Constitution of India
Article 91: Power of the Deputy Chairman or other person to perform the duties of the office of, or to act as, Chairman
Part V — The Union (Chapter II — Parliament)
Clause (1)
WHAT IT SAYS: When the office of Chairman is vacant, or the Vice-President is acting as President, the Deputy Chairman performs the Chairman's duties; if the Deputy Chairman's office is also vacant, the President appoints a Rajya Sabha member for this purpose. WHAT IT MEANS: Ensures an unbroken chain of presiding authority in the Rajya Sabha even during long-term vacancies — the Deputy Chairman steps in first, and failing him, a Presidential nominee. KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Constitutional Continuity / No-Vacuum Principle — constitutional institutions cannot be left leaderless due to temporary vacancies.
Clause (2)
WHAT IT SAYS: During the Chairman's temporary absence from any sitting, the Deputy Chairman acts as Chairman; if he too is absent, the person determined by Rules of Procedure of the Council presides; if no such person is present, the Council itself determines who acts as Chairman. WHAT IT MEANS: Provides a three-tier succession for day-to-day sittings: (i) Deputy Chairman → (ii) person per Rules of Procedure (Panel of Vice-Chairmen under Rule 9) → (iii) member chosen by the House itself. KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Parliamentary Self-Regulation — the House retains ultimate authority to choose its own presiding officer for a sitting.
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. United Kingdom — British Parliamentary Convention (House of Lords) Original provision: The Lord Chancellor (now Lord Speaker) presides over the House of Lords; in absence, a Deputy Speaker or panel of Deputy Chairmen officiates. What India kept: The concept of a hierarchical succession of presiding officers to ensure the Upper House is never without a chair. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. Written Constitutional Provision — Unlike the UK convention-based system, India codified the succession explicitly in a rigid constitutional article, reflecting the framers' preference for certainty over convention. 2. Presidential Appointment Power — Clause (1) empowers the President to appoint a Rajya Sabha member when both Chairman and Deputy Chairman offices are vacant; the UK has no equivalent executive appointment for the Lords' presiding officer. 3. Mirror Provision for Lok Sabha — Article 95 creates a parallel provision for the Speaker/Deputy Speaker of Lok Sabha, ensuring symmetrical institutional design across both Houses — absent in the UK where the Commons Speaker has separate conventions.
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: 19th May 1949 (CAD Volume VIII, pages 115–156) DRAFT ARTICLE NUMBER: Draft Article 75 KEY SPEAKERS: 1. The article was moved as part of a batch of articles (Articles 73–75-A) on the Council of States. 2. T.T. Krishnamachari (Madras) — Moved the companion new article 75-A (now Art. 92), explaining how Clause (2) of Draft Article 75 would apply when removal proceedings are underway. 3. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad (West Bengal) — Made remarks on related drafting matters but did not formally move amendments to Art. 75 itself. MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS: 1. None specific to Draft Article 75 — The Constituent Assembly adopted it without any discussion or dissent. 2. The related debate arose on new Article 75-A (Art. 92), where H.V. Kamath raised a perceived lacuna about who would preside during removal proceedings — Ambedkar clarified that Clause (2) of Art. 75 adequately covered this. FINAL OUTCOME: Draft Article 75 was adopted without amendments or discussion on 19 May 1949. AMBEDKAR'S KEY QUOTE (on related Art. 75-A): "I have nothing to add to what has already been said" — indicating the provision was considered straightforward and non-controversial.
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. Justice Yashwant Varma v. Speaker of the Lok Sabha (2026) — The Supreme Court (Justices Dipankar Datta & S.C. Sharma) held that the Deputy Chairman is fully competent under Article 91(1) to perform the Chairman's duties during vacancy, including deciding admission of impeachment motions under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. The Court ruled: 'We see no reason why Article 91 of the Constitution should be kept aside when a court is tasked to make a meaningful interpretation of any provision.' 2. Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India (1991) 4 SCC 699 — The Supreme Court examined the Speaker's statutory authority under the Judges (Inquiry) Act; distinguished in the 2026 Varma case to confirm that Article 91 cannot be overridden by statutory definitions of 'Chairman' — constitutional succession must be read into statutes. 3. Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992) 1 SCC 309 — Though primarily on the Tenth Schedule, the Court observed that presiding officers hold a pivotal position in parliamentary democracy and are guardians of the rights and privileges of the House. 4. Raja Ram Pal v. Hon'ble Speaker, Lok Sabha (2007) — Supreme Court upheld Parliament's power of self-composition and expulsion; confirmed that internal proceedings (including presiding officer's conduct of business) are largely beyond judicial review except for constitutional violations. NOTABLE DISSENTS: 1. No recorded dissents specifically on Article 91 interpretation. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. D.D. Basu — Article 91 along with Articles 89, 90, and 92 forms a 'coherent constitutional code' ensuring the Rajya Sabha is never without a presiding authority. 2. M.P. Jain — The provision reflects the Westminster model adapted to a republican constitutional framework, with the unique addition of Presidential appointment power as a residual safeguard.