Exploring Articles 201 to 205 of the Indian Constitution: A Contemporary Analysis with Relevant Case Laws

Introduction:

The Indian Constitution stands as a beacon of democracy, enshrining the fundamental rights and principles that govern the nation. In this article, we embark on a comprehensive discussion of Articles 201 to 205 of the Indian Constitution, analyzing their relevance in the modern era. By examining significant case laws, we aim to illuminate the evolving interpretations and implications of these articles in the context of contemporary India.

Article 200 in The Constitution Of India 1949

200. Assent to Bills When a Bill has been passed by the Legislative Assembly of a State or, in the case of a State having a Legislative Council, has been passed by both Houses of the Legislature of the State, it shall be presented to the Governor and the Governor shall declare either that he assents to the Bill or that he withholds assent therefrom or that he reserves the Bill for the consideration of the President: Provided that the Governor may, as soon as possible after the presentation to him of the Bill for assent, return the Bill if it is not a Money Bill together with a message requesting that the House or Houses will reconsider the Bill or any specified provisions thereof and, in particular, will consider the desirability of introducing any such amendments as he may recommend in his message and, when a Bill is so returned, the House or Houses shall reconsider the Bill accordingly, and if the Bill is passed again by the House or Houses with or without amendment and presented to the Governor for assent, the Governor shall not withhold assent therefrom: Provided further that the Governor shall not assent to, but shall reserve for the consideration of the President, any Bill which in the opinion of the Governor would, if it became law, so derogate from the powers of the High Court as to endanger the position which that Court is by this Constitution designed to fill.

Article 201: Quorum for the Meetings of State Legislatures

Article 201 outlines the quorum requirements for the meetings of State Legislatures. It sets the minimum number of members required for the assembly's proceedings to be valid. In the case of Mohd. Ali Khan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2005), the Supreme Court emphasized that maintaining a quorum is essential for the democratic functioning of the legislature, ensuring that decisions are made with adequate participation and deliberation.

Article 202: Disqualifications for Membership

Article 202 enumerates the grounds for disqualification of a person from being a member of the State Legislature. These disqualifications safeguard the integrity of the legislative body and ensure that individuals with conflicts of interest or moral turpitude do not hold public office. In the case of Raja Ram Pal v. Speaker, Lok Sabha (2007), the Supreme Court held that the Speaker's decision regarding disqualification must be fair, unbiased, and subject to judicial review.

Article 203: Decision on questions as to disqualifications of members

Article 203 grants the power to decide on questions of disqualification of members of the State Legislature to the Governor or the President, depending on the nature of the disqualification. In Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018), the Supreme Court ruled that disqualification petitions should be decided by an independent authority or a statutory tribunal to ensure a fair and impartial assessment of the allegations.

Article 204: Restriction on powers of the Legislature with regard to disqualification of members

Article 204 restricts the powers of the State Legislature to alter or vary the disqualification provisions outlined in the Constitution. It ensures that disqualifications are determined by objective criteria and cannot be changed whimsically. In the case of Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992), the Supreme Court affirmed the supremacy of the Constitution and declared that the legislature does not have the power to change disqualification provisions laid down by the Constitution.

Article 205: Powers, privileges, etc., of the State Legislature and of the members and committees thereof

Article 205 confers powers and privileges upon the State Legislature and its members, ensuring their autonomy and effectiveness. In Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India (1991), the Supreme Court ruled that the legislature's privileges should be construed in a manner that upholds democratic values and the right to freedom of speech and expression, while also being subject to judicial scrutiny.

Conclusion:

Articles 201 to 205 of the Indian Constitution play a pivotal role in defining the functioning, accountability, and integrity of State Legislatures. These provisions have evolved through judicial interpretations, ensuring democratic values, transparency, and the rule of law. The relevant case laws discussed in this article shed light on the contemporary interpretations and implications of these articles. As India progresses, the ongoing discussion and analysis of these provisions will help shape the legislative landscape, upholding democratic principles, and ensuring good governance in the nation.