Constitution of India
Article 106: Salaries and allowances of members
Part V — The Union (Chapter II — Parliament, Sub-heading: Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament and its Members)
Article 106 (single, undivided article — no sub-clauses)
WHAT IT SAYS: Members of either House of Parliament are entitled to salaries and allowances as determined by Parliament by law; until such law is made, they receive allowances at rates applicable to members of the Constituent Assembly of the Dominion of India immediately before the Constitution commenced. WHAT IT MEANS: 1. Parliament has EXCLUSIVE power to fix its own members' pay — no external body decides. 2. Creates a transitional/interim provision — Constituent Assembly rates applied until Parliament legislated. 3. Parliament exercised this power via the Salary, Allowances and Pension of Members of Parliament Act, 1954. 4. Applies equally to Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha members. 5. Raises an inherent conflict of interest — MPs decide their own compensation. KEY DOCTRINE: 1. Doctrine of Legislative Self-Regulation — Parliament controls its own financial entitlements without executive or judicial interference. 2. Doctrine of Legislative Autonomy — Reflects separation of powers; legislature is independent of executive in matters of its members' remuneration.
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. United Kingdom — British Parliamentary Convention Original provision: Members of Parliament in the UK historically received no salary until the Parliament Act 1911 introduced payment; allowances were determined by Parliament itself. What India kept: The principle that the legislature determines its own members' compensation by law. 2. Government of India Act, 1935 — Section 29 (Salaries and allowances of members of Federal Legislature) Original provision: Provided for salaries and allowances of members of the Federal Legislature as determined by the Federal Legislature by law. What India kept: Nearly identical structure — Parliament determines pay by law, with transitional provisions bridging the old regime. 3. Australia & New Zealand — Referenced during CAD for proportional salary-fixing between MPs and Ministers. Original provision: Statutory proportional link between MP salaries and ministerial salaries. What India kept: Did NOT adopt this model; rejected during Constituent Assembly Debates. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. Transitional clause referencing Constituent Assembly rates — Ensured continuity from colonial-era provisions to the new Republic without a salary vacuum. 2. Parliament given unilateral power (no independent pay commission for MPs) — Framers trusted elected representatives to self-regulate, unlike the UK which later created IPSA (2009). 3. No constitutional cap or formula for MP salaries — Framers deliberately kept it flexible so future Parliaments could adapt to changing economic conditions.
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: 20 May 1949 (CAD Volume VIII) Draft Article Number: 86 KEY SPEAKERS: 1. Mr. Z.H. Lari — Moved amendment proposing: (a) MP salary = one-fourth of Cabinet Minister salary. (b) Leader of Opposition should receive salary equal to Minister of State (non-Cabinet rank). (c) Argued this would constitutionally recognise the Opposition and strengthen parliamentary democracy. 2. Shri T.T. Krishnamachari (Madras) — Opposed Lari's amendment. Argued financial provisions alone would not create an effective opposition. Said the article was already wide enough to allow Parliament to address these matters later. 3. Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar — Opposed Lari's amendment. Argued Article 86 (106) was broad enough for Parliament to determine all salaries. Said true opposition should arise from policy differences, not financial incentives. 4. Shri Biswanath Das (Orissa) — Strongly opposed Lari's amendment. Called it 'unnecessary, unfortunate and undesirable.' Argued some members voluntarily gave away their salaries to serve the nation. 5. Shri K. Santhanam (Madras) — Moved a drafting amendment: Proposed substituting 'Constituent Assembly' for 'Legislature of the Dominion of India.' Amendment ACCEPTED by Dr. Ambedkar and the Assembly. 6. Kazi Syed Karimuddin (C.P. & Berar) — Spoke in support of constitutional recognition of Opposition. MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS: 1. Leader of Opposition's salary — Lari wanted it constitutionally guaranteed; majority said Parliament could do it by ordinary law later. 2. Proportional salary formula (MP vs Minister) — Proposal to fix MP salary as a fraction of ministerial salary (as in Australia/New Zealand) was rejected. 3. Whether the interim reference should be to 'Legislature of the Dominion' or 'Constituent Assembly' — Resolved in favour of 'Constituent Assembly' per Santhanam's amendment. FINAL OUTCOME: 1. Lari's amendments (Leader of Opposition salary + proportional pay) were REJECTED. 2. Santhanam's drafting amendment (Constituent Assembly substitution) was ACCEPTED. 3. Draft Article 86 was adopted with Santhanam's modification as Article 106. AMBEDKAR'S KEY STATEMENT: Dr. Ambedkar expressed 'complete agreement' with Ayyangar and Krishnamachari's arguments against Lari, stated he found their reply 'quite complete,' and accepted Santhanam's substitution of 'Constituent Assembly' for 'Legislature of the Dominion of India.'
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India (2018) — SC held that MPs drawing salary under Article 106 and the 1954 Act does NOT create an employer-employee relationship between Government and legislators; legislators cannot be called 'full-time salaried employees' merely because they receive salary from the Consolidated Fund. 2. P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE) (1998) — While primarily on Article 105 (privileges/bribery), the case touched upon the broader framework of MP entitlements including salaries under Article 106; SC held MPs are public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act despite receiving salary under constitutional provisions. 3. Sita Soren v. Union of India (2024) — Seven-judge bench overruled the 1998 P.V. Narasimha Rao ruling on immunity; reinforced that MPs' privileges (including those linked to their status as salaried members under Art. 106) do not shield them from criminal prosecution for bribery. NOTABLE POLICY DEVELOPMENTS: 1. Salary, Allowances and Pension of Members of Parliament Act, 1954 — First legislation under Article 106; has been amended multiple times. 2. Finance Act, 2018 — Introduced automatic revision of MP salary every 5 years linked to cost inflation index, addressing the conflict-of-interest concern. 3. COVID-19 Salary Cut (2020) — Parliament reduced MP salaries by 30% for one year via Ordinance, demonstrating the flexibility Article 106 provides. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. NCRWC (Venkatachaliah Commission, 2002) — Recommended reforms for greater transparency and accountability in determining MP salaries and allowances. 2. PRS Legislative Research — Highlighted the inherent conflict of interest where MPs set their own salaries; noted India lacks an independent body (unlike UK's IPSA) to determine legislator pay.