amenable to judicial review.

SUMMARY OF ARGUEMENTS

a) Whether the electoral bond scheme violates the basic structure of the Bharat Nadu
Constitution.
Page 12 of 27

It is humbly submitted to the honorable Court that with the newly enacted Political Donations
(Regulation) Act, 2017, also stated as “the act”, which provides for amendments to various other
Acts. The act under states a new creation of scheme, called as “Electoral Bonds”, through which
donations through bonds can be made by individuals or corporations to the political parties using
the facilities provided by Bharat Nadu Daan Bank. This scheme is violative of the basic structure
of constitution and thereby unconstitutional.

b) Whether the denial of information about purchasers of Electoral Bonds by Bharat Nadu Daan
Bank is justified.

The denial of information is not justified by Bharat Nadu Daan Bank in regards to the purchases
of the Electoral Bond. Petitioner submits that there is a fear that if the recent amendments are not
set aside, these corporate houses and extremely wealthy lobby groups can have a stranglehold on
the electoral process and governance.

c )Whether the impugned legislation is a money bill under Article 110 of the Bharat Nadu
Constitution.

It is Humbly submitted to this Hon’ble Court that While Clause 1 of Article 110 defines the
characteristics of a Money Bill, the definition is very wide, for this reason, Clause 2 is a better
guide to defining the limits of a Money Bill.

d) Whether the decision of the Speaker of the Upper House certifying a bill as 'Money Bill'
amenable to judicial review.

The Petitioner humbly states that the Political (Donations) Regulations Act has been wrongly
certified and passed as a Money Bill under Article 110 of the Indian Constitution. Further, it is
submitted that the decision of the Hon’ble Speaker of the Lower House of the Parliament to
wrongly categorize bills is amenable to judicial review.

A
RGUMENTS ADVANCED
Page 13 of 27

(a) Whether the electoral bond scheme violates the basic structure of the Bharat Nadu
Constitution.

It is submitted to the Honorable court that the electoral scheme brought the Political Donations
(Regulation) Act, 2017, also stated as “the act” has brought the following amendments
mentioned in (a) to (c) points below:

a) It introduced 'Electoral Bond' as a new instrument to make donations to the political parties.
An electoral bond is an instrument that can be used by individuals and corporations incorporated
in Bharat Nadu to make donations to political parties. Bonds can be purchased in denominations
ranging from Rs 1,000 to Rs 1 crore from the Bharat Nadu Daan Bank using a KYC compliant
bank account, with no upper limit on the donation amount. Political parties can en-cash the
electoral bond within 15 days. The identity of the donor has to be kept anonymous and known
only to the Bank.

b) No donation above Rs 2000 can be made otherwise than by an Account Payee cheque drawn
on a bank on an Account Payee bank draft or use of electronic clearing system through a bank
account or an electoral bond.

c) A bank called the 'Bharat Nadu Daan Bank' was constituted exclusively to handle donations to
political parties by giving it the power to issue Electoral Bonds.

As per the above amendments, it is submitted to the court that, such new enactment has made the
system of funding political parties more cloudy, blurry and less transparent. As reducing the bar
from 20,000 to 2000 rupees, will not affect the funding from unknown sources, the parties can
still manage to show more number of entries in their book of records. As per the act, the person
whether artificial or natural, who is funding the political parties has been kept anonymous. The
anonymousity raises question as to reason of disclosure, the Apex Court in case of State of
UP  v.  Raj Narain1 had declared that Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression guaranteed by
Article 19(1)(a) included the right to know every public act, everything that is done in a public
way and by their public functionaries.2 The amending power of the parliament is not absolute. 3

 (1975)
4 SCC 428
1

2
 (1975) 4 SCC 428
3
Minerva mills Ltd., (1980) 3 SCC 625; Keshvananda Bharti case (1973) 4 SCC 225
Page 14 of 27

In the case of Indira Gandhi Nehru case4, if the lawmakers are assigned with the responsibilities
of administering the laws and dispensing justice, then those governed by such laws would be left
without a remedy in the case if they suffer injustice. This provides for a channel for and to assist
money laundering, which itself is a crime under Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002. It is
submitted to the court that the Karnataka High Court in K. Sowbhagya v. Union of India5, also
held that money laundering is an independent stand-alone offence.  It is also submitted to the
court that it also lays a path where the big corporation and industrialist may try to dig up favors
from the ruling party. Political parties earn a huge amount of money through these bonds without
any tax liabilities on them. A report from Association for Democratic Reforms shows data
on funding of political parties, which stated that various political parties received Rs. 7,833 crore
of funding from unknown sources between 2004-05 and 2014-15, which constitutes 69 percent
of their total income during the period. Thus 69 per cent of the income of
various political parties is anonymous and untraceable.6 The fundamental rights pledge to attain
the lofty goals of justice, liberty, equality, fraternity and the “dignity of the individual” set
out in the Preamble.7 Elections are the mean through which the citizens show their
legitimacy and will towards the sovereign. The rule of free and fair election, democratic nature
of constitutions, economic justice, rule of law, fundamental rights and welfare of the state under
the basic structure of constitution stands violated. Thereby shutting down the basic essence of the
constitution.

It is submitted to the court that in the case Indira Gandhi Nehru case8, the court also stated that
encroachment on the basic structure of the constitution will be invalid, irrespective of the number
of people affected. It is submitted to the court that there are various ways through which the
political parties use the fund to influence the election at both state and central level such as in
form of unaccounted cash, liquor, bullion or distribution of gifts etc., which per se cannot be
denied. The courts in the case of Kanwar Lal Gupta v. Amar Nath Chawla9 have stated that
Money is bound to play an important part in the successful prosecution of an election campaign
of richer candidates and supplies assets for advertising and other forms of political solicitation
4
1975 Supp SCC 1
5
WRIT PETITION NO. 14649 OF 2014 [HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA]
6
ADR Report on Electoral Reforms 2015
7
Ramlila Maidan Incident case (2012) 5 SCC 1
8
1975 Supp SCC 1
9
(1975) 3 SCC 646 : AIR 1975 SC 308
Page 15 of 27

that increases the candidate's exposure to the public. In Common Cause v. Union of India10 the

question about the election expenses incurred by the political parties, it was argued that elections
in India are fought with money power and so the people should know the money incurred by the
political parties and the candidates in the elections. The Court ruled that purity of election is
fundamental to democracy and the commission can ask the candidates about the expenditure
incurred by the candidates and by a political party for this purpose. In a democracy where rule of
law prevails this type of naked display of black money cannot be permitted.

(b) Whether the denial of information about purchasers of Electoral Bonds by Bharat
Nadu Daan Bank is justified.

Counsel humbly submits before the hon’ble court that the denial of information about purchasers
of Electoral Bonds by Bharat Nadu Daan Bank is not justified.

10
(1996) 2 SCC 752
Page 16 of 27

Petitioner submits that there is a fear that if the recent amendments are not set aside, these
corporate houses and extremely wealthy lobby groups can have a stranglehold on the electoral
process and governance. Such activities, if allowed, can result in a situation that legislation,
regulations etc. can be ultimately be passed and laws brought into favor of these corporate and
lobby groups at the expense of the common citizens of the country.

The said amendments11 to the Reserve Bank of Bharat Nadu Act, 1934, Representation of the
People Act, 1951 and Income Tax Act, 1961 have affected transparency in political funding. The
consequence of the amendments is that now the annual contribution reports of political parties to
be furnished to the Election Commission of Bharat Nadu need not mention names and addresses
of those contributing by way of electoral bonds. This will have a major implication on
transparency in political funding as now the political parties are free not to file contributions
received through electoral bonds. Election Commission regularly displays political party’s
contribution reports on its website through which citizens get to know about the contributions
made to various political parties and the source of such contribution. But with the introduction of
electoral bonds, Election Commission and the citizens of the country will not get to know the
vital information regarding political contributions.

These amendments infringe the citizen’s fundamental ‘Right to Know’ and are not saved by any
of the eight reasonable restrictions under Article19. Such an unreasonable and irrational
restriction on information at the cost of larger public interest is a severe blow to the very
fundamentals of transparency and accountability. Making the political class even more
unanswerable and unaccountable and causing of annoyance, inconvenience, obstruction to the
citizens at large by withholding crucial public information from them regarding electoral funding
are all outside the purview of Article 19 as well as the very basis of democracy.

The reluctance of the existing Political Establishments to introduce transparency and

accountability within parties has only permitted corruption to percolate further in the electoral
process. Over a period, we have observed burgeoning election expenditure, political party
funding, and inadequate reporting and disclosure laws. Sometimes black money is generated by
business houses and individuals to evade corporate and income taxes, later it is pumped back to

11
Part I of Annexure in fact sheet
Page 17 of 27

political parties and candidates to garner favorable policy decisions. In our current electoral and
political system, those who are willing and are able to utilize black money, dominate politics.

Various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India have emphasized on the importance
of freedom of speech and expression in a democratic form of government and also held that free
flow of information is necessary for an informed citizenry. In Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. &Ors. v.
Union of India12, a Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India said that freedom
of speech and expression of opinion is of paramount importance under a democratic constitution
which envisages changes in the composition of legislatures and governments and must be
preserved.

The people of this country have a right to know every public act, everything that is done in a
public way by the public functionaries.

That in Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India and Others v.
Cricket Association of Bengal and others13, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India considered the
issue and thereafter summarized the law on the freedom of speech and expression. The relevant
paragraph of the judgment is reproduced below:

74. ”The freedom of speech and expression includes right to acquire information and to
disseminate it. Freedom of speech and expression is necessary, for self- fulfilment. It
enables people to contribute to debate on social and moral issues. It is the best way to
find a truest model of anything, since it is only through it that the widest possible range
of ideas can circulate. It is the only vehicle of political discourse so essential to
democracy. Equally important is the role it plays in facilitating artistic and scholarly
endeavours of all sorts… ”

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India also observed that a successful democracy posits an
`aware’ citizenry” and held in Para 82.

82. “True democracy cannot exist unless all citizens have a right to participate in the affairs
of the polity of the country. The right to participate in the affairs of the country is

12
[1962] 3 S.C.R. 842at 866
13
(1995) 2 SCC 161
Page 18 of 27

meaningless unless the citizens are well informed on all sides of the issues, in respect of
which they are called upon to express their views. One-sided information,
disinformation, misinformation and non- information all equally create an uninformed
citizenry which makes democracy a farce when medium of information is monopolized
either by a partisan central authority or by private individuals or oligarchic
organization. This is particularly so in a country like ours where about 65 per cent of
the population is illiterate and hardly 1 ½ per cent of the population has an access to the
print media which is not subject to pre-censorship."

under the light of the above submitted argument, it is clear that the non-disclosure of names of
the individuals and corporations who have purchased an electoral bond is violative of the
fundamental rights of each and every citizen of Bharat Nadu. Moreover, the 20th Law
Commission of Bharat Nadu while highlighting the necessity for more transparency and
accountability in political party funding and expenditure noted, “money, often from illegitimate
sources, results in “undisguised bullying" when it is used (both authorized and unauthorized) to
buy muscle power, weapons, or to unduly influence voters through liquor, cash, gifts. Currency
notes come first in containers, then in truckloads, moving to wholesale/small retail forms, and
finally to suitcases and in people's pockets.

Thus, in the light of the above stated arguments, and supporting cases, it is humbly submitted
before this hon’ble court that the denial of information about purchasers of Electoral Bonds by
Bharat Nadu Daan Bank is not justified. It is further humbly prayed before this hon’ble court that
necessary orders be issued directing the Bharat Naadu Daan Bank to furnish the information
sought in the RTI filed by Ms. Vishrutyi.

c ) Whether the impugned legislation is a money bill under article 110 of The Bharat Nadu
Constitution.

It is Humbly submitted to this Hon’ble Court that While Clause 1 of Article 110 defines the
characteristics of a Money Bill, the definition is very wide, for this reason, Clause 2 is a better
guide to defining the limits of a Money Bill. Clause 2 states; “[a] Bill shall not be deemed to be a
Page 19 of 27

Money Bill by reason only that it provides for the imposition of fines or other pecuniary
penalties, or for the demand or payment of fees for licenses or fees for services rendered, or by
reason that it provides for the imposition, abolition, remission, alteration or regulation of any tax
by any local authority or body for local purposes”.

Procedural Irregularities: That the fundamental issue in all cases dealing with whether the
determination under A110 that a bill is a money bill by the Speaker of Lower House is an issue
of “procedural irregularities or illegality”. In Babu Lal Parate v State of Bombay & Anr 18
a five judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court speaking through S.K Das, J. held as
follows:

It is advisable, perhaps, to add a few more words about Art. 122(1) of the Constitution. Learned
counsel for the appellant has posed before us the question as to what would be the effect of that
Article. if in any Bill completely unrelated to any of the matters referred to in Cls. (a) to (e)
of Art. 3 an amendment was to be proposed and accepted changing (for example) the name of a
State. We do not think that we need answer such a hypothetical question except merely to say
that if an amendment is of such a character that it is not really an amendment and is clearly
violative of Art. the question then will be not the validity of proceedings in Parliament but the
violation of a constitutional provision. Therefore the distinction between an irregularity and an
illegality was conceived by this court right from the inception and it was also envisaged that as
distinct from an irregularity, in case of an illegality or a clear violation of a constitutional
provision, a completely different set of consequences will follow.

3.Political Donations (Regulation) Act, 2017 not a Money Bill That the Constitution of India
distinguishes between an Ordinary Bill, a Money Bill and a Financial Bill. Article 110(1) defines
a money bill and Article 109 provides for the special procedure in respect of money bills. It
states that a money bill can be introduced only in the Lower House. A Money Bill as per Article
110(1) is a Bill which contains only provisions dealing with all or any of the following matters,
namely-(a) the imposition, abolition, remission, alteration or regulation of any tax;

(b) The regulation of the borrowing of money or the giving of any guarantee by the Government
of India, or the amendment of the law with respect to any financial obligations undertaken or to
be undertaken by the Government of India;
Page 20 of 27

(c) The custody of the consolidated Fund or the Contingency Fund of India, the payment of
moneys into or the withdrawal of moneys from any such Fund;

(d) The appropriation of moneys out of the consolidated Fund of India;

(e) The declaring of any expenditure to be expenditure charged on the Consolidated Fund of
India or the increasing of the amount of any such expenditure;

(f) 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

(g) Any matter incidental to any of the matters specified in sub-clause (a) to (f).

In view of Article 117(1), a Bill which makes provisions for any of the abovementioned matters,
and additionally with any other matter is called a Financial Bill. Therefore, the PDR Act,
2017may be a Money Bill if it deals only with the matters specified above, and not with any the
extraneous matter as otherwise it would be categorized as a Financial Bill. It is submitted that the
provisions of the Political Contribution (Regulation) Bill, 2017 are resolutely unconnected with
any of the matters listed in A110(1).

The counsel most humbly submits again that Article 110 of the Constitution deals with ‘Money
Bills’. Money Bills are the only Bills which can only be introduced in the Lok Sabha and they
need not be assented to by the Rajya Sabha to be passed. Clause 1 of Article 110 states; “[f]or the
purposes of this Chapter, a Bill shall be deemed to be a Money Bill if it contains only provisions
dealing with all or any of the following matters, namely

a) The imposition, abolition, remission, alteration or regulation of any tax;

b) The regulation of the borrowing of money or the giving of any guarantee by the Government
of India, or the amendment of the law with respect to any financial obligations undertaken or to
be undertaken by the Government of India;

c) The custody of the Consolidated Fund or the Contingency Fund of India, the payment of
moneys into or the withdrawal of moneys from any such Fund;
Page 21 of 27

d) The appropriation of out of the Consolidated Fund of India;

e) The declaring of any expenditure to be expenditure charged on the Consolidated Fund of

India or the increasing of the amount of any such expenditure;

f) 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

g) any matter incidental to any of the matters specified in subclause (a) to (f)”

In Special Reference No.1 of 196414 , a seven-judge bench, while distinguishing “irregularity of
procedure” from “illegality”, held that it is possible for a “citizen to call in question in the
appropriate court of law, the validity of any proceedings inside the legislative chamber if his case
is that the said proceedings suffer not from mere irregularity of procedure, but from an
illegality.”Through a series of such Money Bills, the Government has been able to create the
legislative legitimacy to launch the Electoral Bond Scheme. Though the bulk portion of the
Money Bills passed do pertain to the items listed under Clause 1 of Article 110, what has enabled
the launch of the Electoral Bond Scheme are the minor seemingly innocuous amendments to
various legislations such as, the Income Tax Act, Foreign Contributions (Regulating) Act,
Representation of the People Act, and the Reserve Bank of India Act. The Electoral Bond
Scheme was passed under Section 31 (3) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. Subsection (3)
was introduced through the Finance Act 2017, which was introduced and passed as a Money
Bill. Had these ‘amendments’ not been added to the Finance Acts of2016 and 2017, the
legislative backing for the scheme would not have been present. Section 236 of the 2016 Finance
Act amends a definition clause in the FCRA and does not pertain to any transactions to do with
the Consolidated Fund, nor the Contingency Fund.CJI Ranjan Gogoi, however, contested his
theory that the anonymous scheme ensured that all money which went into poll funding was
white. “If the identity of the donor is unknown, your entire exercise to eliminate black money
becomes a futile exercise. Black money only becomes white,” the CJI observed. In the same case
Justice D.Y. Chandrachud observed that by terming a Bill as a Money Bill, the Speaker has the
power to exclude the Rajya Sabha from scrutinizing such a Bill completely. He also emphasized
14
AIR 1965 SC 745
Page 22 of 27

and quotes “The Rajya Sabha has an important role in the making of laws. Superseding the
authority of the Rajya Sabha is in conflict with the constitutional scheme and the legitimacy of
democratic institutions. It constitutes a fraud on the Constitution.”

6. It is also humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the Finance Bill is a Money Bill
within the meaning of the term under Article 109 of the Constitution of Bharat Nadu.
RajyaSabha being the upper house has no powers to vote or make any decisions or amendments
in money bills. However the definition of ‘Money Bill’ as provided under Article 110 of the
Constitution is crystal clear. It cannot include matters other than those relating to the imposition
of taxes or matters related to the Consolidated Fund of India. The amendments proposed to the
RBI Act, IT Act and the RP Act clearly do not fall within these criteria. So, once again the
government is trying to bulldoze amendments to other laws through legislation labeled ‘Money
Bill to prevent any actionable dissent in the Rajya Sabha. This is a grave constitutional
impropriety to say the very least and seems to be becoming a habit. Therefore, the impugned
legislation does not seem to fall into the ambit of Article 110 of the Bharat Nadu Constitution.

(d) Whether the decision of the Speaker of the Upper House certifying a bill as 'Money Bill'
amenable to judicial review?

The Petitioner humbly states that the Political (Donations) Regulations Act has been wrongly
certified and passed as a Money Bill under Article 110 of the Indian Constitution. Further, it
is submitted that the decision of the Hon’ble Speaker of the Lower House of the Parliament
to wrongly categorize bills is amenable to judicial review.
Page 23 of 27

The Petitioner states that Indian courts are invested with powers to strike down primary
legislation enacted by Parliament or the State Legislatures.15

It is further submitted that India follows the Parliamentary form of governance, which
assures supremacy and independence of the judiciary along with the power of judicial
review.16The Petitioner, at this juncture, elucidates the spirit of judicial review. Judicial
review means the Supremacy of law. It is the power of the court to review the actions of the
Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary itself and to scrutinize the validity of any law or
action. It has emerged as one of the most effective instruments of protecting and preserving
the cherished freedoms in a constitutional democracy and upholding principles such as
separation of powers and rule of law. The Judiciary, through judicial review, prevents the
decisions of other branches from impinging on the constitutional values. The fundamental
nature of the Constitution is that of a limiting document, it curtails the powers of
majoritarianism from hijacking the State. The power of review is the shield which is placed
in the hands of the most judiciaries of constitutional democracies to enable the protection of
the supreme document.17

It is further submitted that this Hon’ble Court has emphasized that the creation and
composition of the Rajya Sabha (Upper House) is an indicator of, and is essential to,
constitutional federalism. It is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution as held
in Kuldip Nayar&Ors. v. Union of India &Ors.18

The Petitioner states that wrongly certifying the PDR Act as a Money Bill under Article
110 of the Constitution of India, thereby, virtually excluding the Rajya Sabha from the
legislative process and depriving the Hon’ble President of his power of return is illegal and
grossly violates the constitutional provisions.

The Petitioner relies on the case of Binoy Viswam v. Union of India &Ors .,19 wherein the
scope of judicial review of legislative Act was described. “Under the Constitution, Supreme
15
https://www.prsindia.org/theprsblog/legislature-versus-judiciary

16
Manish Tiwari and RekhaSaxena, The Supreme Court of India, The Rise of Judicial Power And Protection of
Federalism.
17
Justice K.S Puttaswamy&Ors. vs. Union of India, AIR 2017 SC 4161.
18
AIR 2006 SC 3127.
19
AIR 2017 SC 2967.
Page 24 of 27

Court as well as High Courts are vested with the power of judicial review of not only
administrative acts of the executive but legislative enactments passed by the legislature as
well. This power is given to the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution and to the
Supreme Court under Article 32 as well as Article 136 of the Constitution. No doubt, in
exercises of its power of judicial review of legislative action, the Supreme Court, or for that
matter, the High Courts can declare law passed by Parliament or the State Legislature as
invalid.”

The Petitioner humbly submits that although Article 122(1) of the Constitution prohibits the
Courts from inquiring into the validity of the proceedings in the Parliament on the ground of
any alleged irregularity of procedure, the position stands that misclassifying a bill as a
Money Bill accounts for breach of constitutional provisions. Such illegality, gross
irregularity and unconstitutionality is not protected from judicial scrutiny. The Petitioner
relies on the case of Raja Ram Pal vs. Hon’ble Speaker of Lok Sabha20

wherein it has been held that “the proceedings   which   may   be   tainted   on   account of

substantive   or   gross   irregularity   or unconstitutionality   are   not   protected  
from judicial   scrutiny.” It would hence be gainsaid that gross violations of the
Constitutional scheme would not be mere procedural irregularities and hence would be
outside the limited ambit of immunity from judicial scrutiny under Article 122(1). In the case
at hand, jurisdiction of this Court is, hence, not barred.21 It was further held that, “Any
attempt to read a limitation into Article 122 so as to restrict the court's jurisdiction to
examination of the Parliament's procedure in case of unconstitutionality, as opposed to
illegality would amount to doing violence to the constitutional text. Applying the principle of
―expressiouniusestexclusioalterius‖ (whatever has not been included has by implication
been excluded), it is plain and clear that prohibition against examination on the touchstone
of “irregularity of procedure” does not make taboo judicial review on findings of illegality
or unconstitutionality.”In other words, the phrase “irregularity of procedure” in Article 122
does not cover constitutional procedure. Therefore, the protection from judicial review
granted by Article 122 cannot be stretched to protect non- compliance or breach of a

20
(2007) 3 SCC 184.
21
Roger Matthew Vs. South Indian Bank Ltd. &Ors.
Page 25 of 27

constitutional procedure like the special procedure for money bills under Articles 109 and
110.

It is submitted that Article212(1) makes it possible for a citizen to call in question in the
appropriate court of law the validity of any proceedings inside the legislative chamber if his
case is that the said proceedings suffer not from mere irregularity of procedure, as was held
in the case of I.R Coelho vs. State of Tamil Nadu. 22

The Petitioner further submits that the term ‘final’ in Article 110 (3) of the Constitution does
not preclude judicial scrutiny. Article 110 (3) essentially suggests that if any question arises
whether a Bill is a Money Bill or not, the decision of the Speaker of the House of the People
thereon shall be final.

The Petitioner relies on the case of Union of India v. Jyoti Prakash Mitter23

Wherein, in spite of there being ‘finality’ attached   to   the   order   of   the   President. This
Hon’ble Court had examined the legality of the order passed by the President
during the pendency of an appeal filed under Article 136 of the Constitution.Thus, giving
absolute conclusiveness to the Speaker’s certificate or decision and immunizing it from
judicial review would have been incompatible with the overall scheme of the Constitution of
Bharat Nadu.24

The Petitioner relies on the case of Rojer Mathew vs South Indian Bank Ltd And Ors
wherein it was noted that “Determining whether an impugned action or breach is an
exempted irregularity or a justifiable illegality is a matter of judicial interpretation and
would undoubtedly fall within the ambit of Courts and cannot be left to the sole authority of
the Parliament to decide. Such a position has also been taken in the United Kingdom by the
House of Lordsin R (Jackson) vs. Attorney General25where notwithstanding the explicit bar
to judicial consideration of all Parliamentary proceedings (and not just procedural
irregularities as under the Constitution of India), the Court assumed jurisdiction whilst
22
(2007) 2 SCC 1.
23
(1971) 1 SCC 396.
24
Constitutional Assembly Debates, Aditya Pal.
25
[2005] UKHL 56 
Page 26 of 27

noting that interpretation of statutes dealing with legislative processes would fall within the
domain of the Courts; statutory interpretation being a judicial exercise, regardless of the
immunities granted to parliamentary proceedings under the Bill of Rights.”

P
RAYER

Wherefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this

Hon‘ble Court be pleased to:

Declare-

Political Donation (Regulation) Act as a separate act is re-introduced in the parliament with
suitable amendments.
The nullification of the clause pertaining to the anonymity of the purchaser of Electoral Bonds
and make the process transparent
To disclose the information regarding the transaction shared between Mr. X and Bharat Nadu
Dena Bank.
AND/OR
Page 27 of 27

Pass any other order it may deem fit, in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted

Place: Bharat Nadu S/d_________________

Date: March, 2020 Counsel for the Appellant