Constitution of India
Article 196: Provisions as to introduction and passing of Bills
Part VI — The States (Chapter III — The State Legislature, sub-heading: Legislative Procedure)
Clause (1)
WHAT IT SAYS: Subject to Articles 198 and 207 (Money Bills & Financial Bills), a Bill may originate in either House of a State Legislature that has a Legislative Council. WHAT IT MEANS: In bicameral states, ordinary Bills can be introduced in either Vidhan Sabha or Vidhan Parishad; only Money/Financial Bills must start in the Assembly. KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of bicameral parity for ordinary legislation — both Houses have equal right of initiation (except financial Bills).
Clause (2)
WHAT IT SAYS: Subject to Articles 197 and 198, a Bill is not deemed passed unless agreed to by both Houses — without amendment or with amendments accepted by both. WHAT IT MEANS: In bicameral states, passage of an ordinary Bill requires concurrence of both Houses on the identical text. KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of bicameral concurrence — ensures democratic deliberation at two levels before a Bill proceeds for Governor's assent.
Clause (3)
WHAT IT SAYS: A Bill pending in the State Legislature does not lapse by reason of prorogation of the House or Houses. WHAT IT MEANS: Prorogation (ending a session by the Governor) does NOT kill pending Bills — they resume in the next session from where they were left. KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of legislative continuity — distinguishes prorogation from dissolution.
Clause (4)
WHAT IT SAYS: A Bill pending in the Legislative Council that has NOT been passed by the Legislative Assembly does not lapse on dissolution of the Assembly. WHAT IT MEANS: If a Bill originated in the Council and was never sent to or passed by the Assembly, dissolution of the Assembly does not kill it. KEY DOCTRINE: Permanence of the Upper House — the Council is a continuing body unaffected by dissolution of the Assembly.
Clause (5)
WHAT IT SAYS: A Bill pending in the Legislative Assembly, or passed by the Assembly but pending in the Council, shall lapse on dissolution of the Assembly. WHAT IT MEANS: Dissolution resets all Assembly-linked legislative business — any Bill touched by the Assembly (pending in it or passed by it) dies on dissolution. KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Lapse — reflects the democratic principle that law-making authority flows from the current electoral mandate.
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. Government of India Act, 1935 — Sections 63-68 (Legislative Procedure in Provincial Legislatures) Original provision: Provincial Bills required passage through bicameral legislature and Governor's assent; Governor had discretionary veto. What India kept: Basic framework of bicameral passage, origination in either House (except Money Bills), and requirement of agreement by both Houses. 2. British Parliamentary Practice (Westminster Model) Original provision: In UK, all pending business lapses on prorogation AND dissolution of the House of Commons. What India kept: India retained lapse on dissolution but DEPARTED from UK practice by providing that prorogation does NOT cause lapse. 3. Article 107 of the Indian Constitution (Parliament's Legislative Procedure) Article 196 is the state-level mirror of Article 107. Identical structure — five clauses with parallel provisions. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. No joint sitting mechanism at state level (unlike Art. 108 for Parliament) — Assembly supremacy over Council via Art. 197 instead. 2. Bills pending Governor's/President's assent do NOT lapse on dissolution — a radical departure from UK practice (confirmed in Purushothaman Nambudiri, 1962). 3. Legislative Council treated as a weaker/revisory chamber — Money Bills cannot originate in the Council (Art. 198/207), reflecting the framers' commitment to primacy of directly elected representatives.
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: 14 June 1949 (CAD Volume VIII, pages 837–873) DRAFT ARTICLE NUMBER: Draft Article 171 KEY SPEAKERS: 1. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar — Moved Draft Article 171 as Chairman of the Drafting Committee; no extensive oral remarks were needed as the provision mirrored the already-adopted Article 87 (now Art. 107) for Parliament. 2. The provision was considered alongside other state legislature articles (Draft Articles 164, 167-A, 175, 187, etc.) in a single sitting. MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS: 1. None recorded — Draft Article 171 was adopted without debate. The Assembly had already settled the principles of bicameral legislative procedure when debating Draft Article 87 (now Art. 107) on 20 May 1949. FINAL OUTCOME: Draft Article 171 was adopted without any amendments on 14 June 1949, reflecting the consensus that state legislative procedure should mirror parliamentary procedure. NOTE: The lack of debate indicates framers' consensus that identical legislative procedure safeguards should apply at both Union and State levels.
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. Purushothaman Nambudiri v. State of Kerala (1962 AIR 694) — SC held that Art. 196(5) exhaustively lists when Bills lapse on dissolution; a Bill pending Governor's/President's assent does NOT lapse on dissolution of the Assembly. 2. State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2023) — SC ruled Governors cannot indefinitely withhold assent; must act in time-bound manner under Art. 200, reinforcing the legislative process framework of Art. 196. 3. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) 3 SCC 1 — SC held floor of the House is the only forum to test majority; dissolution under Art. 356 (which triggers lapse under Art. 196(5)) must be subject to judicial review. 4. Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016) 8 SCC 1 — SC restricted Governor's unilateral summoning powers; indirectly protects legislative continuity safeguarded by Art. 196(3). NOTABLE DISSENTS (if any): 1. Justice Ayyangar in Purushothaman Nambudiri (1962) — Concurred with the majority but offered a distinct reasoning: a Bill ceases to be 'pending' under Art. 196(5) once it has passed through all legislative stages and awaits only executive assent. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. M. Laxmikanth — Article 196 is the state-level counterpart of Art. 107; both ensure legislative continuity despite prorogation while respecting the finality of dissolution. 2. D.D. Basu — Article 196 marks India's departure from British convention where prorogation also killed pending Bills; India adopted the more progressive position of preserving legislative work across sessions.