a. Most of the 40 amendments proposed have nothing to do with
Article 110(1) of the Constitution, defining a Money Bill: related to changes
in taxation, spending of taxpayer money, changes in Central or state
accounting, etc.
b. Many of these amendments are ridiculous. The merging of
tribunals is devoid of rationale.
c. The government‘s move to tag substantive amendments, many
of the 40 relating to diverse aspects of regulation and representation, on to
the Finance Bill is an unwelcome blow to the heart of Indian democracy.
d. The government‘s claim that these diverse amendments can
be lumped together as a Money Bill, outside the scrutiny of the Rajya Sabha,
where the BJP is in a minority, holds no water.
e. By incorporating these amendments, which include subjects
as diverse as the mandatory necessity of Aadhaar numbers for income-tax
returns, removing transparency in political donations and government meddling
in the process of appointing appellate tribunals, the Bill seeks to bypass
broader parliamentary scrutiny and debate.