Part V: The Union

Legislative Procedure

Article 107: Provisions as to Introduction and Passing of Bills

--- Original Article ---

(1) Subject to the provisions of articles 109 and 117 with respect to Money Bills and other financial Bills, a Bill may originate in either House of Parliament.

(2) Subject to the provisions of articles 108 and 109, a Bill shall not be deemed to have been passed by the Houses of Parliament unless it has been agreed to by both Houses, either without amendment or with such amendments only as are agreed to by both Houses.

(3) A Bill pending in Parliament shall not lapse by reason of the prorogation of the Houses.

(4) A Bill pending in the Council of States which has not been passed by the House of the People shall not lapse on a dissolution of the House of the People.

(5) A Bill which is pending in the House of the People, or which having been passed by the House of the People is pending in the Council of States, shall, subject to the provisions of article 108, lapse on a dissolution of the House of the People.

Explanations

Article 107 of the Indian Constitution is a key provision that defines the procedure for the introduction and passage of Bills in Parliament. It maintains the balance of power between the two Houses of Parliament—Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha—while ensuring the legislative process is conducted efficiently. This article plays a crucial role in the legislative framework of India.

Clause-by-Clause Explanation

Clause (1): Bills Originating in Parliament

This clause permits Bills to originate in either the Lok Sabha or the Rajya Sabha, but with an important exception. Articles 109 and 117 stipulate that Money Bills and other financial Bills can only be introduced in the Lok Sabha. This distinction ensures that financial control remains with the popularly elected House.

Clause (2): Passage of Bills by Both Houses

For a Bill to be considered passed, both Houses must agree to it either without amendments or with mutually accepted amendments. This clause enshrines the need for consensus between the two Houses, reinforcing the principle of bicameralism. Articles 108 and 109 address how deadlocks between the two Houses are to be resolved.

Clause (3): Prorogation and Continuation of Bills

Even if Parliament is prorogued (temporarily suspended), Bills that are pending in either House remain active and do not lapse. This clause ensures that legislative work can continue without disruption after prorogation.

Clause (4): Rajya Sabha Bills and Lok Sabha Dissolution

Bills pending in the Rajya Sabha do not lapse if the Lok Sabha is dissolved. This provision protects the legislative process in the upper house (Rajya Sabha), allowing it to continue unaffected by changes in the lower house.

Clause (5): Lapsing of Bills in the Lok Sabha

If a Bill is pending in the Lok Sabha, or has passed the Lok Sabha but not yet the Rajya Sabha, it will lapse upon the dissolution of the Lok Sabha, except in cases where the provisions of Article 108 apply. This clause preserves the integrity of legislative proceedings in the case of Lok Sabha elections.

Real-Life Examples

• An illustrative example is the Land Acquisition Bill of 2015. This Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha and passed there. However, it faced opposition in the Rajya Sabha. Before the Bill could be fully passed by both Houses, the Lok Sabha was dissolved, resulting in the Bill lapsing, as stipulated by Article 107(5).
• Another example is the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Bill. It originated in the Lok Sabha and was passed with amendments before being sent to the Rajya Sabha. However, the Rajya Sabha proposed further amendments, which required approval from the Lok Sabha, demonstrating the legislative cooperation and potential disagreement between the two Houses.

Historical Significance

Article 107 is rooted in the legislative practices followed by the British Parliament, reflecting India’s colonial legacy. It is also significant in the context of India's decision to adopt a bicameral legislature, allowing for a more comprehensive review process for legislation, involving both the representatives of the people and the states.

Legislative History

Article 107 of the Indian Constitution, initially drafted and deliberated as article 87 of the Draft Constitution, was ultimately integrated into the Indian Constitution.

Debates and Amendments

During the debates on Article 87, Prof. K.T. Shah proposed several amendments aimed at improving legislative efficiency and enhancing the public's connection with Parliament. One key amendment suggested allowing either House of Parliament to directly receive petitions from the people of India, ensuring that citizens could present grievances and opinions throughout the parliamentary term. He argued that such measures would strengthen the democratic process and make it more responsive to public concerns.

Shah also proposed amendments to streamline the legislative process, including provisions for bills pending in either House at the time of dissolution. His proposals aimed to prevent duplication of work and save time by allowing certain bills to be resumed by the new House or taken up by the Rajya Sabha (Council of States) under specific conditions. However, the majority of these proposals were seen as impractical and were ultimately rejected.

In contrast, Shri Brajeshwar Prasad strongly opposed clause (2) of Article 87. He argued that bills should not require approval from both Houses, asserting that the Lok Sabha, being the directly elected body, should have the ultimate authority in passing legislation. According to Prasad, the Rajya Sabha should play a more advisory role, and he criticized the Constitution's federal structure as an unnecessary remnant of British-era practices, suggesting that it hindered legislative efficiency.

While Prasad's views on federalism and the supremacy of the Lok Sabha were acknowledged, the Constituent Assembly rejected his proposals in favor of maintaining a balanced bicameral legislative process. The debates around this article highlighted the tension between maintaining a democratic balance between the two Houses of Parliament and ensuring legislative efficiency.