Article 172

Article 172 of the Constitution of India defines the duration and continuity of the State Legislatures, including both the Legislative Assembly (Vidhan Sabha) and the Legislative Council (Vidhan Parishad). The article establishes the tenure of these bodies, the conditions under which they may be dissolved or extended, and the mechanisms that ensure legislative continuity at the State level. It reflects the balance between democratic periodicity and administrative stability within India’s federal structure.

Duration of the Legislative Assembly

Article 172(1) prescribes that the normal term of every Legislative Assembly is five years from the date of its first meeting after a general election. This five-year term ensures a fixed democratic cycle, providing stability to State governments while ensuring accountability through regular elections.
However, the Assembly may be dissolved earlier by the Governor, usually on the advice of the Chief Minister, when the government loses its majority or during a political or constitutional crisis. Upon dissolution, the State Election Commission conducts fresh elections to reconstitute the Assembly.
When the Assembly completes its five-year term, it automatically stands dissolved, requiring no formal notification. This automatic dissolution preserves the constitutional principle of fixed tenure and ensures timely renewal of representative institutions.

Extension of Duration During Emergency

Article 172(1) also contains a proviso enabling the extension of the Assembly’s term during a Proclamation of Emergency under Article 352. In such circumstances, Parliament may, by law, extend the normal term of the Legislative Assembly:

• Each extension may be for a period not exceeding one year at a time.
• The total extension cannot continue beyond six months after the Emergency has ceased to operate.

This temporary extension provision is intended to maintain continuity of governance during extraordinary situations such as war, external aggression, or armed rebellion.
Historically, the term of some State Assemblies was extended during the Emergency of 1975–1977, demonstrating the application of this constitutional safeguard.

Duration of the Legislative Council

Unlike the Assembly, the Legislative Council is a permanent body and is not subject to dissolution. Article 172(2) states that one-third of its members retire every two years, ensuring a system of staggered continuity.
The process of determining which members retire at each interval and how vacancies are filled is governed by laws made by Parliament. This design mirrors the structure of the Rajya Sabha at the national level, ensuring that the Council continues to function even when the Assembly is dissolved.

Constitutional Mechanisms for Continuity

The structure of Article 172 ensures that the State Legislature, in its entirety, never ceases to exist at one time. While the Assembly undergoes periodic renewal through elections, the Council maintains institutional continuity and legislative oversight. This arrangement reflects the principle of checks and balances and upholds legislative stability.

Key Judicial Interpretations and Case Laws

Several landmark Supreme Court decisions have clarified and interpreted the scope and implications of Article 172:

• Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): This historic judgment established the basic structure doctrine, which includes the principle of democracy. It affirmed that the duration of legislatures and the periodic holding of elections are essential elements of the democratic structure and cannot be undermined.
• State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain (1975): Examined the constitutional validity of dissolving a Legislative Assembly. The Court emphasised that dissolution must conform to constitutional principles and cannot be arbitrary.
• S. R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): One of the most significant rulings on State government dismissal and President’s Rule. The Court held that dissolution of a State Assembly under Article 356 must be based on objective material and is subject to judicial review.
• Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006): Concerned the dissolution of the Bihar Legislative Assembly (2005) before its first meeting. The Supreme Court held that such premature dissolution, without justifiable grounds, was unconstitutional, reaffirming the sanctity of the legislative term under Article 172.

These judgments collectively reinforce that while the Constitution provides mechanisms for dissolution and extension, such actions must always adhere to democratic norms and constitutional morality.

Related Constitutional Provisions

Article 172 operates in conjunction with several other provisions that collectively govern the functioning of State Legislatures:

• Article 174: Empowers the Governor to summon, prorogue, and dissolve the State Legislature.
• Article 175: Provides for the Governor’s address to the Legislature and the right to send messages to either House.
• Article 356: Pertains to President’s Rule in a State, which can lead to the suspension or dissolution of the Legislative Assembly.

These articles together create a coherent legal framework for the duration, continuity, and dissolution of State legislatures.

Key Concepts and Terms

• Proclamation of Emergency: Refers to a national crisis declared under Article 352, during which Parliament assumes special powers, including extending the life of State Assemblies.
• Automatic Dissolution: The Legislative Assembly ceases to exist upon completion of its five-year term, without requiring any formal order.
• Staggered Retirement: Refers to the biennial retirement of one-third of Legislative Council members, ensuring the chamber’s perpetual existence.

Implications for Governance and Democracy

The provisions of Article 172 have far-reaching implications for India’s democratic stability and federal functioning:

• They provide predictability and periodicity in the democratic process by fixing a five-year electoral cycle.
• The permanence of the Legislative Council ensures continuity in legislative oversight even when the Assembly is dissolved.
• The emergency extension provision offers flexibility during national crises while maintaining constitutional control through time limits.
• The judiciary’s interpretative role underlines the protection of democratic processes against arbitrary dissolution or unconstitutional extensions.

However, the extension of Assembly terms during emergencies has occasionally been criticised as diluting democratic accountability. Scholars argue that while necessary for stability, such extensions must be used sparingly and only in genuine national emergencies.

Constitutional Amendments and Legislative Developments

No direct amendments have altered Article 172 since the commencement of the Constitution. However, several related constitutional and legislative developments have influenced its application:

• The 42nd Amendment (1976) modified emergency provisions, indirectly affecting the circumstances under which the duration of State Assemblies can be extended.
• The 44th Amendment (1978) restored key democratic safeguards by tightening the conditions for the proclamation and operation of emergencies.