Constitution of India
Article 79: Constitution of Parliament
Part V — The Union, Chapter II — Parliament
Article 79 (single, undivided article — no sub-clauses)
WHAT IT SAYS: There shall be a Parliament for the Union consisting of the President and two Houses — the Council of States (Rajya Sabha) and the House of the People (Lok Sabha). WHAT IT MEANS: 1. Parliament is a tripartite body — President + Rajya Sabha + Lok Sabha. 2. The President is an integral part of Parliament, though not a member of either House. 3. No bill can become law without all three components acting together. 4. This establishes India's bicameral legislature at the Union level. 5. The President's role includes summoning, proroguing, dissolving Lok Sabha, and granting assent to bills. KEY DOCTRINE: 1. Doctrine of 'King-in-Parliament' (adapted from British 'Crown-in-Parliament') — the executive head is constitutionally part of the legislature. 2. Bicameralism Doctrine — two chambers ensure legislative review, federal representation, and prevention of hasty legislation.
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. United Kingdom — Convention of 'Crown-in-Parliament' (King/Queen + House of Lords + House of Commons) Original provision: The British Parliament comprises the Sovereign, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons acting together as the King-in-Parliament. What India kept: The tripartite structure — President replaces Sovereign; Rajya Sabha replaces House of Lords; Lok Sabha replaces House of Commons. 2. United States — Article I, Section 1, US Constitution (Congress = Senate + House of Representatives) Original provision: All legislative powers vested in a Congress consisting of a Senate and House of Representatives. What India kept: The idea of a bicameral legislature with an Upper House representing federal units and a Lower House representing the people directly. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. President is part of Parliament but NOT a member of either House — Unlike the British Crown, the Indian President acts on ministerial advice (Article 74), making the role constitutional rather than personal. 2. Rajya Sabha is a permanent, non-dissoluble body with staggered elections — Unlike the House of Lords (hereditary/appointed peers), Rajya Sabha members are elected by State Legislatures, reflecting India's federal character. 3. Lok Sabha members elected by universal adult suffrage — India adopted universal franchise from day one (1950), unlike UK which achieved it incrementally until 1928. 4. No hereditary or aristocratic element — India rejected the British House of Lords model of hereditary peerage; Rajya Sabha has only 12 nominated members (experts in art, literature, science, social service).
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: 3 January 1949 (CAD Volume VII) Draft Article Number: 66 KEY SPEAKERS: 1. Shri Lokanath Misra (Orissa) — Proposed deleting the Council of States; argued second chambers are outdated and a waste of resources. 2. Begum Aizaz Rasul — Proposed renaming 'Parliament' as 'Indian National Congress' to permanently commemorate Congress's role in the freedom movement. 3. Prof. K.T. Shah (Bihar) — Proposed deleting 'President' from the article; called it an 'unnecessary imitation of the British system' and argued the President is merely an ornamental head. 4. Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar (Madras, Drafting Committee member) — Opposed all amendments; defended the Upper House as a check on hasty legislation and argued including the President was essential as the executive head of the nation. MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS: 1. Unicameralism vs. Bicameralism — Lokanath Misra wanted a single chamber; Ayyangar defended the Council of States as preventing hasty legislation and providing political opportunities. 2. President's inclusion in Parliament — K.T. Shah argued this was an inappropriate British imitation; Ayyangar countered that the Indian Constitution gave prominence to the President as executive head. 3. Naming the legislature 'Congress' — Begum Aizaz Rasul proposed it; Ayyangar cautioned it would create the impression of a one-party nation. FINAL OUTCOME: All three proposed amendments were rejected; Draft Article 66 was adopted without any amendments on 3 January 1949. AYYANGAR'S KEY ARGUMENT: The Council of States would provide another platform for political participation, act as a check on hasty legislation, and offer stability as a permanent body.
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) — Established the Basic Structure Doctrine; held that Parliament's amending power under Article 368 cannot destroy the Constitution's basic structure, including parliamentary democracy itself. 2. Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India (2006) — Upheld that Article 79 confirms both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha as 'Houses' of Parliament; held that removing domicile requirement for Rajya Sabha membership does not violate the basic structure. 3. Raja Ram Pal v. Hon'ble Speaker, Lok Sabha (2007) — Recognised Parliament's power to expel members under Article 105 privileges but held that such powers are subject to judicial review under the Constitution. 4. Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) — Struck down parts of the 39th Amendment; clarified that parliamentary supremacy is limited by the Constitution and free and fair elections are part of the basic structure. 5. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980) — Reinforced that Parliament's power to amend is not absolute; judicial review is integral to the basic structure. NOTABLE DISSENTS: 1. Justice A.N. Ray in Kesavananda Bharati (1973) — Dissented from the basic structure doctrine; argued Parliament had unlimited amending power under Article 368. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. D.D. Basu — Article 79 adapts the British 'Crown-in-Parliament' concept to India's republican framework, making the President an integral but non-participating part of Parliament. 2. M.P. Jain — The bicameral structure under Article 79 serves dual purposes: federal representation through Rajya Sabha and popular sovereignty through Lok Sabha. 3. Granville Austin — The Constituent Assembly chose bicameralism deliberately as a safeguard against hasty legislation and to give voice to India's federal units.