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.
The short 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.
Houses, membership and presiding officers
Parliament consists of the President, Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha, with each component performing a distinct constitutional function.
Rajya Sabha
The Council of States is a continuing House. Most members are elected by elected State legislators through proportional representation, while the President nominates twelve persons with special knowledge or practical experience in specified fields.
Lok Sabha
The House of the People is directly elected and ordinarily continues for five years unless sooner dissolved, subject to the Constitution's emergency extension rule.
Qualifications and disqualifications
Articles 84 and 102, parliamentary legislation and the Tenth Schedule regulate qualification, office of profit, statutory disqualification and defection.
Speaker and Chairman
Presiding officers regulate proceedings and exercise constitutional powers, but decisions such as defection rulings and Money Bill certification remain subject to the legally recognised scope of judicial review.
Ordinary Bills, Money Bills and Financial Bills
The Bill's constitutional category determines where it may originate, what role Rajya Sabha plays and whether a joint sitting is possible.
Ordinary Bill
It may originate in either House and ordinarily requires agreement on the same text. A qualifying deadlock may lead to a joint sitting under Article 108.
Money Bill
Article 110 requires the Bill to contain only the listed financial matters and incidental provisions. It originates only in Lok Sabha on presidential recommendation, and Rajya Sabha has fourteen days to recommend changes.
Financial Bill
A Financial Bill may involve Article 110 matters plus other provisions, or expenditure from the Consolidated Fund. Its procedure must be identified under Article 117 rather than treating every finance-related Bill as a Money Bill.
Constitution Amendment Bill
Article 368 uses a special process, excludes joint sitting and requires State ratification for specified federal changes.
From introduction to assent and judicial review
A complete legislative-process answer separates House procedure, voting, assent and constitutional validity.
A Bill is introduced, considered, examined as the House directs, debated and voted upon. After both Houses pass the same text, it is presented to the President under Article 111. The President may assent, withhold assent or return a non-Money Bill for reconsideration. If Parliament passes the returned Bill again, assent cannot then be withheld.
Article 122 protects parliamentary proceedings from challenge based merely on procedural irregularity. It does not license substantive illegality, constitutional fraud or action outside constitutional power. Raja Ram Pal and later cases preserve review where the alleged defect crosses from internal irregularity into a constitutional violation.
How to solve a Parliament problem question
Do not begin with a general description of Parliament. Classify the measure, identify the disputed stage and then test the precise constitutional condition.
Classify the measure first
Ask whether the instrument is an ordinary Bill, Money Bill, Financial Bill, Appropriation Bill or Constitution Amendment Bill. The label used by the government is not conclusive when the constitutional ingredients point elsewhere.
Locate the procedural consequence
State where the Bill may originate, whether presidential recommendation is necessary, what majority applies, how Rajya Sabha participates and whether a joint sitting or State ratification is available.
Separate irregularity from illegality
A complaint about scheduling, debate management or an internal rule may attract Article 122 protection. A complaint that a constitutional majority was absent, legislative power did not exist or Article 110 was misused raises a different issue.
Conclude with the legal effect
Explain whether the defect is curable, protected as internal procedure or capable of invalidating the enactment. Name the remedy and standard of review instead of merely saying that courts can intervene.
Three distinctions students should not collapse
Closely related parliamentary terms produce different constitutional effects, so precise classification matters.
A session is the period between the President summoning a House and prorogation. A sitting is an individual meeting within a session. Adjournment interrupts a sitting or moves it to another time, prorogation ends the session, and dissolution ends the life of Lok Sabha. Rajya Sabha is not dissolved.
Passing a Bill and commencing an Act are separate events. A Bill becomes an Act after constitutionally required assent, but its provisions may commence immediately, on a specified date or through a later government notification. The commencement clause must therefore be checked before assuming that every provision is operative.
Parliamentary majority is not one fixed formula. Ordinary business generally uses members present and voting, removal motions and constitutional amendments may use special requirements, and some amendments also need State ratification. Always state both the numerator and the relevant membership base.
Leading cases and what they establish
Read each authority for the proposition it proves, the legal question it answers and the reasoning that supports the result.
Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu
1992 Supp (2) SCC 651
Facts: 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.
Why it matters: 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 184
Facts: 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.
Why it matters: Use it to distinguish internal autonomy from unconstitutional illegality.
Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd.
(2020) 6 SCC 1
Facts: 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.
Why it matters: Use it to show why the constitutional classification of a Bill matters.
Using this topic in a legal answer
A clear answer sequence
- 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.
Points that are often confused
- Saying the President is outside Parliament.
- Applying joint sitting to Money or Constitutional Amendment Bills.
- Treating every procedural complaint as completely non-justiciable.
Open the revision and self-check sheet
Rules to retain
- 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.
Questions to test understanding
- Why is the President part of Parliament?
- Can Rajya Sabha reject a Money Bill?
- When can courts examine parliamentary procedure?
Questions students ask
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.
Can Rajya Sabha reject a Money Bill?
No. It may recommend amendments within fourteen days, but Lok Sabha may accept or reject them. The strict Article 110 definition remains important because this procedure limits the second House.
Can a joint sitting amend the Constitution?
No. Article 368 requires each House separately to pass the amendment Bill by the prescribed special majority.
Are all internal parliamentary proceedings beyond judicial review?
No. Article 122 protects mere procedural irregularity, while substantive illegality, lack of constitutional power and violation of constitutional mandates can remain reviewable.
Primary sources and further reading
- Constitution of India, Legislative Department
- Supreme Court judgment in Kihoto Hollohan
- Supreme Court discussion of parliamentary privileges and procedure
This article is written for legal education. Verify the governing provision, applicable amendments and complete judgment before relying on a proposition in practice.