Article 197

Article 197 of the Constitution of India lays down the procedure for the consideration and passing of ordinary (non-money) Bills in States with a bicameral legislature, that is, those having both a Legislative Assembly (Vidhan Sabha) and a Legislative Council (Vidhan Parishad). It clearly defines the powers and limitations of the Legislative Council in the law-making process and provides a mechanism to prevent legislative deadlock, ensuring that the democratic process functions smoothly.

Legislative Context and Purpose

The bicameral system at the state level mirrors that of the Union Parliament, with the Legislative Assembly corresponding to the Lok Sabha and the Legislative Council corresponding to the Rajya Sabha. However, under the Constitution, the Legislative Assembly enjoys greater authority, particularly in financial and legislative matters. Article 197 was designed to strike a balance between the revisory role of the Legislative Council and the legislative supremacy of the Assembly.
This article ensures that while the Council can review, suggest amendments, or delay legislation, it cannot permanently block or veto a Bill passed by the Assembly.

Procedure for Ordinary Bills under Article 197(1)

When a Bill other than a Money Bill is passed by the Legislative Assembly, it is transmitted to the Legislative Council for consideration. The Council then has three possible courses of action:

1. Approve the Bill: If the Council passes the Bill without amendment, it is considered passed by both Houses.
2. Reject the Bill: If the Council rejects it, the Assembly may re-pass the Bill after a period of three months.
3. Take No Action: If the Council fails to act on the Bill for more than three months, it is deemed that the Council has not passed it, and the Assembly may again re-pass it.
4. Propose Amendments: If the Council proposes amendments which are not accepted by the Assembly, the Bill can be re-passed by the Assembly after the three-month period.

These provisions ensure that the Legislative Council cannot indefinitely delay the passage of an ordinary Bill.

Re-Passage and Deemed Passage under Article 197(2)

When a Bill is re-passed by the Legislative Assembly and sent back to the Legislative Council, the Council must act within one month of receiving it. If, on this second occasion, the Council:

• Rejects the Bill again, or
• Fails to act within one month, or
• Proposes amendments that are not accepted by the Assembly,

then the Bill is deemed to have been passed by both Houses in the form originally passed by the Legislative Assembly or as modified by any amendments agreed upon by both Houses.
This mechanism prevents legislative paralysis and ensures that the elected House—the Legislative Assembly—retains ultimate control over law-making.

Exclusion of Money Bills under Article 197(3)

Article 197(3) expressly provides that the procedure described above does not apply to Money Bills. Money Bills, which deal exclusively with matters of taxation, expenditure, and borrowing, are governed by Articles 198 and 207. Such Bills can only be introduced in the Legislative Assembly, and the Council may merely make recommendations, which the Assembly is free to accept or reject.
This distinction reinforces the financial primacy of the Legislative Assembly, consistent with democratic principles where control over public finance lies with the directly elected representatives of the people.

Legislative Dynamics and Timeframes

The structured timeframes—three months after the first transmission and one month after the second—serve an important purpose. They:

• Prevent the Legislative Council from indefinitely stalling or obstructing ordinary legislation.
• Maintain the Council’s role as a deliberative and revisory body rather than a veto authority.
• Allow adequate time for review and public debate before a Bill becomes law.

Thus, Article 197 balances efficiency with deliberation, ensuring that the law-making process remains both democratic and timely.

Judicial Interpretations and Case Law

Judicial decisions have interpreted Article 197 in light of its democratic purpose and constitutional design:

• Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): Although primarily concerning constitutional amendments, this case reaffirmed the basic structure doctrine, which includes the principle of representative democracy and the supremacy of the elected House in the legislative process.
• State of Bihar v. Bihar Legislative Assembly (2000): The Supreme Court clarified that while the Legislative Council serves an advisory and reviewing role, the Legislative Assembly holds ultimate legislative supremacy under Article 197.
• Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975): This case highlighted the importance of adherence to constitutional procedures in law-making, reinforcing that legislative processes must comply strictly with Articles 196–200.

These judgments collectively affirm that Article 197 upholds the democratic principle of accountability, where legislative control ultimately rests with the representatives directly chosen by the people.

Relationship with Other Constitutional Provisions

Article 197 forms part of a coherent legislative framework that includes:

• Article 196: Lays down the general procedure for the introduction and passage of Bills.
• Article 198: Governs the procedure for Money Bills, restricting their introduction and passage to the Legislative Assembly.
• Article 207: Deals with Financial Bills and related fiscal legislation.
• Article 168: Defines the composition of State Legislatures.

Together, these provisions regulate the law-making powers of the State Legislature, ensuring both constitutional order and democratic balance.

Practical Implications for State Legislatures

In practical governance, Article 197 ensures that:

• The Legislative Council acts as a revisory chamber, suggesting improvements and amendments to legislation without obstructing governance.
• The Legislative Assembly retains ultimate authority, preventing prolonged legislative deadlock.
• States with bicameral legislatures, such as Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Uttar Pradesh, can conduct legislative business efficiently, even when political differences exist between the two Houses.

This procedural clarity is crucial for maintaining stable governance and legislative productivity in states with two-tier legislative systems.

Significance in the Democratic Process

Article 197 is a key constitutional safeguard that balances democratic responsiveness with institutional deliberation. Its significance can be summarised as follows:

• It upholds the sovereignty of the directly elected Legislative Assembly.
• It prevents undue obstruction by the indirectly elected Legislative Council.
• It ensures that the legislative process remains efficient and time-bound.
• It preserves the Council’s revisory function, allowing it to scrutinise and refine legislative proposals.
• Through this mechanism, the Constitution fosters cooperation rather than confrontation between the two Houses, reflecting India’s commitment to a federal and parliamentary system of government.