Constitution of India
Article 107: Provisions as to introduction and passing of Bills
Part V — The Union (Chapter II — Parliament, Sub-heading: Legislative Procedure)
Clause (1)
WHAT IT SAYS: Subject to Articles 109 and 117 (Money Bills and Financial Bills), a Bill may originate in either House of Parliament. WHAT IT MEANS: Any ordinary Bill can be introduced in Lok Sabha OR Rajya Sabha; only Money Bills and certain Financial Bills must originate exclusively in Lok Sabha. KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Bicameral Equality for Ordinary Legislation — both Houses enjoy co-equal originating power for non-financial Bills.
Clause (2)
WHAT IT SAYS: Subject to Articles 108 and 109, a Bill is not deemed passed by Parliament unless agreed to by both Houses, without amendment or with amendments agreed by both. WHAT IT MEANS: Both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha must approve the same version of the Bill — neither House alone can enact law unilaterally (except Money Bills). KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Bicameral Concurrence — legislative will must be expressed through agreement of both chambers.
Clause (3)
WHAT IT SAYS: A Bill pending in Parliament shall not lapse by reason of the prorogation of the Houses. WHAT IT MEANS: Prorogation (ending a session) does NOT kill pending Bills; they carry over to the next session automatically. KEY DOCTRINE: Principle of Legislative Continuity — prorogation differs from dissolution in its effect on pending business.
Clause (4)
WHAT IT SAYS: A Bill pending in the Council of States (Rajya Sabha) which has not been passed by the House of the People (Lok Sabha) shall not lapse on dissolution of the Lok Sabha. WHAT IT MEANS: If a Bill is still solely with Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha is dissolved, the Bill survives because it never reached Lok Sabha. KEY DOCTRINE: Rajya Sabha Continuity Principle — Rajya Sabha is a permanent (non-dissoluble) House, so its pending business is unaffected by Lok Sabha dissolution.
Clause (5)
WHAT IT SAYS: A Bill pending in Lok Sabha, or passed by Lok Sabha but pending in Rajya Sabha, shall lapse on dissolution of Lok Sabha (subject to Art. 108 joint sitting). WHAT IT MEANS: Dissolution of Lok Sabha wipes out all Bills that Lok Sabha was processing or had passed to Rajya Sabha; fresh introduction is needed in the new Lok Sabha. KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Dissolution-Lapse — ensures the newly elected House can set its own legislative agenda without inheriting predecessor's unfinished Bills.
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. British Parliamentary Practice — Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 Original provision: Money Bills could pass without House of Lords consent; ordinary Bills required both Houses. What India kept: Bicameral requirement for ordinary Bills + special procedure for Money Bills (Arts. 109-110). 2. Government of India Act, 1935 — Sections 107-110 Original provision: Laid down legislative procedure for Federal Legislature with Council of State and Federal Assembly. What India kept: Basic framework of introduction, passage, and lapsing of Bills in a bicameral legislature. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. No Governor-General veto on introduction — Unlike the 1935 Act requiring Governor-General's prior sanction for certain Bills, India removed colonial executive gatekeeping. 2. Joint Sitting mechanism (Art. 108) — India created a deadlock resolution device not present in the British system, where the Lords can only delay. 3. Prorogation vs. Dissolution distinction codified — India explicitly protected Bills from lapsing on prorogation (Clause 3), giving constitutional certainty to parliamentary convention.
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: 20 May 1949 (CAD Volume VIII) Draft Article number: 87 KEY SPEAKERS: 1. Prof. K.T. Shah (Bihar) — Proposed a new clause allowing Parliament to receive petitions and representations directly from the people on financial or administrative matters. 2. An unnamed member — Argued that the House of the People (Lok Sabha) should have a superior position to the Council of States (Rajya Sabha), which he viewed as merely an advisory body to check 'hasty legislation'. 3. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (Chairman, Drafting Committee) — Defended the draft article as presented by the Drafting Committee. MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS: 1. Right to Petition — Prof. K.T. Shah wanted a clause entitling Parliament to receive petitions from citizens; this was not accepted. 2. Equality of Houses — A member opposed treating Rajya Sabha at par with Lok Sabha for ordinary legislation; this argument was also rejected. FINAL OUTCOME: The Assembly did not accept any amendments; Draft Article 87 was adopted as proposed by the Drafting Committee. AMBEDKAR'S KEY QUOTE: No specific recorded quote on Art. 87 is widely cited; debate was brief and the article was adopted without substantial controversy.
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2018) [Aadhaar Case] — Addressed whether Aadhaar Act passed as Money Bill bypassed Rajya Sabha; majority upheld it, but J. Chandrachud dissented, holding it violated bicameral legislative process under Arts. 107-110. 2. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) — Established that the power to legislate must adhere to democratic and procedural limits, reinforcing the basic structure doctrine relevant to legislative procedure. 3. Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) — Reaffirmed that Parliament's powers are subject to the Constitution and that proper legislative procedure must be followed. 4. Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) — Reiterated the balance between legislative authority and constitutional supremacy, underscoring limits on Parliament's law-making power. NOTABLE DISSENTS: 1. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud in K.S. Puttaswamy (2018) — Held that passing the Aadhaar Act as a Money Bill debased the Rajya Sabha and violated bicameralism as part of the basic structure. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. D.D. Basu — Article 107 ensures legislative discipline and continuity; prorogation-vs-dissolution distinction is central to parliamentary democracy. 2. M.P. Jain — The bicameral concurrence requirement under Art. 107(2) is the foundation of India's deliberative legislative process, distinguishing it from unicameral systems.