Constitution of India
Article 185: The Chairman or the Deputy Chairman not to preside while a resolution for his removal from office is under consideration
Part VI — The States (Chapter III — The State Legislature)
Clause (1)
WHAT IT SAYS: When a removal resolution is under consideration against the Chairman or Deputy Chairman of the State Legislative Council, the concerned officer shall not preside over that sitting, even if present. WHAT IT MEANS: Another member presides over the session under Article 184(2), ensuring the officer facing removal cannot control proceedings. KEY DOCTRINE: Nemo judex in causa sua (no one shall be a judge in their own cause) — the principle of natural justice bars presiding over one's own removal.
Clause (2)
WHAT IT SAYS: The Chairman retains the right to speak and participate in proceedings during his removal debate, and may vote in the first instance, but NOT in the case of an equality of votes (notwithstanding Article 189). WHAT IT MEANS: The Chairman gets a right to defend himself and a first-instance vote, but loses the tie-breaking casting vote — his normal voting power under Art. 189 is modified. KEY DOCTRINE: Audi alteram partem (hear the other side) — right of defence is preserved even during removal, but with restricted voting to prevent self-serving exercise of casting vote.
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. British Parliamentary Convention — In the UK House of Commons, the Speaker does not preside during debates on their own conduct or removal. Original provision: The Speaker steps aside when motions concerning their conduct are debated; this is convention, not statute. What India kept: India codified this convention into a constitutional provision for both Parliament (Art. 92) and State Legislatures (Art. 185). 2. Government of India Act, 1935 — Sections 63–65 dealt with presiding officers of provincial legislatures. Original provision: The Act provided for Speakers/Presidents but did not contain explicit removal-during-presiding provisions. What India kept: India retained the structure of presiding officers but added the explicit removal-procedure safeguard. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. Codification of convention into constitutional text — Because India adopted a written constitution, British unwritten conventions were made enforceable provisions. 2. First-instance vote for Chairman (Art. 185) vs. no vote at all for Chairman of Rajya Sabha (Art. 92) — State LC Chairman gets a limited vote; Rajya Sabha Chairman (VP) gets none during removal proceedings. 3. Cross-reference to Art. 184(2) for substitute presiding — India created an explicit chain-of-command for who presides, not leaving it to ad-hoc arrangements.
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: 2 June 1949 (CAD Volume VIII) KEY SPEAKERS: 1. The article was proposed as Draft Article 162A — it was NOT part of the original Draft Constitution of 1948. 2. A member moved the insertion of Article 162A mirroring the provision already adopted for Parliament (Draft Article 75A / Article 92). 3. No significant speeches or objections are recorded. MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS: 1. None recorded — the provision was adopted without any debate. FINAL OUTCOME: Draft Article 162A was adopted without debate on 2 June 1949 as a new insertion, replicating the removal-presiding safeguard from Parliament to State Legislative Councils. AMBEDKAR'S KEY QUOTE (if available): No specific quote recorded for this article — it was adopted without discussion as a procedural provision mirroring an already-adopted parallel article for Parliament.
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. No landmark Supreme Court judgment has directly interpreted Article 185 as of the latest available records. 2. The principle underlying Art. 185 — nemo judex in causa sua — has been upheld in numerous SC decisions on natural justice, e.g., A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969). 3. Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992) — SC emphasized the need for impartiality of presiding officers in disqualification proceedings under the Tenth Schedule, a related principle. 4. Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly (2020) — SC stressed that the Speaker's role in disqualification matters demands impartiality, reinforcing the principles behind Arts. 181 and 185. NOTABLE DISSENTS (if any): 1. None specific to Article 185. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. D.D. Basu — Noted that Article 185 is a state-level counterpart of Article 92 (Rajya Sabha), with the key difference that the State LC Chairman gets a first-instance vote while the Rajya Sabha Chairman gets no vote at all. 2. M.P. Jain — Observed that the article embodies the natural justice principle that no person should adjudicate a matter in which they have a personal interest.