Constitution of India
Article 87: Special address by the President
Part V — The Union (Chapter II — Parliament)
Clause (1)
WHAT IT SAYS: 1. The President SHALL address both Houses of Parliament assembled together. 2. This address occurs on TWO occasions: (a) At the commencement of the first session after each general election to the House of the People. (b) At the commencement of the first session of each year. 3. The President shall inform Parliament of the causes of its summons. WHAT IT MEANS: 1. It is a MANDATORY constitutional obligation — not discretionary. 2. No other parliamentary business can be transacted until this address is delivered. 3. The address is prepared by the Council of Ministers — the President reads it as a nominal executive. 4. It serves as the government's policy roadmap for the year or the new term. KEY DOCTRINE: 1. Aid and Advice Doctrine (Article 74) — The President's address reflects the government's will, not personal views. 2. The content is NOT subject to judicial review merely for policy matters (unless it violates the Constitution).
Clause (2)
WHAT IT SAYS: 1. Rules of procedure of EITHER House shall provide for allotment of time to discuss matters in the President's address. WHAT IT MEANS: 1. This clause is the constitutional basis for the 'Motion of Thanks' debate. 2. After the address, each House separately moves a Motion of Thanks. 3. Members debate policies outlined, raise amendments, and the PM replies. 4. Failure to pass the Motion of Thanks is equivalent to a no-confidence motion. KEY DOCTRINE: 1. Parliamentary Accountability Doctrine — the executive must defend its policies before the legislature through the Motion of Thanks debate. NOTE ON AMENDMENT: 1. ORIGINAL TEXT (1950): Also required 'precedence of such discussion over other business of the House.' 2. AMENDED by Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, s.7 (w.e.f. 18-06-1951): The words 'and for the precedence of such discussion over other business of the House' were OMITTED.
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. United Kingdom — The King's/Queen's 'Speech from the Throne' at the opening of each session of Parliament. Original provision: The British monarch addresses Parliament at each session opening, outlining the government's legislative agenda. This tradition dates to the 16th century. What India kept: The concept of the Head of State addressing the legislature to outline the government's agenda. 2. United States — Article II, Section 3 of the US Constitution (State of the Union Address). Original provision: The President 'shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union.' What India kept: Prof. K.T. Shah proposed borrowing the US-style 'state of the union' format, but this was rejected. 3. Government of India Act, 1919 — The Governor-General's right to address the Legislative Assembly and Council of State. Original provision: GG could address each chamber separately; no joint address provision existed, though joint addresses occurred in practice. What India kept: The practice of executive addressing the legislature, but MADE IT MANDATORY and JOINT. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. Made the address MANDATORY ('shall') — Unlike Britain, where the monarch's address is customary, not legally compulsory. 2. Made it a JOINT SESSION address — Both Houses assembled together, reinforcing Parliament as a unified institution. 3. Originally required address at EVERY session (changed to annual by First Amendment 1951) — Reflected initial caution about parliamentary communication. 4. Content prepared by Council of Ministers — Adapted the British convention to India's republican framework under Article 74.
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: 18 May 1949 (CAD Volume VIII, pages 81–114) Draft Article Number: 71 KEY SPEAKERS: 1. Prof. K.T. Shah (Bihar) — Proposed broadening the address to cover 'general issues of policy, prospects before the country, financial proposals' — inspired by the US State of the Union Address. 2. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (Chairman, Drafting Committee) — Rejected Shah's amendment, stating the phrase 'causes of its summons' was already wide enough to include any subject matter. 3. An unnamed member — Argued the article was unnecessary, noting England did NOT make it binding on the King to address Parliament; such compulsion on the President was not needed. MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS: 1. SCOPE OF ADDRESS — K.T. Shah wanted an explicit mandate covering 'state of the union' type content. Ambedkar held the existing text was sufficiently broad. 2. NECESSITY OF THE ARTICLE — A member questioned whether making the address mandatory was appropriate, citing the British convention of a non-binding practice. FINAL OUTCOME: 1. The Draft Article was adopted WITHOUT any amendments on 18 May 1949. 2. Both Shah's broadening amendment and the objection to the article's necessity were rejected. AMBEDKAR'S KEY POSITION: The phrase 'causes of its summons' is derived from British parliamentary practice and is wide enough to encompass all matters of policy, making Shah's amendment redundant.
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974) AIR 1974 SC 2192 — The President and Governor must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers; reaffirms that the President's address under Art. 87 reflects the government's policies, not personal discretion. 2. Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006) 2 SCC 1 — While dealing with Bihar Assembly dissolution, the Court emphasized constitutional procedures including the President's address as a key ceremonial step in parliamentary democracy's functioning. 3. Policy challenge via Governor's Address (analogous Art. 176 case) — The Supreme Court held that the speech delivered under Articles 87 or 176 is NOT subject to judicial review merely for policy content, unless it violates the Constitution. NOTE: No major Supreme Court judgment DIRECTLY and exclusively interprets Article 87. Its significance is recognized indirectly through cases on executive-legislature relations and the President's role. NOTABLE DISSENTS: None recorded in relation to Article 87. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. M. Laxmikanth — Describes the President's address as the Indian equivalent of the British 'Speech from the Throne'; emphasizes it is a government policy statement, not a personal statement. 2. D.D. Basu — Notes Article 87 creates a constitutional OBLIGATION on the President, unlike Article 86 which grants a discretionary right to address Parliament.