Constitution of India
Article 168: Constitution of Legislatures in States
Part VI — The States (Chapter III — The State Legislature, General)
Clause (1)
WHAT IT SAYS: 1. Every State shall have a Legislature consisting of the Governor. 2. Sub-clause (a): States of Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Telangana, and Uttar Pradesh shall have TWO Houses. 3. Sub-clause (b): All other States shall have ONE House. NOTE ON ACTUAL STATUS: 1. Only 6 states currently operate bicameral legislatures: Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Telangana, Uttar Pradesh. 2. Tamil Nadu and Madhya Pradesh are listed but their Legislative Councils are NOT operational — Tamil Nadu's was abolished in 1986; Madhya Pradesh's was never constituted. WHAT IT MEANS: 1. The Governor is a COMPONENT PART of the State Legislature — not a member of any House, but integral to the legislative process (e.g., assent to Bills under Article 200). 2. States can be unicameral (only Vidhan Sabha) or bicameral (Vidhan Sabha + Vidhan Parishad). 3. The list in clause (1)(a) is NOT static — it changes via Parliamentary legislation under Article 169. KEY DOCTRINE: 1. Aid and Advice Doctrine — Governor as part of legislature acts on ministerial advice, not personal discretion (Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab, 1974). 2. No Pocket Veto Doctrine — Governor cannot stall legislation indefinitely (State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu, 2025).
Clause (2)
WHAT IT SAYS: 1. Where TWO Houses exist → Upper House = Legislative Council (Vidhan Parishad); Lower House = Legislative Assembly (Vidhan Sabha). 2. Where only ONE House exists → it is called the Legislative Assembly (Vidhan Sabha). WHAT IT MEANS: 1. Standardises nomenclature for all state legislatures across India. 2. Legislative Assembly exists in EVERY state; Legislative Council is optional and exists only if specified under clause (1)(a). KEY DOCTRINE: 1. Bicameralism is permissive, not mandatory — Article 169 allows Parliament to create or abolish a Legislative Council at a State's request.
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. Government of India Act, 1935 — Sections 60-61 Original provision: Provincial Legislatures consisted of the Governor and one or two chambers; certain provinces (e.g., Bombay, Madras, Bengal, Bihar, UP) had bicameral legislatures. What India kept: The basic structure of Governor + one/two Houses was retained; the specific list of bicameral states was updated. 2. British Westminster Model — UK Parliament Original provision: Parliament comprises the Crown, House of Lords, and House of Commons. What India kept: The Governor mirrors the Crown's ceremonial role in state legislation — part of legislature but acts on advice. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. Governor is APPOINTED (not elected/hereditary) — To maintain Union oversight in a federal structure with centripetal tendencies. 2. Bicameralism is OPTIONAL for states — Unlike the UK where the House of Lords is permanent, Indian states can abolish/create Legislative Councils via Article 169, reflecting democratic flexibility. 3. List of bicameral states is AMENDABLE by ordinary legislation — Unlike rigid constitutional amendment, Parliament can alter the list under Art. 169 by simple majority, enabling states to choose their structure based on evolving needs.
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: 6 January 1949 (CAD Volume VII) DRAFT ARTICLE NUMBER: Draft Article 148 KEY SPEAKERS: 1. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (Chairman, Drafting Committee) — Proposed amendment listing States of Madras, Bombay, West Bengal, United Provinces, Bihar, and East Punjab for bicameral legislatures; said only states that had AGREED to a second chamber were included. 2. Members opposing bicameralism — Argued Second Chambers were a 'dilatory engine' that obstructed popular opinion and served vested interests; cited trend of modern democracies moving to unicameralism. 3. Members supporting bicameralism — Contended it was the only way to ensure minorities were adequately represented in governance. 4. Member citing Article 368 — Pointed out that Draft Article 304 (now Art. 368) already permitted States to initiate proceedings to dissolve a Second Chamber. MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS: 1. Bicameral vs. Unicameral — Some members wanted abolition of all state-level second chambers; the Assembly rejected this. 2. State autonomy on structure — A member proposed that States themselves should decide their legislative structure; this was also rejected. 3. Members from Orissa and Madras — Proposed inclusion of their states in the bicameral list; these amendments were negatived. FINAL OUTCOME: All proposed amendments were rejected EXCEPT the one by Ambedkar listing specific states for bicameral legislatures. The amended Draft Article 148 was adopted on 6 January 1949. AMBEDKAR'S KEY POSITION: The list of bicameral states was based on 'the result of deliberations between the states' representatives' — only consenting states were included.
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974) — Seven-judge bench held: Governor is a constitutional head who must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers; the 'satisfaction' of the Governor means satisfaction in the constitutional (cabinet) sense, not personal satisfaction. 2. Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016) — Five-judge bench held: Governor's power under Art. 174 to summon/prorogue sessions must be exercised on aid and advice of Council of Ministers; Governor is part of legislature under Art. 168 but is neither an officer nor a member of the House. 3. State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to Governor of Punjab (2024) — Held that Governors cannot 'virtually veto' Bills by indefinite inaction; the phrase 'as soon as possible' under Art. 200 has significant constitutional content. 4. State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025) — Two-judge bench held: Governor's withholding of assent and subsequent reservation of re-passed Bills for the President was illegal and erroneous; no concept of 'absolute veto' or 'pocket veto' exists under Art. 200; deemed 12 pending Bills as assented using Art. 142 powers. NOTABLE DISSENTS (if any): 1. None in major Art. 168-related cases — Shamsher Singh (1974) had concurring opinion by Justice Krishna Iyer (for himself and Bhagwati J.) emphasising that 'aid and advice' are terms of art meaning the functions belong to Ministers, not the head of state. KEY AMENDMENT HISTORY: 1. Constitution (7th Amendment) Act, 1956 — Added 'Mysore' (now Karnataka) and made provision for Madhya Pradesh; reflected States Reorganisation. 2. Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960 — Removed 'Bombay', added 'Maharashtra'. 3. Mysore State (Alteration of Name) Act, 1973 — Substituted 'Karnataka' for 'Mysore'. 4. Punjab Legislative Council (Abolition) Act, 1969 — Omitted 'Punjab' from clause (1)(a). 5. West Bengal Legislative Council (Abolition) Act, 1969 — Omitted 'West Bengal'. 6. Tamil Nadu Legislative Council (Abolition) Act, 1986 — Omitted 'Tamil Nadu' (but text still shows it in some versions due to Act 16 of 2010 re-insertion, date not yet notified). 7. Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council Act, 2005 — Re-inserted 'Andhra Pradesh' w.e.f. 30-3-2007. 8. Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 — Added 'Telangana' w.e.f. 2-6-2014. 9. Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976 — Inserted a clause (later omitted by the 44th Amendment, 1978). SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. D.D. Basu — The Governor's inclusion in Art. 168 makes him integral to the legislative process but his role is formal and analogous to the British Crown in Parliament. 2. M.P. Jain — Art. 168 establishes the structural framework for state legislatures, and the flexibility to move between unicameralism and bicameralism is a unique feature of Indian federalism.