Constitution of India
Article 284: Custody of suitors' deposits and other moneys received by public servants and courts
Part XII — Finance, Property, Contracts and Suits (Chapter I — Finance, sub-heading: Miscellaneous Financial Provisions)
Article 284 (single article, no numbered sub-clauses — contains two sub-parts (a) and (b))
WHAT IT SAYS: All moneys received by or deposited with — (a) any officer employed in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State in his official capacity (other than revenues or public moneys raised or received by the Government), or (b) any court within the territory of India, to the credit of any cause, matter, account or persons, — shall be paid into the public account of India or the public account of the State, as the case may be. WHAT IT MEANS: 1. Non-revenue moneys (e.g., suitors' deposits, bail deposits, security deposits, earnest money) received by officials or courts cannot be kept with the officer or court. 2. Such moneys must be deposited into the Public Account (not the Consolidated Fund). 3. The government acts as custodian, not owner, of these funds. 4. This ensures constitutional oversight and auditability by the CAG. KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Public Trust over Non-Revenue Funds — public servants and courts are custodians, not owners, of moneys received in their official capacity; such funds must be routed through the Public Account for transparency and accountability.
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. Government of India Act, 1935 (United Kingdom) — Financial provisions in Part V of the Act, particularly sections dealing with revenues and public moneys, established the concept of Consolidated Fund and Public Account in India. Original provision: The 1935 Act laid down the framework for management of federal and provincial finances, including segregation of revenues from non-revenue receipts. What India kept: The constitutional distinction between Consolidated Fund (Art. 266) and Public Account (Art. 266(2)), with Article 284 specifically directing non-revenue receipts into the Public Account. 2. British Exchequer Practice (United Kingdom) — The UK tradition requires court deposits and suitors' funds to be managed under strict treasury rules. Original provision: Suitors' funds in English courts are managed under the Court Funds Rules, deposited with the Accountant General. What India kept: The principle that judicial deposits must be placed in government-controlled public accounts. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. Constitutional status — Unlike the UK (where this is a statutory/rules-based practice), India elevated the custody of suitors' deposits to a constitutional mandate, making it unamendable by ordinary legislation. 2. Federal dimension — Article 284 addresses both Union and State public accounts, reflecting India's federal structure where courts and officers operate at multiple levels of government. 3. Explicit exclusion of revenue — The article carefully carves out 'revenues or public moneys raised or received by the Government' which go to the Consolidated Fund under Art. 266(1), ensuring no overlap. NOTE: Article 284 was not in the original Draft Constitution of 1948 — it was an original Indian contribution proposed by the Chairman of the Drafting Committee (Dr. Ambedkar) on 9 September 1949 to clarify that non-revenue receipts form part of the Public Account and can be managed under appropriation law.
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: 9 September 1949 (CAD Volume IX) KEY SPEAKERS: 1. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (Chairman, Drafting Committee) — Proposed insertion of Draft Article 263A to clarify that non-revenue moneys received by officers and courts belong to the Public Account, not the Consolidated Fund. 2. Shri K.T. Shah — Proposed additional oversight, suggesting judicial transactions should be independently audited for transparency. 3. Shri Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar — Defended the article, stating the framework struck an appropriate balance between flexibility and control for courts and officers. MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS: 1. No major disagreements recorded — the article was adopted on the same day it was proposed. 2. K.T. Shah's suggestion for independent audit layers was noted but not formally adopted as a separate provision. FINAL OUTCOME: Draft Article 263A was proposed and adopted on 9 September 1949 without significant opposition; it became Article 284 in the final Constitution. AMBEDKAR'S KEY RATIONALE: Since receipts under this article do not form part of the Consolidated Fund, this provision was needed to clarify that they form part of the Public Account and can be utilized according to appropriation law.
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: No specific landmark Supreme Court judgments directly interpreting Article 284 have been reported. The article primarily deals with procedural aspects of financial management and has not been the subject of significant constitutional litigation. However, its principles are invoked in: 1. Cases involving mismanagement of suitors' deposits by courts or public servants — courts rely on Art. 284 to mandate proper accounting. 2. Cases involving the distinction between Consolidated Fund and Public Account — Art. 284 is read with Art. 266 and Art. 283. INSTITUTIONAL OVERSIGHT: 1. Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) — Audits compliance with Art. 284 through reports on the management of Public Account funds. 2. Public Accounts Committee (PAC) — Examines the handling of moneys by public servants and courts under Art. 284. 3. Finance Commission — Reviews financial management practices for consistency with Art. 284's transparency mandate. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. D.D. Basu — Article 284 is a safeguard to ensure that non-revenue moneys do not remain in the personal custody of officers or courts, but are routed through the Public Account for constitutional accountability. 2. M.P. Jain — Article 284 complements Art. 266 and Art. 283 to create a complete framework for the custody and management of all categories of public moneys in India.