Article 92

Article 92 of the Constitution of India establishes the rules governing the conduct of proceedings in the Council of States (Rajya Sabha) during the consideration of a resolution for the removal of either the Chairman (who is the Vice-President of India) or the Deputy Chairman. This provision ensures fairness, impartiality, and transparency in such proceedings by prohibiting the person concerned from presiding over the session in which his or her own removal is discussed.

Constitutional Framework and Purpose

The Rajya Sabha, being the upper chamber of Parliament, is presided over by the Chairman, with the Deputy Chairman as the alternate presiding officer. Both positions hold significant constitutional authority. To prevent any conflict of interest or misuse of power during their removal proceedings, Article 92 provides for neutral presiding arrangements.
The framers of the Constitution introduced this Article to safeguard the integrity of parliamentary processes and to uphold the principle of natural justice—that no person should judge or preside over a matter in which they have a personal interest.

Key Provisions of Article 92

Article 92 consists of two primary clauses:

1. Clause (1): Prohibition on Presiding During Removal Proceedings
   • When a resolution for the removal of the Chairman (Vice-President) or the Deputy Chairman is under consideration in the Rajya Sabha, the person facing the resolution shall not preside over the sitting.
   • The proceedings in such cases are conducted under the same arrangements as those applicable when the Chairman or Deputy Chairman is absent, as described in Article 91(2).
   • This ensures that an independent member or another authorised person presides, maintaining neutrality in the process.

   For instance, if a resolution for the removal of the Chairman (Vice-President) is under discussion, the Deputy Chairman or another authorised member presides over the House. Similarly, if the Deputy Chairman is under removal consideration, another member presides as per the rules of procedure.

2. Clause (2): Right to Speak but No Right to Vote
   • The Chairman (Vice-President), though barred from presiding, retains the right to participate in discussions and to speak on the motion for his removal.
   • However, he cannot vote on the resolution or on any other matter during those proceedings.
   • This restriction overrides the general rule under Article 100, which grants the presiding officer a casting vote in case of a tie.

This dual structure ensures a balance between the Chairman’s right to defend himself and the House’s right to deliberate impartially.

Objectives and Significance

The underlying purpose of Article 92 is to uphold constitutional fairness and procedural integrity within the parliamentary framework. Its significance can be summarised as follows:

• Impartiality in Proceedings: Prevents the presiding officer from influencing the debate or outcome concerning his own removal.
• Maintenance of Legislative Decorum: Ensures that proceedings are conducted under a neutral presiding authority.
• Reinforcement of Accountability: Affirms that even high constitutional office-holders remain subject to legislative scrutiny.
• Protection of Institutional Integrity: Preserves public confidence in the impartiality of parliamentary mechanisms.

This provision reflects the democratic spirit of the Constitution, where leadership positions in Parliament are held accountable through transparent and fair processes.

Procedural Aspects

The procedure for moving and debating a resolution for the removal of the Chairman or Deputy Chairman follows established parliamentary conventions and rules:

• A written notice of the resolution, usually signed by a prescribed number of members, must be submitted to the Rajya Sabha Secretariat.
• The notice period and conditions are defined under the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Council of States.
• Once admitted, the resolution is scheduled for debate in accordance with the agenda.
• During these proceedings:
  • The person concerned cannot preside.
  • The Deputy Chairman, another designated member, or a member chosen by the Council acts as the presiding officer.
  • The person facing removal may address the House to present their defence.
• The resolution must then be passed by a majority of all the then members of the Rajya Sabha, as stipulated under Article 90.

Relationship with Other Constitutional Articles

Article 92 must be read alongside other provisions regulating parliamentary leadership and procedure:

• Article 63 & 64: Establish the office of the Vice-President, who serves as the ex-officio Chairman of the Rajya Sabha.
• Article 89: Provides for the election of the Deputy Chairman.
• Article 90: Specifies the process for the vacation, resignation, and removal of the Deputy Chairman.
• Article 91: Deals with the performance of duties in case of vacancy or absence of the Chairman.
• Article 100: Relates to voting rights in Parliament and is specifically overridden in cases under Article 92(2).

Together, these provisions form a coherent framework that ensures leadership accountability and procedural regularity in the functioning of the Upper House.

Constitutional and Democratic Principles

Article 92 embodies several foundational democratic and constitutional principles:

• Rule of Law: Even the highest constitutional functionaries are subject to the law and procedural fairness.
• Natural Justice: Reinforces the maxim nemo judex in causa sua—no one should preside over their own case.
• Checks and Balances: Maintains equilibrium between authority and accountability within the parliamentary system.
• Separation of Powers: Upholds the autonomy of the legislature by regulating its internal proceedings through constitutional mandates.

Judicial and Interpretative Perspective

There are no landmark Supreme Court cases directly interpreting Article 92. However, the judiciary has recognised the broader constitutional principles embedded within it:

• Courts have consistently emphasised the independence of the legislature in conducting its own proceedings, subject only to constitutional limits.
• The principle of neutrality of presiding officers has been affirmed in multiple rulings dealing with similar positions, such as the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and Speakers of State Legislatures.

Notably, in Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992), the Supreme Court observed that even constitutional authorities like Speakers are expected to act impartially and fairly, reflecting the spirit of Article 92’s safeguards.

Practical Implications

Article 92 holds practical significance for the day-to-day functioning of the Rajya Sabha:

• It guarantees unbiased conduct of removal debates, free from the influence of the person whose position is under review.
• It ensures that the Chairman’s or Deputy Chairman’s authority is exercised responsibly and within constitutional bounds.
• It allows the continuity of proceedings without procedural confusion, even during sensitive debates.
• It symbolises the broader democratic culture of accountability that underpins India’s parliamentary governance.

Historical Context

The concept of preventing a presiding officer from overseeing his own removal traces its roots to the British parliamentary system, where similar conventions exist to maintain impartiality during motions concerning the Speaker or Lord Chancellor.
In adopting this principle, the Constituent Assembly ensured that India’s Parliament operated under transparent and non-partisan rules. Members such as Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and Gopalaswami Ayyangar emphasised the need for procedural integrity to preserve the dignity of parliamentary offices.

Contemporary Relevance

In the current parliamentary context, Article 92 remains vital for preserving the ethical and institutional standards of the Rajya Sabha. As the political landscape grows more competitive, this provision prevents any perception of bias or misuse of authority during proceedings involving presiding officers.
By ensuring impartial leadership transitions, Article 92 reinforces public trust in the constitutional process and strengthens the credibility of legislative institutions.

Conclusion

Article 92 of the Indian Constitution is a safeguard of fairness, impartiality, and constitutional propriety within the Rajya Sabha. It prohibits the Chairman or Deputy Chairman from presiding during their own removal debates, while preserving their right to speak and defend themselves without influencing the outcome.