(1) If after a Bill has been passed by one House and transmitted to the other House —

 

(a) the Bill is rejected by the other House; or

 

(b) the Houses have finally disagreed as to the amendments to be made in the Bill; or

 

(c) more than six months elapse from the date of the reception of the Bill by the other House without the Bill being passed by it,

 

the President may, unless the Bill has elapsed by reason of a dissolution of the House of the People, notify to the Houses by message if they are sitting or by public notification if they are not sitting, his intention to summon them to meet in a joint sitting for the purpose of deliberating and voting on the Bill:

 

Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply to a Money Bill.

 

(2) In reckoning any such period of six months as is referred to in clause (1), no account shall be taken of any period during which the House referred to in sub-clause (c) of that clause is prorogued or adjourned for more than four consecutive days.

 

(3) Where the President has under clause (1) notified his intention of summoning the Houses to meet in a joint sitting, neither House shall proceed further with the Bill, but the President may at any time after the date of his notification summon the Houses to meet in a joint sitting for the purpose specified in the notification and, if he does so, the Houses shall meet accordingly.

 

(4) If at the joint sitting of the two Houses the Bill, with such amendments, if any, as are agreed to in joint sitting, is passed by a majority of the total number of members of both Houses present and voting, it shall be deemed for the purposes of this Constitution to have been passed by both Houses:

 

Provided that at a joint sitting —

 

(a) if the Bill, having been passed by one House, has not been passed by the other House with amendments and returned to the House in which it originated, no amendment shall be proposed to the Bill other than such amendments (if any) as are made necessary by the delay in the passage of the Bill;

 

(b) if the Bill has been so passed and returned, only such amendments as aforesaid shall be proposed to the Bill and such other amendments as are relevant to the matters with respect to which the Houses have not agreed;

 

and the decision of the person presiding as to the amendments which are admissible under this clause shall be final.

 

(5) A joint sitting may be held under this article and a Bill passed thereat, notwithstanding that a dissolution of the House of the People has intervened since the President notified his intention to summon the Houses to meet therein.

Debate Summary

Article 88, Draft Constitution, 1948

 (1) If after a Bill has been passed by one House and transmitted to the other House-

(a) The Bill is rejected by the other House; or

(b) The Houses have finally disagreed as to the amendments to be made in the Bill; or

(c) More than six months elapse from the date of the reception of the Bill by the other House without the Bill being passed by it, the President may, unless the Bill has lapsed by reason of a dissolution of the House of the People, notify to the Houses by message if they are sitting or by public notification if they are not sitting, his intention to summon them to meet in a joint sitting for the purpose of deliberating and voting on the Bill:

Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply to a Money Bill.

(2) In reckoning any such period of six months as is referred to in clause (1) of this article, no account shall be taken of any time during which both Houses are prorogued or adjourned for more than four days.

(3) Where the President has under clause (1) of this article notified his intention of summoning the Houses to meet in a joint sitting, neither House shall proceed further with the Bill, but the President may at any time after the date of his notification summon the Houses to meet in a joint sitting for the purpose specified in the notification and, if he does so, the Houses shall meet accordingly.

(4) If at the joint sitting of the two Houses the Bill with such amendments, if any, as are agreed to in joint sitting, is passed by a majority of the total number of members of both Houses present and voting, it shall be deemed for the purposes of this Constitution to have been passed by both Houses:

Provided that at a joint sitting-

(a) If the Bill, having been passed by one House, has not been passed by the other House with amendments and returned to the House in which it originated, no amendment shall be proposed to the Bill other than such amendments (if any) as are made necessary by the delay in the passage of the Bill;

(b) If the Bill has been so passed and returned, only such amendments as aforesaid shall be proposed to the Bill and such other amendments as are relevant to the matters with respect to which the Houses have not agreed; and the decision of the person presiding as to the amendments which are admissible under this clause shall be final.

(5) A joint sitting may be held under this article and a Bill passed thereat, notwithstanding that a dissolution of the House of the People has intervened since the President notified his intention to summon the Houses to meet therein.

 

Draft Constitution 88 (Article 108, Constitution of India 1950) was discussed on 20th May 1949. It laid down procedure for convening a joint sitting of the Parliament.

 

A member proposed an amendment to delete ‘for the purposes of the Constitution’ under clause 4. He argued that this phrase was ‘redundant, needless and superfluous’.

 

Another member was not convinced of the existence of this Draft Article. He disagreed with the position of the House of Councils in the Indian Constitution. He believed that the House of Councils was given disproportionate authority. Comparing to the House of Lord in the United Kingdom, he argued for the power and role of the House of Councils to be highly restricted. The Draft Article by allowing joint sessions was giving the Upper House undue importance and authority. One member was quick to jump in and defend the Draft Article and the role of the House of Councils in Indian parliamentary framework. He noted that unlike the House of Lord, which is hereditary, the House of Councils represented the elected voices of the States. And it was unique to the Indian federal set up. In situations of legislative deadlock, this Draft Article offered a solution.

 

The Assembly adopted the Draft Article with few minor amendments on 20th May 1949.