Introduction to Parliament

Why Parliament Holds a Central Place

Let’s start with a simple idea:
Just as the heart pumps blood to the body, Parliament pumps democratic legitimacy into the entire Union Government.

It is the legislative organ of the Union — meaning, it makes laws for the whole country.
Now, because India has adopted the Parliamentary form of Government — also called the Westminster model (borrowed from Britain) — the Parliament becomes the very centre of our political system.

Constitutional Basis

➡️ Articles 79 to 122 in Part V of the Indian Constitution talk about everything related to Parliament —
its organisation, composition, duration, officers, procedures, privileges, powers, and more.

So, when you’re studying Parliament, mentally mark:
Articles 79 to 122 = Core of Indian Parliament

Organisation of Parliament

Now, what does our Constitution say Parliament consists of?

👉 It consists of three parts:

1. The President of India
2. The Council of States (Rajya Sabha)
3. The House of the People (Lok Sabha)

This might surprise some students — the President is also counted as part of the Parliament!
We’ll understand why in a moment.

The Two Houses

Let’s decode the structure first.

House	Common Name	Nature	Representation
Rajya Sabha	Council of States	Upper House / Second Chamber / House of Elders	Represents States & Union Territories
Lok Sabha	House of the People	Lower House / First Chamber / Popular House	Represents the People of India

In 1954, these Hindi names — Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha — were officially adopted.

Why the President is an “Integral Part”

Here’s an interesting point.

Although the President is not a member of either House and doesn’t sit in Parliament’s daily meetings,
still, the President is considered an integral part of it. Why?

Because —

• A Bill cannot become a Law without the President’s assent.
• The President summons and prorogues both Houses.
• The President dissolves the Lok Sabha.
• The President addresses both Houses jointly.
• And when Parliament is not in session, the President can issue Ordinances.

So, the President is like a constitutional head who links the Legislature and Executive — symbolizing unity.

Comparison: British vs American Model

Our Constituent Assembly consciously followed the British pattern, not the American one.

Aspect	Britain	India	USA
Head of State	Crown (King/Queen)	President	President
Legislature	Crown + House of Lords + House of Commons	President + Rajya Sabha + Lok Sabha	Senate + House of Representatives
Nature	Interdependence between Executive & Legislature	Interdependence	Separation of Powers

So, just as Britain has “Crown-in-Parliament”, India has “President-in-Parliament”.
But in the USA, the President is not part of Congress — it’s a Presidential system, not a Parliamentary one.

Hence:
🗣️ “Parliamentary system = interdependence”
⚖️ “Presidential system = separation of powers”

Composition of the Two Houses

Let’s understand both one by one.

A. Rajya Sabha (Council of States)

• Maximum Strength: 250 members
  • 238 — Representatives of States & Union Territories (elected indirectly)
  • 12 — Nominated by the President
• Present Strength: 245 members
  • 225 from States
  • 8 from Union Territories
  • 12 Nominated

📘 The Fourth Schedule of the Constitution deals with the allocation of seats among States and UTs.

(1) Representation of States

• Elected by elected members of the State Legislative Assemblies.
• Method: Proportional Representation by Single Transferable Vote (STV).
• Seats allotted based on population.

➡️ Example:
Uttar Pradesh has 31 members, while Tripura has only 1.

👉 Comparison:
In the USA, every State gets equal representation (2 members each in the Senate), irrespective of population.
But in India, representation is based on population.

(2) Representation of Union Territories

• Elected indirectly by members of a special electoral college created for that UT.
• Same voting method — Proportional Representation by STV.
• Currently, only three UTs — Delhi, Puducherry, and Jammu & Kashmir — have representation.
  Others are too small in population.

(3) Nominated Members

• 12 members are nominated by the President.
• They are chosen from people having special knowledge or practical experience in:

Art, Literature, Science, and Social Service.

🎯 Purpose:
To give eminent persons a place in Parliament without going through elections.

Note: The American Senate has no nominated members — it’s entirely elected.

B. Lok Sabha (House of the People)

• Maximum Strength: 550
  • 530 — from States
  • 20 — from Union Territories
• Present Strength: 543
  • 524 — from States
  • 19 — from Union Territories

(1) Representation of States

• Directly elected by the people.
• From territorial constituencies in each State.
• Based on the principle of Universal Adult Franchise —
  👉 every citizen 18 years or above, not disqualified by law, can vote.

🗳️ Voting age was reduced from 21 to 18 years by the 61st Constitutional Amendment Act, 1988.

(2) Representation of Union Territories

• Parliament has power to decide how UT members are chosen.
• Hence, it passed the Union Territories (Direct Election to the House of the People) Act, 1965.
• So now, UT members are also directly elected by the people.

(3) Nominated Members (Anglo-Indian Representation)

Before 2020, the President could nominate 2 members from the Anglo-Indian community,
if the community was not adequately represented.

• This provision was originally meant for 10 years only (till 1960),
  but kept extending every 10 years.
• The 95th Amendment (2009) extended it till 2020.
• But the 104th Amendment Act (2019) ended this provision.
• Hence, from 25 January 2020, there are no nominated Anglo-Indians in Lok Sabha.

✅ Summary Table: Present Strength

House	Total Members	States	UTs	Nominated
Rajya Sabha	245	225	8	12
Lok Sabha	543	524	19	0

In Essence

• Rajya Sabha represents federalism — the voice of States.
• Lok Sabha represents democracy — the voice of the People.
• President represents unity — the symbol of the entire nation.

Thus, Parliament = President + Rajya Sabha + Lok Sabha
→ symbolizing Federalism, Democracy, and National Unity working together.

Sovereignty of Parliament — India vs Britain vs USA

What “sovereignty of Parliament” meant in Britain (Dicey)

Dicey’s classic points:

1. Parliament can make or unmake any law.
2. No legal distinction between ordinary and constitutional law.
3. Judicial forums cannot declare Parliamentary laws unconstitutional — Parliament is supreme.

This is parliamentary supremacy — characteristic of the UK (unwritten constitution).

Is Indian Parliament “sovereign” in the same sense?

No. Indian Parliament is not sovereign like the British Parliament. Several constitutional checks limit its absolute supremacy:

1. Written Constitution — Parliament’s powers are defined and limited by the Constitution. There is a distinction between legislative power and constituent (amending) power; some amendments need state ratification.
2. Federal structure — division of powers between Centre and States: Parliament cannot legislate on State List except in specified abnormal situations.
3. Judicial review — the Supreme Court and High Courts can declare parliamentary laws unconstitutional and void if they violate the Constitution (including Fundamental Rights).
4. Fundamental Rights (Part III) — Article 13 and others mean Parliament cannot make laws that totally abrogate fundamental rights (subject to the doctrine of reasonable restriction; post-Kesavananda basic structure limits apply).

So India’s system resembles the U.S. model in that the legislature is legally constrained — though India is parliamentary in executive form.

Key judicial check: Kesavananda Bharati (1973)

• The Supreme Court held that Parliament cannot alter the basic structure of the Constitution. That decision places a judicially enforceable limit on Parliament’s amending power — a central reason why Indian Parliament cannot claim British-style unlimited sovereignty.

Conclusion

• UK: Parliament is legally supreme (unwritten constitution, no codified rights that judiciary can enforce against Parliament).
• India: Parliament is constitutionally powerful but legally limited (written constitution, federalism, judicial review, fundamental rights).
• USA: Congress is also limited by a written constitution, federal division and judicial review — similar to India in legal constraints though structurally different (presidential system).

Ineffectiveness Of Parliamentary Control

“In theory, Parliament controls the Executive;
in practice, the Executive dominates Parliament.”

While the Constitution envisions ministerial responsibility to Parliament (Art. 75(3)), in reality, this control is more notional than operational.

⚙️ Causes of Weak Control

No.	Factor	Explanation / Example
(a)	Lack of time & expertise	Parliament is overburdened; modern administration is technical and vast (e.g. defence, finance, AI, etc.)
(b)	Technical complexity of grants	MPs, often non-specialists, struggle to evaluate budget estimates and audit reports.
(c)	Legislative leadership rests with Executive	Ministers pilot most bills; private members’ bills rarely pass → executive dominance.
(d)	Sheer size of Parliament	700+ members make cohesive scrutiny difficult.
(e)	Party majority system	The ruling party’s numerical strength in Lok Sabha neutralises opposition pressure.
(f)	Post-mortem nature of financial committees	PAC and COPU examine spending after it’s done → reactive, not preventive.
(g)	‘Guillotine’ practice	Cuts short debates on Demands for Grants → reduces genuine scrutiny.
(h)	Delegated legislation	Bureaucracy frames most detailed rules → less legislative involvement.
(i)	Ordinance Raj	Frequent Presidential ordinances (Art. 123) bypass legislative debate.
(j)	Sporadic & political nature of control	Oversight limited to crises or scandals; lacks continuous evaluation.
(k)	Weak opposition & declining ethics	Lack of credible opposition and disruptions undermine debate quality.

💬 Analytical Note

Despite being the “watchdog of administration,” Parliament often acts as a “sleeping watchdog.”
Effective control requires expertise, bipartisan cooperation, and strengthened committee systems — not just theoretical authority.