Article 113 of the Constitution of India deals with the parliamentary procedure for considering the estimates of expenditure presented in the Annual Financial Statement under Article 112. It determines which expenditure is submitted to the vote of the Lok Sabha, how demands for grants are made, and the constitutional position of expenditure charged on the Consolidated Fund of India.
- Meaning of Article 113
- Article 113(1): Charged Expenditure
- What Is Charged Expenditure?
- Why Is Charged Expenditure Not Put to Vote?
- Article 113(2): Demands for Grants
- Who Can Vote on Demands for Grants?
- What Can the Lok Sabha Do With a Demand for Grant?
- Reduction of a Demand
- Article 113(3): Recommendation of the President
- Meaning of Presidential Recommendation
- Demand for Grant vs Annual Financial Statement
- Charged Expenditure vs Demand for Grant
- Article 113 and Article 112
- Article 113 and Article 114
- Why Is an Appropriation Bill Still Necessary?
- Article 113 and Article 115
- Article 113 and Article 116
- Article 113 and the Rajya Sabha
- Role of the Lok Sabha
- Cut Motions and Article 113
- Important Distinctions
- Common Confusions
- Article at a Glance
- Quick Revision
- Conclusion
The Article is an important part of Parliament’s control over public finances. It must be read with Articles 112 and 114, which respectively deal with the Annual Financial Statement and appropriation from the Consolidated Fund of India.
Meaning of Article 113
Article 113 distinguishes between two categories of expenditure shown in the Annual Financial Statement:
- Expenditure charged on the Consolidated Fund of India; and
- Other expenditure proposed to be made from the Consolidated Fund of India.
The two categories receive different parliamentary treatment.
Charged expenditure is not submitted to the vote of Parliament, although it may be discussed.
Other expenditure is submitted to the Lok Sabha in the form of demands for grants, and the Lok Sabha has the power to assent to, refuse, or reduce those demands.
This gives the directly elected House control over expenditure that requires grants while protecting certain constitutionally specified expenditures from annual voting.
Article 113(1): Charged Expenditure
Article 113(1) provides that so much of the estimates as relates to expenditure charged upon the Consolidated Fund of India shall not be submitted to the vote of Parliament.
However, it may be discussed in either House of Parliament.
This creates a clear constitutional distinction:
Charged expenditure → discussion permitted, voting not permitted
The provision does not mean that Parliament has no role in relation to charged expenditure. Parliament can debate and scrutinise such expenditure, but it cannot vote to approve or reject it as a demand for grant.
What Is Charged Expenditure?
Charged expenditure is expenditure that the Constitution specifically places on the Consolidated Fund of India without making it subject to the ordinary voting process.
Article 112(3) identifies several categories of such expenditure.
These include, among others:
- expenditure relating to the office of the President;
- salaries and allowances of specified presiding officers of Parliament;
- debt charges of the Government of India;
- specified financial entitlements of Supreme Court judges;
- salary, allowances and pension of the Comptroller and Auditor-General;
- certain sums required to satisfy judgments, decrees or awards; and
- other expenditure declared by the Constitution or Parliament by law to be charged.
Article 113(1) determines the parliamentary treatment of this expenditure.
Why Is Charged Expenditure Not Put to Vote?
The constitutional arrangement protects certain offices and financial obligations from being dependent upon an annual vote of the Lok Sabha.
The purpose is not to remove Parliament’s ability to scrutinise the expenditure.
Instead, it ensures that certain constitutionally protected expenditure cannot be defeated through the ordinary voting process.
Thus:
No vote does not mean no discussion.
Article 113(2): Demands for Grants
Article 113(2) provides that the estimates relating to other expenditure are submitted to the House of the People in the form of demands for grants.
This is a major constitutional distinction.
The demand for a grant is placed before the Lok Sabha because the Lok Sabha exercises the constitutional voting function over expenditure that is not charged on the Consolidated Fund.
The Rajya Sabha does not vote on demands for grants.
Who Can Vote on Demands for Grants?
The Lok Sabha votes on demands for grants.
The Rajya Sabha may discuss the financial proposals and the Annual Financial Statement, but it does not vote on demands for grants under Article 113.
This reflects the constitutional principle that the directly elected House exercises the decisive parliamentary control over public expenditure requiring grants.
What Can the Lok Sabha Do With a Demand for Grant?
Article 113(2) provides that the Lok Sabha has the power to:
- assent to a demand;
- refuse a demand; or
- assent to a demand subject to a reduction of the amount specified in it.
Therefore, the Lok Sabha can approve, reject or reduce a demand for grant.
Three possibilities
| Lok Sabha’s action | Result |
|---|---|
| Assent | Demand approved |
| Refusal | Demand rejected |
| Reduction | Demand approved for a lower amount |
This is an important manifestation of parliamentary control over public expenditure.
Reduction of a Demand
The Lok Sabha can reduce the amount requested in a demand for grant.
The Constitution therefore gives the House an active role rather than merely allowing it to approve or reject the government’s proposal.
In parliamentary practice, reductions proposed against demands are commonly associated with cut motions, although the detailed rules governing such motions arise from parliamentary procedure and rules of the Lok Sabha.
Article 113(3): Recommendation of the President
Article 113(3) provides that no demand for a grant shall be made except on the recommendation of the President.
This is a constitutional requirement.
A demand for a grant cannot simply be initiated independently by a Member of Parliament without the constitutionally required presidential recommendation.
The provision reflects the constitutional principle that proposals involving expenditure from the Consolidated Fund must originate through the executive framework and cannot be imposed through an ordinary private legislative initiative.
Meaning of Presidential Recommendation
The President’s recommendation under Article 113(3) is a constitutional precondition for making a demand for a grant.
In practical terms, the Union Government presents its expenditure requirements to the Lok Sabha through the constitutional financial procedure, with the required recommendation.
The provision should be distinguished from the President’s role under Article 111 in giving assent to Bills.
Article 113(3) vs Article 111
| Provision | Presidential role |
|---|---|
| Article 113(3) | Recommendation required before a demand for grant can be made |
| Article 111 | Assent/withholding/return of Bills after parliamentary passage |
These are constitutionally different functions.
Demand for Grant vs Annual Financial Statement
These terms should not be confused.
Annual Financial Statement
Article 112 requires the estimated receipts and expenditure of the Government of India to be laid before Parliament.
Demand for Grant
Article 113 deals with the estimates of other expenditure that are submitted to the Lok Sabha for voting in the form of demands for grants.
Therefore:
Article 112 → presents the estimates
Article 113 → provides the voting procedure for expenditure requiring grants
Charged Expenditure vs Demand for Grant
| Point | Charged expenditure | Demand for grant |
|---|---|---|
| Constitutional basis | Articles 112(2), 112(3), 113(1) | Article 113(2) |
| Submitted to vote? | No | Yes |
| House involved in voting | Neither House | Lok Sabha |
| Can be discussed? | Yes, in either House | Yes, subject to parliamentary procedure |
| Can amount be reduced by vote? | No | Yes |
| Presidential recommendation | Not a demand for grant | Required under Article 113(3) |
Article 113 and Article 112
Article 112 and Article 113 form consecutive stages in the constitutional financial process.
Article 112
The Annual Financial Statement presents the estimated receipts and expenditure.
Article 113
Parliament then deals with the estimates according to their constitutional classification.
Charged expenditure is discussed but not voted upon, while other expenditure is presented to the Lok Sabha as demands for grants.
Thus:
Article 112 → estimates
Article 113 → parliamentary consideration and voting
Article 113 and Article 114
Article 113 should also be read with Article 114.
Article 113 concerns the demands for grants.
Article 114 concerns the Appropriation Bill, which provides legal authority for withdrawal of money from the Consolidated Fund of India after the relevant grants have been made and for charged expenditure.
The broad sequence is:
Article 112 → Annual Financial Statement
↓
Article 113 → Demands for Grants
↓
Article 114 → Appropriation
This distinction is essential.
Why Is an Appropriation Bill Still Necessary?
Approval of a demand for grant does not by itself authorise withdrawal of money from the Consolidated Fund.
Article 114 requires an Appropriation Bill to be introduced to provide legal authority for the withdrawal of money from the Consolidated Fund of India.
The constitutional process therefore separates:
- parliamentary approval of expenditure; and
- legal authorisation for withdrawal.
Article 113 and Article 115
Article 115 deals with:
- supplementary grants;
- additional grants; and
- excess grants.
These provisions become relevant when the financial requirements cannot be fully addressed through the original annual demands for grants.
Thus, Article 113 deals with the normal annual estimates, while Article 115 provides mechanisms for specified situations arising after or beyond the original estimates.
Article 113 and Article 116
Article 116 deals with:
- vote on account;
- vote of credit; and
- exceptional grants.
These are special financial mechanisms that operate in circumstances where the normal annual grant procedure under Article 113 is insufficient or cannot conveniently be completed.
Article 113 and the Rajya Sabha
The Rajya Sabha has an important role in discussing the Annual Financial Statement and charged expenditure.
However, Article 113(2) specifically places the voting of demands for grants before the House of the People.
Therefore:
Lok Sabha → votes on demands for grants
Rajya Sabha → does not vote on demands for grants
This distinction is a key feature of India’s parliamentary financial system.
Role of the Lok Sabha
Article 113 gives the Lok Sabha significant financial control.
For expenditure that is not charged on the Consolidated Fund, the Lok Sabha can:
- approve the demand;
- reject the demand; or
- reduce the amount sought.
This enables the House to exercise direct control over the government’s proposed expenditure.
Cut Motions and Article 113
In parliamentary practice, Members of the Lok Sabha may move cut motions against demands for grants.
These are parliamentary devices through which members can propose reduction of a demand.
The detailed forms and rules governing cut motions arise from the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha, rather than directly from Article 113 itself.
Common categories include:
- policy cut;
- economy cut; and
- token cut.
These should therefore be understood as parliamentary procedural mechanisms operating within the constitutional framework of Article 113, rather than as terms expressly contained in the constitutional text.
Important Distinctions
Discussion vs voting
Charged expenditure can be discussed in either House but cannot be voted upon.
Demands for grants are voted upon by the Lok Sabha.
Annual Financial Statement vs demand for grant
The Annual Financial Statement is the constitutional statement of estimated receipts and expenditure.
A demand for grant is the mechanism through which non-charged expenditure is placed before the Lok Sabha for approval.
Demand for grant vs appropriation
A demand for grant is approved or rejected by the Lok Sabha.
An Appropriation Act provides legal authority for withdrawal from the Consolidated Fund.
Lok Sabha vs Rajya Sabha
The Rajya Sabha can discuss financial matters but does not vote on demands for grants.
The Lok Sabha has the decisive voting role under Article 113(2).
Presidential recommendation vs presidential assent
Article 113(3) requires a recommendation before a demand for grant is made.
Article 111 deals with assent to a Bill after parliamentary passage.
These are different constitutional functions.
Charged expenditure vs other expenditure
Charged expenditure is constitutionally protected from voting.
Other expenditure is submitted to the Lok Sabha as demands for grants.
Common Confusions
Can the Rajya Sabha vote on demands for grants?
No.
Article 113(2) specifically provides that the estimates of other expenditure are submitted to the House of the People in the form of demands for grants.
Can the Rajya Sabha discuss the Annual Financial Statement?
Yes.
The Annual Financial Statement is laid before both Houses, and charged expenditure may be discussed in either House.
Can Parliament vote on charged expenditure?
No.
Charged expenditure is not submitted to the vote of Parliament, although it may be discussed in either House.
Can the Lok Sabha reduce a demand for grant?
Yes.
Article 113(2) expressly allows the Lok Sabha to assent to a demand subject to a reduction of the amount specified in it.
Can the Lok Sabha reject a demand for grant?
Yes.
Article 113(2) permits the House of the People to refuse its assent to a demand.
Is the President’s recommendation required for every demand for grant?
Yes.
Article 113(3) states that no demand for a grant shall be made except on the recommendation of the President.
Does Article 113 itself mention cut motions?
No.
Cut motions are parliamentary procedural devices governed by the rules and practice of the Lok Sabha. Article 113 provides the constitutional framework for demands for grants.
Does approval of a demand for grant itself authorise withdrawal from the Consolidated Fund?
No.
The subsequent appropriation process under Article 114 is required.
Is all expenditure from the Consolidated Fund subject to voting?
No.
Article 112 distinguishes charged expenditure from other expenditure, and Article 113 gives different parliamentary treatment to the two categories.
Does Article 113 deal with the Annual Financial Statement itself?
It deals with the parliamentary procedure regarding the estimates contained in the Annual Financial Statement. The Annual Financial Statement itself is provided for under Article 112.
Article at a Glance
| Point | Position |
|---|---|
| Article | Article 113 |
| Subject | Procedure in Parliament with respect to estimates |
| Charged expenditure | Not submitted to vote |
| Charged expenditure discussion | Permitted in either House |
| Other expenditure | Submitted as demands for grants |
| Voting House | Lok Sabha |
| Lok Sabha’s powers | Approve, reject or reduce demand |
| Presidential recommendation | Required for every demand for grant |
| Annual Financial Statement | Article 112 |
| Appropriation | Article 114 |
| Supplementary/additional/excess grants | Article 115 |
| Vote on account/credit/exceptional grant | Article 116 |
| Cut motions | Parliamentary procedure, not expressly stated in Article 113 |
Quick Revision
- Article 113 deals with the procedure in Parliament with respect to estimates.
- It follows the presentation of the Annual Financial Statement under Article 112.
- Expenditure charged on the Consolidated Fund of India is not submitted to the vote of Parliament.
- Charged expenditure may nevertheless be discussed in either House.
- Other expenditure is submitted to the Lok Sabha in the form of demands for grants.
- The Lok Sabha may:
- approve a demand;
- reject a demand; or
- approve it with a reduction.
- The Rajya Sabha does not vote on demands for grants.
- No demand for a grant can be made except on the recommendation of the President.
- Approval of a demand does not itself authorise withdrawal from the Consolidated Fund.
- Article 114 provides for appropriation.
- Article 115 deals with supplementary, additional and excess grants.
- Article 116 deals with vote on account, vote of credit and exceptional grants.
- Cut motions operate through parliamentary rules and practice rather than being expressly created by Article 113.
- The core distinction is:
Charged expenditure → discussed, not voted
Other expenditure → voted by Lok Sabha
Conclusion
Article 113 establishes Parliament’s constitutional procedure for dealing with the expenditure estimates contained in the Annual Financial Statement. It protects charged expenditure from the voting process while allowing parliamentary discussion and gives the Lok Sabha control over other expenditure through demands for grants. The requirement of presidential recommendation further structures the initiation of expenditure demands. Read with Articles 112 and 114, Article 113 forms a central part of the constitutional system of parliamentary control over Union finances.
