Constitution of India
Article 118: Rules of procedure
Part V — The Union (Chapter II — Parliament, Sub-heading: Procedure Generally)
Clause (1)
WHAT IT SAYS: Each House of Parliament may make rules for regulating, subject to the provisions of this Constitution, its procedure and the conduct of its business. WHAT IT MEANS: Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha each enjoy autonomous power to frame their own procedural rules — but those rules cannot violate any constitutional provision. KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Parliamentary Autonomy — each House is master of its own internal procedure, subject only to constitutional limits.
Clause (2)
WHAT IT SAYS: Until rules are made under Clause (1), the pre-Constitution rules of procedure and standing orders of the Dominion Legislature shall continue, subject to modifications by the Chairman of Rajya Sabha or Speaker of Lok Sabha. WHAT IT MEANS: This is a transitional provision ensuring no procedural vacuum at the commencement of the Constitution on 26 January 1950. KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Continuity — existing law carries forward until replaced, preventing legislative paralysis.
Clause (3)
WHAT IT SAYS: The President, after consulting the Chairman of the Council of States and the Speaker of the House of the People, may make rules for joint sittings and inter-House communications. WHAT IT MEANS: Joint sitting procedure (invoked under Article 108 for legislative deadlocks) is governed by rules framed by the President, not by either House alone. KEY DOCTRINE: Executive-facilitated bicameral coordination — the President acts as a procedural bridge between the two Houses.
Clause (4)
WHAT IT SAYS: At a joint sitting, the Speaker of the House of the People shall preside; in his absence, such person as may be determined by rules under Clause (3) shall preside. WHAT IT MEANS: The Speaker of Lok Sabha has primacy over joint sittings, reinforcing the democratic pre-eminence of the directly elected lower House. KEY DOCTRINE: Speaker's Primacy in Joint Sessions — the Speaker, not the Chairman of Rajya Sabha, presides at joint sittings.
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. United Kingdom — British Parliamentary Convention (Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice) Original provision: Each House of the UK Parliament has the inherent right to regulate its own internal proceedings, a convention traceable to Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689. What India kept: The principle that each House autonomously frames its own rules of procedure. 2. Government of India Act, 1935 — Sections 38–41 (Procedure Generally under Federal Legislature) Original provision: The Act contained a 'Procedure generally' sub-heading empowering each chamber to frame rules and providing for joint sittings. What India kept: The basic scheme of House-made rules, transitional continuation of pre-existing rules, and Presidential power over joint-sitting procedure. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. Rule-making power made 'subject to the provisions of this Constitution' — Why: unlike UK parliamentary sovereignty, India adopted constitutional supremacy, so procedural rules cannot override fundamental rights or other constitutional mandates. 2. President given explicit consultative (not directive) role for joint-sitting rules — Why: framers wanted the Executive to facilitate coordination without dictating to the legislature. 3. Speaker of Lok Sabha given primacy at joint sittings over the Vice-President/Chairman of Rajya Sabha — Why: Lok Sabha, being directly elected, was given precedence to reflect democratic accountability. 4. Transitional clause (2) added — Why: newly independent India needed continuity from the Dominion Legislature to the Republican Parliament without a procedural gap.
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: 10 June 1949 (CAD Volume VIII) DRAFT ARTICLE NUMBER: Draft Article 98 KEY SPEAKERS: 1. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar — Moved the Draft Article; supported the existing formulation granting each House autonomy over its procedure. 2. An unnamed member proposed an amendment to Clause (4) — Argued that the Chairman of the Council of States (Vice-President) should preside over joint sittings in the absence of the Speaker. 3. Several other members opposed the amendment — Argued it was improper because it seemingly placed the Vice-President below the Speaker in the constitutional hierarchy. MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS: 1. Who should preside at joint sittings in Speaker's absence? — A member argued the Chairman of the Council of States was the most appropriate person, but he would find it embarrassing to propose his own name under Clause (3) rules. Others responded that this would improperly subordinate the Vice-President to the Speaker. FINAL OUTCOME: The amendment was withdrawn, and the Assembly adopted Draft Article 98 as originally proposed on 10 June 1949. AMBEDKAR'S KEY QUOTE: Not recorded in available sources for this specific article; Ambedkar moved the article without extensive floor remarks as it attracted limited controversy.
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India (AIR 1951 SC 458) — The Supreme Court observed that the makers of the Constitution intended Parliament to follow the procedure under Article 118 rules even when exercising its power to amend the Constitution under Article 368. 2. In Re: Special Reference No. 1 of 1964 / Keshav Singh v. Speaker, Legislative Assembly, U.P. (1965) — The Supreme Court affirmed that each House has exclusive authority over its internal procedures, but this is subject to judicial review if there is a clear violation of constitutional provisions. 3. Raja Ram Pal v. Hon'ble Speaker, Lok Sabha (2007) 3 SCC 184 — The Court noted that each House under Article 118 has framed detailed rules called 'Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business'; held that parliamentary privileges including expulsion are subject to judicial review for constitutional compliance. 4. Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975 Supp SCC 1) — The Court emphasised the importance of parliamentary procedure and the Speaker's authority in maintaining order and upholding democratic traditions. 5. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980) 3 SCC 625 — The Court discussed the procedural and structural balance among the three organs of the state, reaffirming that Parliament's rule-making power under Article 118 is part of the constitutional scheme. NOTABLE DISSENTS: 1. None specifically recorded on Article 118 interpretation; however, in Raja Ram Pal (2007), there was a minority view cautioning against excessive judicial interference in internal parliamentary matters. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC, 2002) — Recommended reforms to enhance the effectiveness and transparency of parliamentary procedures under Article 118. 2. Erskine May (Parliamentary Practice) — The foundational treatise on parliamentary procedure that has guided the framing and interpretation of rules made under Article 118.