Article 179

Article 179 of the Constitution of India prescribes the constitutional procedure for the vacation, resignation, and removal of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the State Legislative Assembly. It provides a clear legal framework to ensure that these presiding officers, who occupy pivotal positions in the legislative process, remain accountable to the House and continue in office only as long as they enjoy its confidence.
This article upholds the principles of parliamentary democracy, emphasising the autonomy of the Legislature in managing its internal leadership and maintaining institutional stability.

Constitutional Framework and Text of Article 179

Article 179 reads as follows:

“A member holding office as Speaker or Deputy Speaker of an Assembly—(a) shall vacate his office if he ceases to be a member of the Assembly;(b) may at any time resign his office by writing under his hand, if such member is the Speaker, addressed to the Deputy Speaker, and if such member is the Deputy Speaker, addressed to the Speaker; and(c) may be removed from his office by a resolution of the Assembly passed by a majority of all the then members of the Assembly: Provided that no resolution for the purpose of clause (c) shall be moved unless at least fourteen days’ notice has been given of the intention to move the resolution: Provided further that whenever the Assembly is dissolved, the Speaker shall not vacate his office until immediately before the first meeting of the Assembly after the dissolution.”

Major Provisions of Article 179

1. Vacation of OfficeA Speaker or Deputy Speaker automatically vacates office upon ceasing to be a member of the Legislative Assembly. This could occur due to resignation, disqualification, or the dissolution of the Assembly.
However, the Speaker continues in office after dissolution until just before the first sitting of the newly constituted Assembly, ensuring continuity in the functioning of the legislative framework. This continuity clause prevents any constitutional vacuum in legislative leadership during transitional periods.
2. Resignation from OfficeArticle 179(b) provides that:

• The Speaker may resign from office by writing under his hand addressed to the Deputy Speaker.
• Similarly, the Deputy Speaker may resign by writing to the Speaker.

This reciprocal mechanism ensures that each presiding officer remains answerable to the other, maintaining procedural propriety within the Assembly’s internal hierarchy.
3. Removal from OfficeUnder Article 179(c), the Speaker or Deputy Speaker may be removed by a resolution passed by a majority of all the then members of the Assembly.
Key procedural safeguards include:

• A 14-day notice period must be given before moving the resolution.
• The resolution must be supported by an absolute majority—that is, a majority of the total strength of the Assembly, not merely of those present and voting.
• The Speaker or Deputy Speaker cannot preside during the deliberation of the motion concerning his or her removal.

These safeguards prevent hasty or politically motivated removals and preserve the stability and dignity of the presiding offices.

Tenure and Continuity of Office

The Speaker’s tenure extends beyond the life of the Assembly in one specific context—the dissolution clause in the second proviso. It ensures that the Speaker remains in office until a new Assembly convenes and elects a successor.
This provision upholds administrative continuity and symbolises the institutional permanence of the legislature, irrespective of electoral or political changes. The Deputy Speaker, however, vacates office immediately upon dissolution of the Assembly, as the continuity provision applies only to the Speaker.

Constitutional Philosophy and Rationale

Article 179 reflects the democratic principle of accountability—the Speaker and Deputy Speaker hold office only as long as they enjoy the confidence of the majority of the members. It simultaneously ensures institutional autonomy by making the process of removal subject to a formal resolution supported by a majority, thereby preventing arbitrary action.
The provisions also preserve the independence of the Legislature from external interference, ensuring that the internal leadership of the Assembly remains under the control of its elected representatives.

Judicial Interpretations and Landmark Case Laws

Several judicial pronouncements have clarified the constitutional implications of Article 179 and its relation to the powers of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker:

• K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017): While primarily concerning the right to privacy, the judgment highlighted the constitutional significance of the Speaker’s role in maintaining democratic accountability and institutional integrity within the framework of representative government.
• Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006): The Supreme Court examined the Speaker’s powers in relation to the disqualification of Assembly members under the Tenth Schedule. The judgment reaffirmed that the Speaker, as the custodian of the Legislature’s dignity, must act fairly and within the limits of constitutional propriety.
• Jagjit Singh v. State of Haryana (2006): This case addressed the procedure for the removal of the Speaker, emphasising the mandatory requirement of a 14-day notice before moving a resolution. The Court held that failure to adhere to this procedural safeguard would invalidate any such resolution, ensuring due process.
• Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992): Though not directly based on Article 179, the case elaborated on the quasi-judicial powers of the Speaker under the Tenth Schedule and reaffirmed that the Speaker’s decisions are subject to judicial review to prevent misuse of authority.

These cases collectively underscore that while the Speaker’s office is autonomous, it remains bound by constitutional accountability and procedural fairness.

Related Constitutional Articles

Article 179 functions in conjunction with the following provisions:

• Article 178: Provides for the election of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker.
• Article 180: Specifies that the Deputy Speaker performs the functions of the Speaker in the latter’s absence or vacancy.
• Article 181: States that the Speaker or Deputy Speaker shall not preside while a resolution for their removal is under consideration.
• Article 212: Restricts judicial interference in legislative proceedings, except on grounds of constitutional violation.

Together, these provisions form a comprehensive framework governing the offices of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker, ensuring democratic control and procedural integrity.

Significance and Constitutional Role

Article 179 holds substantial constitutional and practical importance:

• It reinforces legislative accountability by ensuring that the Speaker and Deputy Speaker remain answerable to the Assembly.
• It provides a clear procedure for resignation and removal, preventing arbitrary dismissals or undue executive interference.
• The 14-day notice requirement encourages deliberation and consensus before any motion for removal is initiated.
• The continuity of the Speaker’s office preserves the institutional stability of the legislative process between successive Assemblies.
• The provision embodies the principle of collective confidence, ensuring that presiding officers derive legitimacy from the Assembly’s will.

Practical Implications

In practice, Article 179 serves several crucial functions in the daily workings of State legislatures:

• It provides mechanisms for leadership transition without disrupting legislative operations.
• It ensures that presiding officers uphold their impartial and constitutional obligations.
• It allows the Legislature to self-regulate and maintain discipline through internal procedures.
• It safeguards the legislative process against executive dominance by vesting control over these offices solely in the Assembly.

Comparative Perspective

The constitutional model established by Article 179 closely resembles practices in parliamentary democracies worldwide, such as the United Kingdom and Commonwealth nations, where presiding officers remain accountable to the House but enjoy protection against arbitrary removal.
India’s adaptation of this principle at the State level reinforces its federal commitment to uniform democratic norms across Union and State legislatures.