Constitution of India
Article 97: Salaries and allowances of the Chairman and Deputy Chairman and the Speaker and Deputy Speaker
Part V — The Union, Chapter II — Parliament (Sub-heading: Officers of Parliament)
Article 97 (single clause, no sub-divisions)
WHAT IT SAYS: The Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, and the Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the Lok Sabha, shall be paid such salaries and allowances as Parliament may fix by law; until Parliament so provides, they receive what is specified in the Second Schedule. WHAT IT MEANS: 1. Parliament has exclusive legislative authority to determine remuneration of these four presiding officers. 2. The Second Schedule serves as a transitional/default provision until Parliament enacts a specific law. 3. Parliament exercised this power via the Salary and Allowances of Officers of Parliament Act, 1953. 4. These salaries are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India — not subject to vote of Parliament. KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty over internal financial affairs — Parliament alone decides the compensation of its presiding officers, ensuring institutional independence from executive control.
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. United Kingdom — Westminster Parliamentary Convention & House of Commons (Speaker) Act, 1790 (39 Geo 3, c 10) Original provision: The UK Speaker's salary was first authorised by statute in 1790 'for the better support of the dignity of the Speaker'; it is charged upon the Consolidated Fund to ensure independence. What India kept: India adopted the same principle — salaries of presiding officers determined by law and charged on Consolidated Fund, insulating them from executive interference. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. Covers four officers (Chairman, Deputy Chairman, Speaker, Deputy Speaker) in one article — UK deals with Speaker and Lords Speaker separately under different statutes. 2. Second Schedule as transitional provision — India added a default salary framework in the Constitution itself, whereas the UK relied purely on statute from the outset. 3. Parliament given power to revise by ordinary law — India codified flexibility for periodic revision without constitutional amendment, reflecting awareness of a new nation's evolving economic conditions.
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: 19 May 1949 (CAD Volume VIII) DRAFT ARTICLE NUMBER: Draft Article 79 KEY FACTS: 1. No amendments were moved to Draft Article 79. 2. The Assembly adopted Draft Article 79 on 19 May 1949 without any substantive debate. 3. The President (Dr. Rajendra Prasad) noted: 'There is no amendment moved to article 79' and the motion was adopted. KEY SPEAKERS: 1. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad (West Bengal) — raised only a minor drafting point about the use of the definite article 'the' across articles 78–82, not a substantive objection. 2. Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar (Madras) — raised a point of order noting verbal amendments had been ruled out by the President. MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS: None on Article 79/97 specifically. The article was non-controversial. SECOND SCHEDULE DEBATE (related): 1. The Second Schedule (which contains the default salary figures referenced by Article 97) was debated on 11–12 October 1949. 2. Dr. Ambedkar outlined the rationale for fixing salaries of constitutional functionaries. 3. Some members argued that the President, Governors, and MPs should serve without salary — this was rejected. FINAL OUTCOME: Draft Article 79 was adopted unanimously without amendment on 19 May 1949. AMBEDKAR'S KEY POSITION: Dr. Ambedkar emphasised the need for a self-regulating and financially independent legislature, ensuring that presiding officers' dignity would be maintained through legally determined remuneration.
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: Note: There are NO landmark Supreme Court cases directly interpreting Article 97. However, the following judgments are contextually relevant to the constitutional status and dignity of presiding officers whose remuneration Article 97 secures: 1. Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992 Supp 2 SCC 651) — The Supreme Court held that the Speaker/Chairman holds a pivotal position in parliamentary democracy and is the guardian of the rights and privileges of the House, underscoring the constitutional dignity that Article 97 seeks to financially protect. 2. Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016) 8 SCC 1 — The Constitution Bench limited the Speaker's powers under the Tenth Schedule, but reaffirmed the high constitutional stature of the office of Speaker. INDIRECT RELEVANCE: 3. Parliament's authority to fix salaries of constitutional functionaries under Union List entries was upheld in general constitutional jurisprudence — this validates the legislative competence exercised under Article 97. NOTABLE DISSENTS: 1. Justice J.S. Verma in Kihoto Hollohan (1992) — Dissented on the Speaker's adjudicatory role, arguing the Speaker is not an independent judicial authority; however, this dissent concerned the Tenth Schedule, not Article 97 directly. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. D.D. Basu — Notes that Article 97, read with the Second Schedule, ensures financial autonomy of presiding officers, which is essential for maintaining the separation of powers. 2. M.P. Jain — Observes that the provision mirrors Westminster practice of charging the Speaker's salary on the Consolidated Fund to prevent executive leverage over the legislature. ENABLING LEGISLATION: 1. Salary and Allowances of Officers of Parliament Act, 1953 (Act No. 20 of 1953) — Parliament's primary exercise of power under Article 97. 2. Vice-President's Pension Act, 1997 — Supplementary provision for the Chairman of Rajya Sabha.