Provisions for resolving deadlock between the two Houses | Indian Constitution Download PDF
Herein the procedure in a State Legislature differs from that in the Parliament, and it renders the position of the Legislative Council even weaker than that of the Council of the States. The difference is as follows:
Provisions for While disagreement between the two Houses of between two Parliament is to be resolved by a joint sitting, there is Houses. no such provision for solving differences between the two Houses of the State Legislature—in this latter case, the will of the lower House, viz., the Assembly, shall ultimately prevail and the Council shall have no more power than to interpose some delay in the passage of the Bill to which it disagrees.
This difference of treatment in the two cases is due to the adoption of two different principles as regards the Union and the State Legislatures, (a) As to Parliament—it has been said that since the Upper House represents the federal character of the Constitution, it should have a status better than that of a mere dilatory body. Hence, the Constitution provides for a joint sitting of both Houses in case of disagreement between the House of the People and the Council of States, though of course, the House will ultimately have an upper hand, owing to its numerical majority at the joint sitting, (b) As regards the two Houses of the State Legislature, however, the Constitution of India adopts the English system founded on the Parliament Act, 1911, viz., that the Upper House must eventually give way to the Lower House which represents the will of the people. Under this system, the Upper House has no power to obstruct the popular House other than to effect some delay. This democratic provision has been adopted in our Constitution in the case of the State Legislature inasmuch as in this case, no question of federal importance of the Upper House arises.