The Cess Bill That Started in the Wrong House
In the Karnataka Legislature, a member of the Legislative Council introduces a bill imposing a new urban transport cess on petrol and diesel sold in Bengaluru. The Council debates it, adds two amendments, and passes it 32 to 24. The bill then goes to the 224-member Legislative Assembly, which rejects the amendments and passes the bill 118 to 61. The Council insists on its amendments and returns the bill. The Assembly passes it again in the original form. The Governor, who is on a tour, holds the bill for 45 days and then returns it to the Assembly with a message asking it to reconsider the tax rate. The Assembly re-passes it by a simple majority. A first-year student asks: can this bill become law, and was it even introduced in the right House?
1. Was the bill introduced in the correct House? Explain the constitutional rules for Money Bills in a bicameral state legislature.
Read the worked answer
No. A bill imposing a tax is a Money Bill, and Article 199 says a Money Bill can be introduced only in the Legislative Assembly, not in the Legislative Council. It also requires the Governor's recommendation for introduction. The Council's role is limited: under Article 199 it can only make recommendations within 14 days, and the Assembly may accept or reject them. The Council cannot amend a Money Bill and cannot insist on its amendments.
Therefore the Council's introduction, debate, two amendments and 32 to 24 vote do not make the bill valid. The Assembly's later 118 to 61 passage cannot cure the initial defect, because the bill was never properly before the legislature in the first place. The correct procedure would be for a minister or member to introduce the bill in the Assembly with the Governor's recommendation, after which the Council could only recommend changes.
This is a good example of why procedure matters: a popular tax proposal can still be unconstitutional if the wrong House starts it.
2. What can the Governor do when the bill is presented for assent, and what happens if the Assembly re-passes it?
Read the worked answer
Under Article 200, when a bill passed by the Assembly is presented, the Governor may assent, withhold assent, or return it with a message if it is not a Money Bill. The Governor may also reserve certain bills for the President. The crucial point here is that this bill, if it is a Money Bill, cannot be returned for reconsideration; the return power is limited to non-Money Bills.
So the Governor's 45-day delay and message asking the Assembly to reconsider the tax rate were procedurally wrong for a Money Bill. The Assembly's simple-majority re-passage does not make the bill lawful either, because the original introduction in the Council was invalid. The Governor should have refused assent on the ground that the bill was not passed in accordance with Articles 199 and 207. If the Governor had assented, the Act could still be challenged in court.
The lesson is that the Governor's options depend on the type of bill, and the Assembly cannot cure a fundamental procedural defect simply by voting again.
3. If the bill somehow became an Act, on what grounds could a citizen challenge it in court?
Read the worked answer
A citizen could challenge it in the High Court under Article 226 or the Supreme Court under Article 32. The strongest ground would be procedural unconstitutionality: a Money Bill was introduced in the Council, contrary to Article 199, and the Council's amendments were treated as binding, contrary to Article 207. A tax also needs the authority of law under Article 265, so an Act passed through the wrong procedure may not qualify as a valid law.
The petitioner could add substantive grounds: if the cess is arbitrary or disproportionate, it may violate Article 14; if it unreasonably restricts trade, Article 19(1)(g) may be invoked; if the revenue is used without any public purpose, Article 21 may be relevant. The court would first decide whether the bill was truly a Money Bill, then whether the procedure was followed, and finally whether the tax itself is reasonable.
The reasoning matters because a court does not re-vote the bill; it reviews legality, competence and constitutional limits.