Who decides whether a bill is a money bill or not in the State?
- (a)Chief Minister
- (b)Governor
- (c)Speaker of the Vidhan Sabha
- (d)Law Minister
Correct — C, Speaker of the Vidhan Sabha. Under Article 199(3) of the Constitution, if a question arises whether a bill introduced in a State Legislature is a Money Bill, the decision of the Speaker of the (State) Legislative Assembly is final. This mirrors the Union-level rule at Article 110(3), where the Speaker of the Lok Sabha certifies.
- (a)Chief Minister — The Chief Minister has no constitutional role in certifying whether a bill is a Money Bill.
- (b)Governor — The Governor's role is to recommend or assent to bills, not to decide whether a bill qualifies as a Money Bill — that certification power belongs to the Speaker.
- (d)Law Minister — No constitutional role in certifying Money Bills; this is a legislative-procedure function reserved for the presiding officer.
Money Bill classification is certified exclusively by the presiding officer of the Lower House — the Speaker — both at the Union level (Article 110(3), Speaker of Lok Sabha) and the State level (Article 199(3), Speaker of the Legislative Assembly/Vidhan Sabha). The certification is final and cannot be questioned in any court.
The trap is assuming the Governor plays the certifying role at the State level, by analogy with the President's assent function at the Union level — but neither the President nor the Governor decides Money Bill status; that is purely the Speaker's domain.
- Article 199(3): the Speaker of the State Legislative Assembly certifies whether a bill is a Money Bill; the decision is final
- Parallel Union provision: Article 110(3) — the Speaker of the Lok Sabha's certification is final
- A Money Bill can be introduced only in the Legislative Assembly (Vidhan Sabha), not the Legislative Council
- The Speaker's certification cannot be questioned in any court
Same mechanism at both levels — the presiding officer of the Lower House certifies, and the decision is final.
- Assuming the Governor certifies Money Bills (it is the Speaker)
- Confusing a Money Bill with an ordinary Financial Bill, which the Council can amend
MPPSC mirrors the Union-level UPSC question ('who decides Money Bill status') but swaps in State terms — Speaker of the Vidhan Sabha for Speaker of the Lok Sabha.
Which one of the following statements about a Money Bill is not correct?
- (a) A Money Bill can be tabled in either House of Parliament
- (b) The Speaker of Lok Sabha is the final authority to decide whether a Bill is a Money Bill or not
- (c) The Rajya Sabha must return a Money Bill passed by Lok Sabha and send it for consideration within 14 days
- (d) The President cannot return a Money Bill to Lok Sabha for reconsideration
Answer(a) A Money Bill can be tabled in either House of Parliament — this is the incorrect statement.
Statement (b) affirms the same certifying-authority concept — the Speaker's decision is final — at the Union level, mirroring this State-level question.
- practice — not a real PYQ
At the Union level, who has the final authority to decide whether a Bill is a Money Bill?
- (a)President
- (b)Speaker of the Lok Sabha
- (c)Chairman of the Rajya Sabha
- (d)Finance Minister
Answer(b) Speaker of the Lok Sabha — Article 110(3).
- practice — not a real PYQ
A Money Bill passed by a State Legislative Assembly can be introduced in which House?
- (a)Only the Legislative Council
- (b)Only the Legislative Assembly
- (c)Either House
- (d)Neither House
Answer(b) Only the Legislative Assembly — a Money Bill cannot originate in the Council.