Article 185

Article 185 of the Constitution of India establishes specific procedural safeguards to ensure impartiality and fairness in the functioning of the Council of States (Rajya Sabha). It specifically deals with the situation when a resolution is under consideration for the removal of either the Chairman or the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha. The Article ensures that neither of them presides over the proceedings concerning their own removal, thereby upholding the principles of neutrality and integrity in the parliamentary process.

Background and Context

The Rajya Sabha, being the upper chamber of the Indian Parliament, is presided over by the Vice-President of India in his capacity as the ex-officio Chairman. The Deputy Chairman, elected by the House from among its members, acts in his place when the Chairman is unavailable. The Constitution provides mechanisms to remove these presiding officers through a formal resolution passed by a majority of the members of the House. Article 185 was included to maintain objectivity and prevent any conflict of interest during such proceedings.
The provision reflects the ethos of parliamentary democracy inherited from the British system, where presiding officers must remain impartial arbiters of debate and procedure. It aligns with the broader constitutional intent of ensuring transparency and fairness in all legislative processes.

Key Provisions of Article 185

1. Prohibition on Presiding During Removal Proceedings Article 185 stipulates that the Chairman or Deputy Chairman shall not preside over any sitting of the Council when a resolution for their removal is under consideration. This prohibition is crucial in avoiding any perception of bias or manipulation of proceedings.
If neither the Chairman nor the Deputy Chairman is available to preside, Article 91(2) comes into operation, which designates a member chosen by the House to preside over the session. This ensures that the functioning of the House continues smoothly, even during sensitive deliberations such as removal motions.
2. Right to Participate, Not to VoteThe individual facing removal may participate in the discussion of the resolution. They are allowed to speak and present their case, but they are expressly barred from voting on the matter. This balance allows for fair representation and self-defence while simultaneously preventing any influence over the outcome of the vote.

Implications and Significance

Ensuring ImpartialityThe Article safeguards the neutrality of the removal process by disallowing the concerned officer from exercising authority during proceedings that directly affect their position. This mechanism ensures that the presiding officer does not misuse their procedural powers to influence the decision.
Protecting Institutional IntegrityBy allowing participation but restricting voting, the Constitution promotes procedural fairness while maintaining the moral and institutional integrity of Parliament. This reflects the fundamental democratic principle that no one should be a judge in their own cause.
Maintenance of Public ConfidenceThe explicit prohibition strengthens public trust in the impartial conduct of parliamentary affairs. It demonstrates the seriousness with which the Constitution treats issues of accountability and fair play within legislative bodies.

Related Constitutional Provisions

Article 91This article provides the framework for the election, resignation, and removal of the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha. It defines their terms of office and the procedural aspects related to their election, supplementing Article 185 by offering a comprehensive structure for their tenure and removal.
Article 100This article concerns the voting procedures in both Houses of Parliament. It becomes relevant when a resolution for removal is put to vote, ensuring that voting is conducted in accordance with constitutional norms and majority principles.

Historical and Comparative Perspective

Evolution of Parliamentary Practices in IndiaThe framers of the Indian Constitution incorporated Article 185 to prevent potential misuse of power by presiding officers and to mirror the conventions of established parliamentary systems. The provision has its roots in British parliamentary practice, where the Speaker does not preside during debates concerning their own conduct or removal.
Comparative ContextIn the United Kingdom, Canada, and other Commonwealth nations, similar conventions exist to preserve impartiality in the conduct of legislative presiding officers. This comparative similarity highlights the universal democratic value of ensuring unbiased parliamentary proceedings.

Judicial and Parliamentary Practice

Although no landmark Supreme Court judgment directly interprets Article 185, judicial commentary on parliamentary procedure generally emphasises the importance of impartiality, procedural integrity, and adherence to constitutional provisions. Cases concerning the powers of presiding officers, such as Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992), have reinforced the broader constitutional expectation of neutrality in legislative roles.

Role and Significance in the Democratic Framework

Article 185 reinforces the foundational democratic principles of accountability, fairness, and transparency. By separating the roles of presiding and participating during sensitive deliberations, it safeguards the decorum of the House and upholds the dignity of the constitutional office involved.