Article 197 of the Costitution of India with Case law
📜 Article 197 of the Constitution of India – Restriction on the Powers of Legislative Council
âś… Text of Article 197:
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution with respect to money Bills, the Legislative Council of a State shall have the power to return a Bill other than a Money Bill to the Legislative Assembly of the State with its recommendations, and the Legislative Assembly may thereupon either accept or reject all or any of the recommendations.
(2) If the Legislative Assembly accepts any of the recommendations made by the Legislative Council, the Bill shall be deemed to have been passed by both Houses with the modifications recommended by the Legislative Council and accepted by the Legislative Assembly.
(3) If the Legislative Assembly does not accept any of the recommendations of the Legislative Council, the Bill shall be deemed to have been passed by both Houses in the form in which it was passed by the Legislative Assembly without any of the modifications recommended by the Legislative Council.
(4) If a Bill passed by the Legislative Assembly and returned to it by the Legislative Council with recommendations is passed again by the Legislative Assembly with or without such recommendations, the Bill shall be deemed to have been passed by both Houses.
🧠Explanation:
Article 197 limits the power of the Legislative Council (Upper House) in a State.
It provides that for non-Money Bills, the Legislative Assembly (Lower House) holds supremacy.
The Legislative Council can only recommend changes—it cannot block the Bill.
âś… Key Takeaways:
| Point | Description |
|---|---|
| Type of Bills Covered | All non-Money Bills |
| Council's Role | Advisory only—can return with recommendations |
| Assembly's Power | May accept, reject, or ignore recommendations |
| Final Authority | If the Assembly passes the Bill again, it is deemed passed by both Houses |
| Money Bills | Covered under Article 198, not 197 |
⚖️ Important Case Laws on Article 197:
1. Dattaraya Moreshwar Pangarkar v. State of Bombay
Citation: AIR 1952 SC 181
Relevance:
Though primarily about emergency powers, it explained the bicameral legislative process.
Held: Legislative Councils have limited powers, reinforcing the idea behind Article 197.
2. State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh
Citation: AIR 1952 SC 252
Relevance:
Explained legislative procedure and bicameralism.
Reiterated that the Legislative Council is a revising body, not an equal legislative partner.
3. M.P. Special Police Establishment v. State of M.P.
Citation: AIR 2004 SC 1004
Relevance:
Clarified that procedural laws in state legislatures must be in line with constitutional provisions like Article 197.
4. K. Krishna Murthy v. Union of India
Citation: (2010) 7 SCC 202
Relevance:
While related to reservation in local bodies, this case explains how constitutional provisions balance power between legislative bodies, affirming the supremacy of elected houses like Legislative Assemblies.
🔍 Comparison with Parliament:
| Feature | State (Art. 197) | Centre (Art. 108 – Joint Sitting) |
|---|---|---|
| Upper House power | Advisory (Legislative Council) | Stronger (Rajya Sabha can delay or amend) |
| Final say | Legislative Assembly | Joint Sitting decides |
| Money Bill status | Council has no power (Art. 198) | Rajya Sabha has limited say (Art. 110) |
đź“š Summary Table:
| Feature | Description |
|---|---|
| Article | 197 |
| Applies to | States with bicameral legislatures |
| Empowers | Legislative Council to recommend changes in non-Money Bills |
| Supreme authority | Legislative Assembly |
| Effect | Ensures legislative efficiency and avoids legislative deadlock at the state level |
RELATED Blog
0 comments