Constitution of India
Article 187: Secretariat of State Legislature
Part VI — The States (Chapter III — The State Legislature, Sub-heading: Officers of the State Legislature)
Clause (1) — Separate Secretarial Staff
WHAT IT SAYS: Each House of the State Legislature shall have a separate secretarial staff; provided that common posts may be created for both Houses in bicameral legislatures. WHAT IT MEANS: The Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council (where it exists) must each have their own independent administrative staff, though some shared positions are permitted. KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Separation of Powers — ensures that legislative staff is independent from the executive branch.
Clause (2) — Legislative Power over Recruitment
WHAT IT SAYS: The State Legislature may by law regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to the secretarial staff. WHAT IT MEANS: The Legislature itself — not the executive — has ultimate authority to frame laws governing hiring, promotions, and service conditions of its secretariat staff. KEY DOCTRINE: Principle of Legislative Autonomy — the Legislature controls its own administrative machinery.
Clause (3) — Governor's Interim Rule-Making Power
WHAT IT SAYS: Until the State Legislature enacts a law under Clause (2), the Governor may — after consulting the Speaker or Chairman — make rules regulating recruitment and service conditions; such rules are subject to any later law made by the Legislature. WHAT IT MEANS: The Governor can fill the regulatory vacuum temporarily, but only after mandatory consultation with the presiding officer, and any such rules are automatically subordinate to future legislation. KEY DOCTRINE: Principle of Legislative Supremacy — Governor's interim rules yield to laws enacted by the Legislature.
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. British Parliamentary System — House of Commons (Clerk of the House & staff independence tradition) Original provision: The UK Parliament's staff is recruited and managed independently of the executive, under the authority of the Speaker/Clerk. What India kept: The principle that each House must have its own secretariat free from executive control. 2. Article 98 of the Indian Constitution — Secretariat of Parliament Original provision: Each House of Parliament shall have a separate secretarial staff with Parliament regulating recruitment by law. What India kept: Article 187 replicates Article 98's structure verbatim at the state level, replacing 'Parliament' with 'State Legislature' and 'President' with 'Governor'. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. Proviso allowing common posts for bicameral legislatures — Recognising that many states have small Legislative Councils where fully separate staff would be inefficient. 2. Governor's interim rule-making power with mandatory consultation — Ensuring no administrative vacuum while states were newly setting up their legislatures post-independence. 3. State Legislature's supremacy over Governor's rules — Reflecting distrust of executive overreach inherited from the colonial Governor-General system.
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: 30 July 1949 (CAD Volume IX) KEY SPEAKERS: 1. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (Chairman, Drafting Committee) — Proposed insertion of Draft Article 163A as a new provision; pointed out it replicated Draft Article 79A (Article 98) which created the Secretariat of Parliament. 2. One unnamed member — Proposed a proviso to Clause (2) requiring consultation with the Public Service Commission for appointments of persons not already attached to the State Legislature. MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS: 1. Role of Public Service Commission — One member argued that fairness in appointments required PSC involvement; this was rejected without any debate by the Assembly. FINAL OUTCOME: Draft Article 163A was adopted on 30 July 1949 as proposed by the Drafting Committee, without the PSC proviso. NOTE: This article was NOT part of the original Draft Constitution of 1948. It was inserted as a Drafting Committee amendment during the second reading, to ensure parity between Parliament (Art. 98) and State Legislatures (Art. 187).
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. No major Supreme Court judgment has directly interpreted Article 187 as such. Courts have noted that this provision primarily deals with internal administrative matters of state legislatures that typically do not invite judicial review. 2. Keshav Singh v. Speaker, Legislative Assembly, U.P. (1965) — While interpreting Article 194/212, the Supreme Court upheld legislative autonomy in internal affairs, reinforcing the principle underlying Article 187. 3. Raja Ram Pal v. Hon'ble Speaker, Lok Sabha (2007) — The Court examined the scope of legislative privileges and internal autonomy, principles that extend to the secretariat framework under Articles 98 and 187. NOTABLE DISSENTS: (None specifically on Article 187) SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. D.D. Basu — Observed that Article 187 is the state-level counterpart of Article 98, designed to ensure that legislative machinery operates independently of executive interference. 2. M.P. Jain — Noted that the Governor's rule-making power under Clause (3) is transitional and subject to legislative supremacy, reinforcing federal autonomy of state legislatures.