Article 174

Article 174 of the Constitution of India outlines the provisions relating to the sessions of the State Legislature, including the summoning, prorogation, and dissolution of the Legislative Assembly and, where applicable, the Legislative Council. It ensures the regular functioning of the legislative machinery at the State level and preserves the constitutional balance between the executive authority of the Governor and the legislative powers of the State Legislature.

Constitutional Framework and Purpose

The framers of the Constitution introduced Article 174 to guarantee that the State Legislature meets at regular intervals to deliberate on public issues, enact laws, and scrutinise the executive. The article is modelled on Article 85 of the Constitution, which governs the sessions of the Union Parliament. By mandating periodic meetings and defining the Governor’s powers in relation to the legislature, Article 174 sustains the parliamentary form of government at the State level.

Key Provisions of Article 174

1. Frequency of SessionsUnder Article 174(1), the Governor must summon the House or each House of the State Legislature at least twice every year. Moreover, the maximum interval between the last sitting of one session and the first sitting of the next session cannot exceed six months.
This ensures that the legislature meets periodically to:

• Discuss and pass laws, including financial legislation.
• Hold the executive accountable through debates, motions, and questions.
• Represent public grievances and policy concerns.

Failure to convene the legislature within the stipulated time would amount to a violation of constitutional requirements, undermining representative democracy.
2. Powers of the GovernorArticle 174 vests the following powers in the Governor of the State:

• Summoning: The Governor summons the legislature to meet at such time and place as he deems fit. While the formal power rests with the Governor, it is exercised on the advice of the Council of Ministers, in keeping with the principles of responsible government.
• Prorogation: Under this power, the Governor may prorogue (formally terminate) a session of the House or Houses without dissolving the Legislative Assembly. Prorogation merely ends the current session, allowing the legislature to reconvene later. Pending bills, except those that have lapsed due to dissolution, remain alive and are carried forward to the next session.
• Dissolution: The Governor may dissolve the Legislative Assembly, thereby bringing its term to an end and paving the way for fresh elections. Dissolution may occur:
  • On the advice of the Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers.
  • Automatically, upon the expiry of the Assembly’s five-year term under Article 172.
  • Under exceptional circumstances such as loss of majority, following which a new government cannot be formed.

In exercising the power of dissolution, the Governor acts within the constitutional framework of collective responsibility and political neutrality, subject to judicial review in cases of misuse.

Explanation of Key Terms

• Session: A session is the period during which the legislature meets to conduct its business. It generally includes multiple sittings separated by recesses.
• Prorogation: The formal ending of a legislative session by the Governor. It differs from adjournment, which is decided by the House itself for a shorter duration.
• Dissolution: The complete termination of the Legislative Assembly, leading to general elections and reconstitution of the House. The Legislative Council, being a permanent body, is not subject to dissolution.

Judicial Interpretations and Landmark Cases

Several judicial pronouncements have clarified the constitutional position and the limits of the Governor’s powers under Article 174:

• K. K. Verma v. Union of India (1954): The Court examined the nature of the Governor’s authority in summoning and proroguing sessions, affirming that such powers, though vested in the Governor, are to be exercised on ministerial advice in accordance with constitutional conventions.
• State of Bihar v. Bihar Legislative Assembly (2000): This case clarified that the Governor cannot act unilaterally in legislative matters unless the Constitution expressly grants discretion. The frequency of sessions must comply with the six-month rule, ensuring the continuity of the legislative process.
• Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006): The Supreme Court, in this significant case relating to the dissolution of the Bihar Legislative Assembly (2005) before its first meeting, held that the Governor’s actions were unconstitutional and mala fide, reaffirming that dissolution must occur only under valid constitutional grounds.

These rulings collectively affirm that while Article 174 grants formal powers to the Governor, their exercise is circumscribed by the principles of parliamentary democracy and ministerial responsibility.

Related Constitutional Articles

Article 174 operates in conjunction with several related provisions:

• Article 172: Determines the duration of the State Legislature, fixing the term of the Legislative Assembly at five years.
• Article 175: Empowers the Governor to address the legislature and send messages to either House.
• Article 356: Enables the President’s Rule in cases where the constitutional machinery of the State fails, resulting in the suspension or dissolution of the Assembly.

Together, these provisions ensure the continuity, accountability, and procedural order of the legislative system within each State.

Historical Context and Parliamentary Influence

The principles embodied in Article 174 are drawn from the British parliamentary tradition, where the Crown holds formal powers to summon, prorogue, and dissolve Parliament, but acts on the advice of the Prime Minister. In India’s federal structure, this convention is replicated at the State level, with the Governor acting as the constitutional head and the Chief Minister as the head of the elected government.
This adaptation underscores India’s commitment to responsible government, where the executive remains answerable to the legislature, and legislative activity is ensured through regular sessions.

Practical and Political Implications

The procedural framework established by Article 174 has practical significance in maintaining the efficiency and accountability of State Legislatures:

• It mandates regular legislative sessions to ensure active governance and oversight of the executive.
• It prevents arbitrary suspension of legislative work by limiting the maximum gap between sessions to six months.
• It provides a constitutional mechanism for dissolving the Assembly when democratic legitimacy is lost or governance becomes impossible.
• It preserves the Governor’s role as a constitutional link between the Centre and the State, subject to the principles of neutrality and constitutional propriety.

However, the article has also been at the centre of political controversies, especially concerning the misuse of gubernatorial discretion in summoning or dissolving legislatures. The judiciary has repeatedly intervened to reinforce that such powers must align with constitutional morality and public interest rather than partisan considerations.

Contemporary Relevance and Debates

In recent years, debates have arisen regarding the frequency of State legislative sessions and the executive’s control over legislative scheduling. Critics argue that infrequent sessions limit legislative scrutiny of the government and weaken democratic accountability. Proposals have been made to introduce statutory minimum sittings for State Legislatures, similar to parliamentary conventions, to strengthen the legislative process.
The role of the Governor has also been a recurring topic of constitutional discussion, particularly in politically sensitive situations such as hung assemblies or government formation crises. Courts have emphasised that the Governor’s conduct must adhere strictly to constitutional conventions and the spirit of impartiality.