Part V: The Union

Chapter II: Parliament

Article 85: Sessions of Parliament, Prorogation and Dissolution

--- Original Article ---

(1) The President shall from time to time summon each House of Parliament to meet at such time and place as he thinks fit, but six months shall not intervene between its last sitting in one session and the date appointed for its first sitting in the next session.

(2) The President may from time to time—

• (a) prorogue the Houses or either House;
• (b) dissolve the House of the People.

Amendment: Substituted by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, s. 6, for Article 85 (w.e.f. 18-6-1951). Further substituted by s. 7 of the same Act, modifying the phrase "every session" (w.e.f. 18-6-1951).

Explanations

Article 85 of the Constitution of India outlines the powers and responsibilities of the President regarding the summoning, proroguing, and dissolution of Parliament. This article ensures the periodic convening of parliamentary sessions to maintain legislative continuity and governance accountability. With historical significance rooted in the evolution of parliamentary practices, Article 85 defines the procedural framework for legislative sessions in India, adapting elements from British parliamentary traditions while ensuring democratic stability.

Clause-by-Clause Explanation

Clause (1): Summoning of Parliament by the President

This clause provides that the President has the authority to summon each House of Parliament—either the Lok Sabha (House of the People) or the Rajya Sabha (Council of States)—to meet at times and places as deemed appropriate. However, it specifies a crucial limitation: no more than six months may elapse between the last sitting of one session and the first sitting of the next. This requirement enforces regular parliamentary sessions, enabling ongoing legislative oversight and deliberation.

Amendment: Initially, Article 85 did not specify the interval requirement between sessions. The Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, introduced this provision to mandate regularity and prevent executive overreach in delaying parliamentary meetings.

Clause (2): Powers of the President to Prorogue or Dissolve Parliament

Under Clause (2), the President holds the power to prorogue either or both Houses of Parliament. Additionally, the President can dissolve the House of the People (Lok Sabha), which formally ends the session of the Lok Sabha and triggers general elections. Prorogation, by contrast, merely suspends the ongoing session without dissolving the membership.

Real-Life Examples

• In 1975, following the declaration of Emergency, the President utilized this authority to dissolve the Lok Sabha and prorogue sessions as part of the Executive's extensive control. This action showcased the potential impact of Article 85 in balancing legislative and executive powers.
• The dissolution of the Lok Sabha in 1999 following a no-confidence motion against the ruling government is a classic example of Clause (2) in action. It led to the immediate need for fresh elections, demonstrating the role of Article 85 in upholding democratic processes.

Historical Significance

Article 85 draws from colonial practices but adapted them for a post-independence India that sought to establish a distinct parliamentary tradition. The six-month limit was inspired by democratic values emphasizing transparency and frequent government accountability.

Legislative History

Article 85 of the Indian Constitution, originally conceptualized as Article 69 during its drafting and deliberation stages, was ultimately included in the finalized text of the Indian Constitution on May 18, 1949. It underwent subsequent amendment through the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951.

Debates and Amendments

During the Constituent Assembly debate, Prof. K. T. Shah proposed two amendments to Article 69 of the draft constitution:

• Prof. K. T. Shah recommended changing the requirement from meeting "twice at least in every year, and six months" to meeting "once at least in every year at the beginning thereof, with no more than three months between sessions."
• Shah also proposed that Parliament should remain in session throughout the year, treating each sitting as continuous despite breaks for holidays or adjournments, to accommodate the expanded responsibilities under the new constitution.

Shri H. V. Kamath argued for increasing the minimum number of sessions from two to three annually, citing the longer and more frequent sessions of the American Congress and British Parliament as models to ensure effective legislative oversight.

Prof. K. T. Shah further suggested that if the President fails to summon Parliament within 90 days, the Speaker of the House of the People or the Chairman of the Council of States should have the authority to convene their respective Houses. This proposal aimed to prevent potential lapses by the President in fulfilling constitutional responsibilities.

In the general discussion, Shri R.K. Sidhwa advocated for more frequent and continuous parliamentary sessions to ensure timely and thorough debate of legislative business. He emphasized that the Indian Parliament should meet year-round, akin to the British Parliament.

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar opposed amendments that called for more frequent sessions than those originally stipulated in the Government of India Act, 1935. He emphasized that the existing provision ensured a balance between legislative oversight and executive functioning, without overburdening the legislative schedule.

Following the dismissal of all proposed amendments, the article was adopted unchanged by the Constituent Assembly.