Constitution of India
Article 90: Vacation and resignation of, and removal from, the office of Deputy Chairman
Part V — The Union, Chapter II — Parliament (Officers of Parliament)
Clause (a)
WHAT IT SAYS: The Deputy Chairman shall vacate his office if he ceases to be a member of the Council of States. WHAT IT MEANS: The office of Deputy Chairman is automatically vacated when Rajya Sabha membership ends — whether by term expiry, resignation, or disqualification. KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Incidental Vacancy — office is contingent on continued membership in the House.
Clause (b)
WHAT IT SAYS: The Deputy Chairman may at any time resign his office by writing under his hand addressed to the Chairman. WHAT IT MEANS: Resignation is voluntary, must be in writing, and is addressed to the Chairman (i.e., Vice-President of India); takes effect upon acceptance. KEY DOCTRINE: Voluntary relinquishment principle — no reason needs to be stated; the right to resign is absolute.
Clause (c) with Proviso
WHAT IT SAYS: The Deputy Chairman may be removed by a resolution of the Council passed by a majority of all the then members; provided that at least 14 days' notice must be given before moving such resolution. WHAT IT MEANS: Removal requires an effective/absolute majority (not simple majority of those present and voting), and the 14-day notice ensures due process and prevents hasty removal. KEY DOCTRINE: Effective Majority Doctrine — majority counted on total existing membership of the House, not just those present and voting.
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. United Kingdom — Westminster Parliamentary Convention (House of Commons & House of Lords) Original provision: The Lord Speaker (formerly Lord Chancellor) and Deputy Speaker of the House of Lords can be removed by a resolution of the House. What India kept: The mechanism of removal of the presiding officer by a resolution of the House with a majority. 2. Government of India Act, 1935 — Sections relating to presiding officers of the Council of State Original provision: Provided for a President and Deputy President of the Council of State with processes for vacation and resignation. What India kept: The three-mode framework — vacation, resignation, and removal — for the Deputy presiding officer. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. 14-day advance notice requirement — Ensures fairness, prevents arbitrary or politically motivated snap removals. 2. Effective majority (not simple majority) for removal — Reflects the framers' intent to give stability to the office and prevent easy removal by a slim floor majority. 3. Linking Deputy Chairman's office to Rajya Sabha membership — Unlike the UK House of Lords where members hold life peerages, Indian Rajya Sabha members have fixed 6-year terms, making automatic vacation on loss of membership necessary.
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: 19 May 1949 (CAD Volume VIII) DRAFT ARTICLE NUMBER: Draft Article 74 KEY SPEAKERS: 1. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (Chairman, Drafting Committee) — Presented Draft Article 74 for consideration; did not offer extended remarks as no substantial amendments were moved. 2. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad (West Bengal) — Argued that a Deputy Chairman who loses office and is later re-elected as a member should not be debarred from contesting for the post again. 3. Mr. Tajamul Husain — Opposed Naziruddin Ahmad's suggestion, defending the existing wording of the Draft Articles. MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS: 1. Re-eligibility after removal — Naziruddin Ahmad wanted explicit allowance for re-election of a removed Deputy Chairman; Ambedkar called the proposal 'absurd' and clarified that Draft Article 74 dealt only with vacancy, not re-election. FINAL OUTCOME: The Constituent Assembly adopted Draft Article 74 without any amendments on 19 May 1949; no formal division was required. NOTE: The Draft Article originally included the words 'for incapacity or want of confidence' as grounds for removal in clause (c); the final version dropped these words, leaving the removal power general and unconditional.
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992) — Upheld that presiding officers' decisions (Speaker/Chairman) are subject to judicial review; discussed the role and accountability of presiding officers including the Chairman of Rajya Sabha, whose position was distinguished from the Speaker. 2. Raja Ram Pal v. Hon'ble Speaker, Lok Sabha (2007) — Upheld Parliament's power to expel members but clarified that removal of parliamentary officers must follow prescribed constitutional procedures, reinforcing the due-process safeguards analogous to those in Article 90. 3. X v. Speaker of the House of the People (2026 INSC 65) — Examined the powers and limitations of the Deputy Chairman of Rajya Sabha vis-à-vis the Chairman; held that the Deputy Chairman cannot usurp statutory powers vested in the Chairman. NOTABLE DISSENTS (if any): 1. Justice J.S. Verma & Justice L.M. Sharma in Kihoto Hollohan (1992) — Dissented on the scope of the Speaker's power, arguing that the Vice-President (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) occupies a fundamentally different position from the Speaker and hence observations on the Speaker do not apply to the Rajya Sabha Chairman. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. D.D. Basu — Noted that Article 90 mirrors Article 94 (Speaker/Deputy Speaker of Lok Sabha), ensuring symmetry and procedural consistency across both Houses. 2. Granville Austin — Observed that the framers adapted British parliamentary practices to ensure stability and accountability of presiding officers within India's unique bicameral structure.