Constitution of India
Article 195: Salaries and allowances of members
Part VI — The States (Chapter III — The State Legislature, Sub-heading: Powers, Privileges and Immunities of State Legislatures and their Members)
Article 195 (Single Article — No sub-clauses)
WHAT IT SAYS: Members of the Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council of a State are entitled to salaries and allowances as determined by the State Legislature by law; until such law is made, pre-Constitution provincial rates apply. WHAT IT MEANS: 1. Each State Legislature has exclusive authority to fix MLA/MLC pay and benefits by passing a law. 2. Until the State Legislature enacts such a law, members receive salaries and allowances at rates applicable to members of the corresponding Provincial Legislative Assembly immediately before 26 January 1950. 3. The State Legislature can revise salaries and allowances from time to time — no external approval (from Centre, Governor, or President) is needed. 4. This ensures financial autonomy of the State Legislature in internal compensation matters. KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Legislative Financial Autonomy — State Legislatures are self-governing in fixing members' remuneration, reinforcing the federal principle of decentralised financial governance.
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. Government of India Act, 1935 — Section 73 (Provincial Legislature — Salaries and Allowances of Members) Original provision: Provincial Legislature members were entitled to salaries and allowances as determined by Act of the Provincial Legislature; until then, pre-existing rates applied. What India kept: Nearly identical structure — Legislature fixes pay by law; interim rates from predecessor body continue. 2. British Parliament — Parliamentary practice of legislative self-regulation of members' pay. Original provision: House of Commons determines MP salaries through its own legislative process. What India kept: The principle that the legislature itself — not the executive — determines members' compensation. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. State-level autonomy — Each State Legislature independently decides its own members' pay, unlike a centrally uniform system, reflecting India's federal structure. 2. Transitional provision tied to Provincial Assemblies — Pre-Constitution provincial rates serve as baseline, ensuring continuity during the transition from British India to the Republic. 3. No reference to Second Schedule in the text — Unlike Article 186 (Speaker/Chairman salaries), Article 195 uses pre-existing provincial rates as the interim standard, not the Second Schedule directly.
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: 3 June 1949 (CAD Volume VIII) DRAFT ARTICLE: Draft Article 170 KEY SPEAKERS: 1. A member (name not prominently recorded) — Proposed inserting the words 'salaries and' after 'so made' in the transitional clause, noting the original draft inadvertently omitted 'salaries', leaving members entitled only to allowances (not salaries) until a state law was enacted. 2. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (Chairman, Drafting Committee) — Accepted the amendment without objection, acknowledging the drafting omission. MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS: 1. None — The amendment was purely corrective (fixing a drafting error) and was accepted without debate or opposition. ORIGINAL DRAFT TEXT: '...until provision in that respect is so made, allowances at such rates and upon such conditions as were immediately before the date of commencement of this Constitution applicable in the case of members of the Provincial Legislative Assembly for that State.' AMENDED (FINAL) TEXT: '...until provision in that respect is so made, salaries and allowances at such rates and upon such conditions as were immediately before the commencement of this Constitution applicable in the case of members of the Legislative Assembly of the corresponding Province.' FINAL OUTCOME: The corrective amendment inserting 'salaries and' was adopted unanimously; the article was passed without further debate on 3 June 1949.
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. K.K. Verma v. State of Maharashtra — The Court upheld the authority of the State Legislature to determine salaries and allowances of its members, affirming this as a legitimate exercise of legislative competence under Article 195. 2. State of Karnataka v. Union of India (1977) — While primarily about Commission of Inquiry powers, the Supreme Court discussed legislative autonomy principles and held that legislative decisions on internal matters (including remuneration) are not subject to executive interference unless unconstitutional. 3. Sita Soren v. Union of India (2024) — A 7-judge Constitution Bench held that MLAs are not immune from bribery prosecution under Article 194(2); while not directly about Article 195, this landmark ruling clarified that legislative privileges (including those connected to salaries/voting) do not shield corrupt acts. RELATED RULINGS ON MLA SALARY/SUSPENSION: 4. Alagaapuram R. Mohanraj v. Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly (2016) — MLAs challenged suspension and denial of salaries as violating Article 21; the Court examined the interplay between legislative privilege and fundamental rights regarding salary deprivation. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. D.D. Basu — Article 195 is the state-level counterpart of Article 106 (Parliament); together they ensure that legislators at both tiers of the federal structure enjoy financial independence from the executive. 2. M.P. Jain — The power to fix salaries under Article 195 is a legislative power, not an executive one; any salary law is an ordinary law requiring simple majority and Governor's assent.