Part V: The Union

Disqualifications of Members

Article 101: Vacation of Seats

--- Original Article ---

(1) No person shall be a member of both Houses of Parliament and provision shall be made by Parliament by law for the vacation by a person who is chosen a member of both Houses of his seat in one House or the other.

(2) No person shall be a member both of Parliament and of a House of the Legislature of a State, and if a person is chosen a member both of Parliament and of a House of the Legislature of a State, then, at the expiration of such period as may be specified in rules made by the President, that person’s seat in Parliament shall become vacant, unless he has previously resigned his seat in the Legislature of the State.

(3) If a member of either House of Parliament—

• (a) becomes subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in clause (1) or clause (2) of Article 102, or
• (b) resigns his seat by writing under his hand addressed to the Chairman or the Speaker, and his resignation is accepted by the Chairman or the Speaker, as the case may be, his seat shall thereupon become vacant.

(4) If for a period of sixty days a member of either House of Parliament is without permission of the House absent from all meetings thereof, the House may declare his seat vacant.

--- Amendments ---

• The words and letters "specified in Part A or Part B of the First Schedule" omitted by the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, s. 29 and Sch. (w.e.f. 1-11-1956).
• Substituted by s. 29 and Sch., ibid., for "such a State" (w.e.f. 1-11-1956).
• Substituted by the Constitution (Fifty-second Amendment) Act, 1985, s. 2, for "clause (1) of article 102" (w.e.f. 1-3-1985).
• Substituted by the Constitution (Thirty-third Amendment) Act, 1974, s. 2 (w.e.f. 19-5-1974).
• Inserted by s. 2, ibid. (w.e.f. 19-5-1974).

Explanation

Article 101 of the Indian Constitution addresses the conditions under which a member of Parliament must vacate their seat. This article is designed to regulate the complexities arising from dual memberships and ensure the effective functioning of legislative bodies. It plays a critical role in preventing an individual from holding seats in both Houses of Parliament or in Parliament and a State Legislature simultaneously, ensuring a clear separation of legislative roles.

Clause-by-Clause Breakdown

• No Dual Membership in Both Houses of Parliament: Clause (1) prevents an individual from holding seats in both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha simultaneously. Parliament can make laws regarding the vacation of a seat in such cases, ensuring no conflict in representation.
• No Dual Membership Between Parliament and State Legislature: Clause (2) ensures that a person cannot hold membership in both Parliament and a State Legislature. If this situation arises, the individual must vacate one seat within a specified period.
• Disqualifications and Resignations: Clause (3) clarifies that a member's seat becomes vacant if they are disqualified under Article 102 or resign voluntarily. However, the Speaker or Chairman must ensure the resignation is genuine.
• Absence from Parliament: Clause (4) allows for a member’s seat to be declared vacant if they are absent for 60 consecutive days without permission from the House, excluding prorogation or adjournment periods.

Real-Life Examples

• Resignation of Sonia Gandhi (2006): Sonia Gandhi resigned from the Lok Sabha after facing controversy over holding an office of profit, demonstrating the application of dual membership rules.
• Absence of Jayalalithaa: Jayalalithaa, former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister, faced scrutiny over her extended absence from the Rajya Sabha, showcasing the use of Clause (4).
• Nandini Satpathy’s Case (1972): Nandini Satpathy vacated her seat in Parliament after being appointed Chief Minister of Odisha, reflecting Clause (2)’s enforcement.
• Rahul Gandhi's Resignation (2019): After losing in Amethi, Rahul Gandhi continued as an MP for Wayanad, adhering to rules preventing dual membership.

Historical Significance

The Seventh Amendment (1956) unified states and eliminated the distinction between State categories, reflecting India’s evolving political landscape. The Thirty-third Amendment (1974) addressed concerns over involuntary resignations, preventing coercion. The Fifty-second Amendment (1985) linked disqualifications under Article 102 to anti-defection laws, strengthening the democratic process.

References

• The Constitution of India
• Prohibition of Simultaneous Membership Rules, 1950
• Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956
• Constitution (Thirty-third Amendment) Act, 1974
• Constitution (Fifty-second Amendment) Act, 1985

Legislative History

Article 101 of the Indian Constitution was originally drafted as Article 82 in the Draft Constitution. Amendments, such as the Seventh Amendment (1956), the Thirty-third Amendment (1974), and the Fifty-second Amendment (1985), introduced significant changes to address concerns related to state unification, resignation processes, and anti-defection laws.

Debates and Amendments

During the debates, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar introduced a clause to prevent individuals from holding dual membership in Parliament and the State Legislature. This clause aimed to streamline the legislative process by avoiding conflicts of interest. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad proposed an amendment to adjust the language, advocating for the replacement of "becomes subject to" with "is disqualified under" to clarify disqualification rules. Although his suggestion was debated, it was not incorporated into the final draft.

Another proposal by Mr. H. V. Kamath called for introducing a recall mechanism for underperforming members, allowing constituencies to remove their representatives. This was seen as too drastic and risky, given India's large electorate, and the idea was ultimately rejected. Prof. K. T. Shah advocated for literacy qualifications in the national language for Parliament members, ten years post-enactment of the Constitution. This proposal also did not pass, as it was viewed as discriminatory.

The final draft of Article 101 was adopted without these amendments, reflecting a broader consensus on the importance of maintaining a balance between legislative efficiency and individual rights.