Constitutional Law
Parliament: Composition and Legislative Process
Understand the composition of Parliament and follow ordinary Bills, Money Bills and Constitutional Amendment Bills through the correct procedure.
Quick answer
Parliament consists of the President, Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha, and the route a proposal follows depends on whether it is an ordinary, Money or Constitutional Amendment Bill.
How Parliament is constituted
The President is a constitutional component of Parliament even though the President is not a member of either House.
Lok Sabha
The House of the People is directly elected and controls the political survival of the Council of Ministers. It has a normal five-year term unless sooner dissolved, subject to the constitutional emergency exception.
Rajya Sabha
The Council of States is a continuing chamber and is not dissolved. Members serve staggered terms, and the President nominates twelve persons with special knowledge or practical experience in specified fields.
Sessions and quorum
The President summons each House, and no more than six months may intervene between sessions. Unless Parliament provides otherwise, one-tenth of the membership is the quorum.
Presiding officers and committees
The Speaker and Chairman regulate proceedings under the Constitution and House rules. Committees examine Bills, finance and executive action in detail, though committee referral is not mandatory for every Bill.
How a Bill becomes law
First classify the Bill. Most errors come from applying the ordinary-Bill route to Money Bills or amendments.
Ordinary Bill
It may originate in either House and ordinarily requires agreement of both Houses. A deadlock may permit a joint sitting under Article 108, followed by presidential assent under Article 111.
Money Bill
It can be introduced only in Lok Sabha on presidential recommendation. Rajya Sabha may recommend changes within fourteen days, and the Speaker’s certification identifies the special route.
Constitutional Amendment Bill
It follows Article 368, requires the prescribed special majority and, for specified federal provisions, State ratification. There is no joint sitting and the President must give assent after valid passage.
Scrutiny after enactment
Courts do not review mere procedural irregularity under Article 122, but illegality, constitutional violation, lack of legislative competence and substantive rights challenges remain reviewable.
Landmark cases
Learn the facts, the rule and why the case matters. The citation alone will not strengthen an answer.
Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu
1992 Supp (2) SCC 651Facts: Members challenged the Tenth Schedule, which authorised the Speaker or Chairman to decide whether a legislator had become disqualified for defection.
Legal question: Was the anti-defection scheme valid, and could the presiding officer’s decision be excluded from judicial review?
Held: The Tenth Schedule was substantially upheld, while the Speaker’s disqualification decision was treated as subject to judicial review after the decision.
Reasoning: The Schedule’s substantive scheme was largely upheld. The Speaker acts as a tribunal for disqualification and the final decision remains reviewable for constitutional and jurisdictional error.
Use in an answer: Use it for anti-defection, the Speaker’s adjudicatory role and review of legislative decisions.
Read the judgmentRaja Ram Pal v. Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha
(2007) 3 SCC 184Facts: Television recordings showed Members of Parliament accepting money in return for asking questions. Each House expelled the implicated members.
Legal question: Did a House possess power to expel a member, and was its use of privilege completely immune from judicial review?
Held: Parliament has power to protect its integrity, including expulsion in an appropriate case, but legislative privilege does not create complete immunity from judicial review.
Reasoning: A House could protect its integrity through expulsion in a proper case, but privilege remained inside the Constitution and review could address substantive illegality or constitutional violation.
Use in an answer: Use it to distinguish internal autonomy from unconstitutional illegality.
Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd.
(2020) 6 SCC 1Facts: Tribunal reforms were enacted through the Finance Act, which had followed the special Money Bill procedure.
Legal question: Could certification and use of the Money Bill route escape meaningful constitutional scrutiny?
Held: The use and certification of the Money Bill route raises a constitutional question capable of judicial examination, with broader issues referred for authoritative resolution.
Reasoning: The constitutional content of a Money Bill matters. The larger certification issue required authoritative reconsideration, while the case demonstrated that legislative labels do not displace constitutional limits.
Use in an answer: Use it to show why the constitutional classification of a Bill matters.
How to write this answer in an exam
- State that Parliament includes the President and both Houses.
- Explain the composition and democratic role of each House.
- Classify the proposal as ordinary, Money or amendment Bill.
- Apply the correct passage and assent requirements.
- Conclude with the scope of legislative autonomy and judicial review.
Quick revision
- Parliament has three constitutional components.
- Lok Sabha is directly elected and may be dissolved.
- Rajya Sabha is a continuing chamber.
- Money Bills follow Article 110 and a special route.
- Article 368 Bills have no joint sitting.
Test yourself
- Why is the President part of Parliament?
- Can Rajya Sabha reject a Money Bill?
- When can courts examine parliamentary procedure?
Frequently asked questions
Can an ordinary Bill begin in Rajya Sabha?
Yes. An ordinary Bill may begin in either House. Money Bills must begin in Lok Sabha, and their introduction requires the prescribed presidential recommendation.
Does every Bill have to be examined by a parliamentary committee?
No. Committee scrutiny is an important legislative practice, but the Constitution does not require every Bill to be referred to a committee.