Part V: The Union

Legislative Procedure

Article 108: Joint Sitting of Both Houses in Certain Cases

--- Original Article ---

(1) If after a Bill has been passed by one House and transmitted to the other House—

• (a) the Bill is rejected by the other House; or
• (b) the Houses have finally disagreed as to the amendments to be made in the Bill; or
• (c) more than six months elapse from the date of the reception of the Bill by the other House without the Bill being passed by it,

the President may, unless the Bill has elapsed by reason of a dissolution of the House of the People, notify to the Houses by message if they are sitting or by public notification if they are not sitting, his intention to summon them to meet in a joint sitting for the purpose of deliberating and voting on the Bill:

Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply to a Money Bill.

(2) In reckoning any such period of six months as is referred to in clause (1), no account shall be taken of any period during which the House referred to in sub-clause (c) of that clause is prorogued or adjourned for more than four consecutive days.

(3) Where the President has under clause (1) notified his intention of summoning the Houses to meet in a joint sitting, neither House shall proceed further with the Bill, but the President may at any time after the date of his notification summon the Houses to meet in a joint sitting for the purpose specified in the notification and, if he does so, the Houses shall meet accordingly.

(4) If at the joint sitting of the two Houses the Bill, with such amendments, if any, as are agreed to in joint sitting, is passed by a majority of the total number of members of both Houses present and voting, it shall be deemed for the purposes of this Constitution to have been passed by both Houses: Provided that at a joint sitting—

• (a) if the Bill, having been passed by one House, has not been passed by the other House with amendments and returned to the House in which it originated, no amendment shall be proposed to the Bill other than such amendments (if any) as are made necessary by the delay in the passage of the Bill;
• (b) if the Bill has been so passed and returned, only such amendments as aforesaid shall be proposed to the Bill and such other amendments as are relevant to the matters with respect to which the Houses have not agreed; and the decision of the person presiding as to the amendments which are admissible under this clause shall be final.

(5) A joint sitting may be held under this article and a Bill passed thereat, notwithstanding that a dissolution of the House of the People has intervened since the President notified his intention to summon the Houses to meet therein.

Explanations

Article 108 of the Constitution of India provides a mechanism for resolving deadlocks between the two Houses of Parliament—the Lok Sabha (House of the People) and the Rajya Sabha (Council of States). When a disagreement arises over a Bill, this Article empowers the President to summon a joint sitting of both Houses to deliberate and vote on the Bill. This is a unique provision designed to facilitate legislative functioning in a bicameral parliamentary system, ensuring that disagreements over important Bills do not stall the law-making process indefinitely.

Clause-by-Clause Explanation

Clause (1): Circumstances Leading to Joint Sitting

Article 108(1) outlines the conditions under which a joint sitting can be summoned. These conditions include:

• When one House passes a Bill, but the other House rejects it.
• When the Houses disagree on amendments.
• When the second House fails to pass the Bill within six months of receiving it.

In such cases, the President may notify the intention to summon a joint sitting unless the Bill has lapsed due to the dissolution of the Lok Sabha.

Example

The Banking Services Commission (Repeal) Bill of 1977 is a well-known case where a joint sitting was summoned because of disagreements between the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha.

Clause (2): Exclusion of Adjournment Periods

When calculating the six-month period for inaction on the Bill by the second House, any periods of adjournment or prorogation lasting more than four consecutive days are not counted.

Clause (3): Effect of Presidential Notification

Once the President has notified the intention to summon a joint sitting, neither House can proceed further with the Bill until the joint sitting is held. This ensures that the legislative process does not get further complicated by continued independent deliberations in the two Houses.

Clause (4): Decision at Joint Sitting

At the joint sitting, if the Bill, with any agreed amendments, is passed by a majority of the total number of members present and voting, it is deemed to have been passed by both Houses.

Clause (5): Joint Sitting Despite Dissolution

Even if the Lok Sabha is dissolved after the President's notification, the joint sitting can still be held, and the Bill can be passed. This ensures that legislative decisions are not indefinitely delayed due to the dissolution of the Lok Sabha.

Limitations on Amendments

The type of amendments that can be proposed during a joint sitting is limited. For instance, if the Bill has not been returned to the originating House with amendments, only necessary amendments can be proposed. In cases where the Bill has been returned with amendments, only disagreements between the Houses can be addressed through amendments.

Real-Life Examples

• A famous instance of a joint sitting was the passage of the Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Bill in 1961, which faced disagreement between the two Houses. After a joint sitting was convened, the Bill was passed with amendments.
• In 2002, the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, after being passed by the Lok Sabha, was rejected by the Rajya Sabha. As a result, a joint sitting was summoned, and the Bill was passed. This case demonstrates the practical application of Article 108 to resolve legislative deadlocks.

Historical Significance

Article 108 ensures the effective functioning of a bicameral legislature, preventing long-term gridlocks in Parliament. It was a significant step in balancing the powers of the two Houses while preserving democratic principles.

Legislative History

Article 108 of the Indian Constitution, initially drafted and deliberated as article 88 of the Draft Constitution, was ultimately included in the Indian Constitution.

Debates and Amendments

During the debate on Article 88(1) of the Constitution, Shri H. V. Kamath proposed an amendment to include the words "other than a Money Bill or other financial Bill" to enhance clarity and consistency.

Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar opposed this, arguing that Article 90 already defines Money Bills and limits them to the House of the People, making Kamath's proposed amendment redundant.

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar suggested an amendment to Article 88(2), replacing "both Houses are" with "the House referred to in sub-clause (c)" for clarity by specifically referencing the relevant House. This amendment was adopted.

Shri K. Santhanam proposed removing the words "total number of" from Article 88(4), arguing that decisions at joint sittings should be made by a simple majority of members present and voting, not an absolute majority.

Shri H. V. Kamath also proposed deleting the phrase "for the purposes of this Constitution" from Article 88(4), contending that it was redundant. While Dr. Ambedkar initially argued in favor of retaining this phrase, Kamath's amendment was eventually adopted.

Discussion on Bicameralism

During the general discussion, Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena argued against the joint sitting provision, suggesting that the Lower House, being directly elected, should prevail over the Upper House in case of disagreements. He referenced the British Parliament model where a Bill automatically becomes law after a specific period if the Upper House rejects it.

Shri Chimanlal Chakubhai Shah opposed this view, emphasizing the importance of the Upper House in a federal system like India’s, where state representation is critical. He rejected the British model as inappropriate for India and supported the joint sitting mechanism as a fair solution to resolve disagreements, ensuring both national and state interests were considered.

Shri S. Nagappa, reflecting on his experience in Madras, expressed concerns about the Upper Chamber delaying legislation but acknowledged its value in providing experienced guidance, especially with adult suffrage in place. He supported the Upper Chamber, believing it would not obstruct progressive legislation, while suggesting a time limit for addressing Bills.

Ultimately, the Constituent Assembly adopted the amended Article 88 in the final text of the Indian Constitution following the acceptance of verbal amendments.

References

• The Constitution of India - Article 108, Joint Sitting of both Houses in Certain Cases.
• Constituent Assembly Debates - Debates surrounding Article 88 (Draft Article 88) on joint sittings, accessible from the official records of the Constituent Assembly.
• The Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), 2002 - Case example of a joint sitting for passing the Bill.
• The Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1961 - Case example of a joint sitting for passing the Bill.
• Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act, 2016 - A legislative Bill classified as a Money Bill, excluded from joint sittings under Article 108.
• The Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978 - Amendments impacting legislative procedures and related articles in the Constitution.
• Indian Parliamentary Procedures - Various practices governing joint sittings and legislative functioning, as per the procedural rules of both Houses of Parliament.