Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(I) Article 282 of the Constitution of India only permits defraying of funds from the Consolidated Fund of the State for “public purpose”; (II) The distributions made by the respondent-State is violative of Article 14 since there is no reasonable classification; (III) Promises of free distribution of non-essential commodities in an election manifesto amounts to electoral bribe under Section 123 of the RP Act;
(IV) The Comptroller and Auditor General of India has a duty to examine expenditures even before they are deployed; and (V) Safeguards must be built into schemes to ensure that the distribution is made for a public purpose and is not misused. (I) Article 282 of the Constitution of India only permits defraying of funds from the Consolidated Fund of the State for “public purpose”.
7) Regarding the first contention relating to Article 282 of the Constitution of India which only permits use of monies out of the Consolidated Fund of the State for public purpose, it is useful to refer the said Article which reads as under:
“282. Expenditure defrayable by the Union or a State out of its revenue – The Union or a State may make any grants for any public purpose, notwithstanding that the purpose is not one with respect to which Parliament or the Legislature of the State, as the case may be, may make laws.”
8) It is pointed out by Mr. Datar that under Article 266(3) of the Constitution, the monies out of the Consolidated Fund of India or the Consolidated Fund of the State can only be appropriated in accordance with law and for the purposes and in the manner provided by the Constitution.

Under Article 162, the extent of the executive power of the State is limited to the matters with respect to which the Legislature of the State has the power to make laws. Likewise, under Article 282, the Union or the States may make grants for “any public purpose”, even if such public purpose is not one with respect to which the State or the Union may make laws. By referring these Articles, Mr. Datar submitted that monies out of the Consolidated Fund of the State can only be appropriated for the execution of laws made by the State, or for any other “public purpose”.

64) In Bhim Singh (supra), Article 282 of the Constitution in the context of Government expenditure on various projects was considered. In that case, the Government in question had framed the scheme empowering the Members of Parliament to recommend works and projects in their respective constituencies. The said Scheme was challenged on the ground that the same has been formulated without enacting any law in that behalf. This challenge was negatived by this Court principally on the ground that any expenditure which the Government incurs on the said Scheme is authorized by the Appropriation Act and the Appropriation Act is a law as contemplated by Article 282. This Court also negatived the challenge on the ground that the same is not for public purpose.