Part VI: The States

Chapter III: The State Legislature - Sessions and Prorogation

Article 174: Sessions of the State Legislature, Prorogation and Dissolution

--- Original Article ---

(1) The Governor shall from time to time summon the House or each House of the Legislature of the State 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 Governor may from time to time—

• (a) prorogue the House or either House;
• (b) dissolve the Legislative Assembly.

Explanation

Article 174 of the Indian Constitution empowers the Governor to summon, prorogue, and dissolve sessions of the State Legislature, maintaining a constitutional safeguard against extended recesses.

Clause Analysis

• Clause (1): Summoning the Legislature: The Governor summons the Legislature, ensuring no more than six months elapse between sessions.
• Clause (2): Proroguing and Dissolving the Legislature: Provides the Governor authority for prorogation and dissolution.

Amendments

First Amendment Act, 1951: Established the current form of Article 174, detailing the Governor's authority.

Real-Life Example

• During Kerala floods (2018), Article 174 mandated an expedited session to address urgent needs.

Historical Significance

This article reflects the intent to avoid long legislative inactivity, ensuring timely state responses.

Legislative History

Initially drafted as Article 153 in the Draft Constitution, amended for clarity in the First Amendment Act, 1951.

Debates and Deliberations

During the Constituent Assembly debates, several members expressed concerns about the scope of the Governor's powers in summoning, proroguing, and dissolving the State Legislature.

Mr. Mohd. Tahir proposed an amendment to add sub-clause (c) to clause (2), suggesting that specific conditions such as administrative failure or instability in the ministry should be grounds for the Governor to dissolve the Legislative Assembly. He stressed the importance of defining criteria to prevent arbitrary dissolutions, especially when political tensions between the Governor and the ruling party could lead to misuse of this power.

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, while addressing these concerns, supported the amendment to omit clause (3) to avoid inconsistencies with the constitutional role of the Governor. Ambedkar argued that clause (3) was redundant and might conflict with the idea of the Governor acting on the advice of the Council of Ministers. By removing it, the assembly sought to strengthen the democratic framework by ensuring the Governor's powers were appropriately balanced.

Shri H.V. Kamath opposed Dr. Ambedkar’s proposal to remove clause (3), asserting the importance of requiring the Governor to act on the Council of Ministers' advice, especially in cases involving the dissolution of the Legislative Assembly. Kamath highlighted that this provision would prevent the Governor from taking independent decisions that could destabilize the Assembly and disrupt democratic processes.

Shri T.T. Krishnamachari also contributed to the discussion, proposing a revision to the population basis for representation, noting that factors like demographic changes and accessibility issues needed to be considered in determining legislative sessions.

Ultimately, the proposal to add conditions for dissolution was rejected, and the deletion of clause (3) was adopted. This led to the final adoption of Article 174 as amended, reflecting the assembly's efforts to balance the Governor's role in state governance while safeguarding democratic representation.

References

• The Constitution of India - First Amendment, 1951
• Granville Austin’s The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation
• Case Law: State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977)