Part V: The Union

Chapter II: Parliament

Article 83: Duration of Houses of Parliament

--- Original Article ---

(1) The Council of States shall not be subject to dissolution, but as nearly as possible one-third of the members thereof shall retire as soon as may be on the expiration of every second year in accordance with the provisions made in that behalf by Parliament by law.

(2) The House of the People, unless sooner dissolved, shall continue for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer, and the expiration of the said period of five years shall operate as a dissolution of the House:

Provided that the said period may, while a Proclamation of Emergency is in operation, be extended by Parliament by law for a period not exceeding one year at a time and not extending in any case beyond a period of six months after the Proclamation has ceased to operate.

Explanations

Article 83 establishes the durations and terms of India’s two Houses of Parliament: the Council of States (Rajya Sabha) and the House of the People (Lok Sabha). This article ensures both continuity and accountability within the legislative process by designating a permanent status for the Rajya Sabha and a time-bound status for the Lok Sabha.

Clause-by-Clause Explanation

Clause (1) - Permanent Structure of the Council of States

The Council of States, or Rajya Sabha, is designed as a continuous body, providing legislative stability by being exempt from dissolution. To ensure periodic member turnover, roughly one-third of the Rajya Sabha members retire every two years, based on terms set by Parliamentary law. This framework helps maintain an ongoing institutional memory and experience within the legislative body.

Example: In the 2022 Rajya Sabha elections, one-third of the members retired as per the biennial schedule, and new members were elected from states across India. This staggered approach enables consistency in legislative work while refreshing the chamber’s composition.

Clause (2) - Defined Tenure of the House of the People

The House of the People, or Lok Sabha, serves for a five-year term, after which it is automatically dissolved, allowing the electorate to choose their representatives anew. However, during a Proclamation of Emergency under Article 352, the term may be extended by Parliament for up to one year at a time. This extension is capped at a maximum of six months beyond the conclusion of the emergency.

Example: During the 1976 Emergency, the Lok Sabha term was extended to six years, allowing it to continue until 1977. With the restoration of the five-year term, subsequent Lok Sabhas have returned to the normal duration.

Amendments and Historical Significance

• Forty-second Amendment Act, 1976: The term was extended to six years during a time of political and national emergency.
• Forty-fourth Amendment Act, 1978: Repealed the previous change, restoring the Lok Sabha’s term to five years, reinstating the focus on democratic accountability and representation.

Historical Significance

The extensions and modifications to the Lok Sabha’s term during periods of emergency reflect a balance between governance flexibility and democratic principles. These amendments show India’s responsiveness to political circumstances while reinforcing commitment to a system where power returns to the people.

Historical Insight: The concept of a permanent upper house is adopted from parliamentary systems such as that of the United Kingdom’s House of Lords and the United States Senate. In India, this setup supports the Rajya Sabha’s role in representing the states' interests continuously at the national level.

Legislative History

Article 83 of the Indian Constitution, initially drafted as Article 68, was extensively deliberated on 18th May 1949 and incorporated into the final text of the Indian Constitution.

Debates and Amendments

During the Constituent Assembly debates, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar proposed an amendment to clause (2) replacing "by the President" with "by Parliament by law." He argued that the power to extend Parliament's term is a significant constitutional issue that should be vested in Parliament through formal legislation, rather than being determined by the President or less formal methods like resolutions or motions.

Prof. K.T. Shah proposed an amendment emphasizing the need for symmetry in the constitutional development of India. He suggested that if a Parliament is elected after a national emergency, it should serve only the remaining term of its predecessor, rather than a full new term. Shah argued that elections held immediately after an emergency are heavily influenced by that emergency, which might skew the representation of the people’s regular sentiments.

Mr. Tajamul Husain opposed Dr. Ambedkar's amendment requiring the President to get Parliament's consent before extending an emergency, arguing that the President needs independent authority, especially when Parliament is not in session. He also opposed Prof. K.T. Shah's amendment for using the incorrect term "People’s House" instead of "House of the People" and for proposing a four-year term instead of the agreed five years.

Shri R. K. Sidhwa argued that dissolutions occur under serious conditions, and the new Parliament should have a full five-year term to function effectively. He emphasized that it is unfair to penalize new members for the issues of the previous Parliament.

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar acknowledged the concerns about frequent elections after an emergency but noted that retaining the existing provisions in the Draft Constitution was a better alternative.