In the Indian parliamentary system, who has the authority to certify a bill as a Money Bill?

Introduction / Context:
A Money Bill is a special type of bill that deals only with specific financial matters such as taxation, borrowing, and expenditure from the Consolidated Fund. In India, Money Bills follow a different procedure compared to ordinary bills, especially with regard to the powers of the Rajya Sabha. For that reason, it is crucial that there is a clear authority to decide whether a bill is truly a Money Bill. This question asks who has the constitutional power to give this certification.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• The bill in question is a Money Bill under the Constitution of India.
• Options mention key offices such as the Finance Minister, President, Speaker of the Lok Sabha, Prime Minister, and Chairman of the Rajya Sabha.
• We assume the procedure described in Article 110 of the Constitution.

Concept / Approach:
Article 110 defines what constitutes a Money Bill. It also specifies that if any question arises whether a bill is a Money Bill or not, the decision of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha shall be final. While the Finance Minister introduces many financial bills and the President must recommend some financial measures, the constitutional authority for certification lies with the Speaker. The Rajya Sabha plays a limited role in relation to Money Bills and cannot block them. Therefore, the correct approach is to recall the constitutional text giving final say to the Speaker.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Recall the definition of a Money Bill in Article 110 of the Constitution.Step 2: Remember that the Article says the decision of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha on whether a bill is a Money Bill is final.Step 3: Note that the Finance Minister may introduce financial proposals, but has no constitutional power to certify the nature of the bill.Step 4: Understand that the President recommends introduction of certain financial bills but does not certify their classification.Step 5: Conclude that the Speaker of the Lok Sabha is the correct authority.

Verification / Alternative check:
Another way to verify is to consider the logic of parliamentary practice. The Speaker is supposed to be a neutral presiding officer and is already responsible for many procedural decisions, such as admitting questions and maintaining order. Giving the Speaker the authority to certify a Money Bill ensures that this important procedural step is handled by an officer of the house rather than a political member of the executive. Standard polity books clearly state that the Speaker decision on Money Bills is final and binding.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
The Finance Minister presents the budget but has no special authority in the Constitution to certify bills as Money Bills. The President gives recommendation for some financial matters, yet the Article does not assign this classification role to the President. The Prime Minister heads the Council of Ministers but does not decide the category of bills. The Chairman of the Rajya Sabha presides over the upper house and has no power over the internal classification of bills in the Lok Sabha. Thus none of these offices has the final constitutional authority described in the question.

Common Pitfalls:
Candidates often assume that financial matters must be decided either by the Finance Minister or the President, because they seem most closely related to money. This can lead to a wrong answer. It is important to remember that classification as a Money Bill is a matter of parliamentary procedure, not simply finance. Linking Money Bills with Article 110 and the Speaker role helps avoid this confusion.

Final Answer:
Speaker of the Lok Sabha