Article 179 of the Costitution of India with Case law
🔷 Article 179 of the Constitution of India – Vacation and Resignation of, and Removal from, the Offices of Speaker and Deputy Speaker
🔹 Text of Article 179:
A member holding office as Speaker or Deputy Speaker of an Assembly—
(a) shall vacate his office if he ceases to be a member of the Assembly;
(b) may at any time resign his office by writing under his hand addressed to the Speaker (or to the Deputy Speaker if the Speaker resigns);
(c) may be removed from his office by a resolution of the Assembly passed by a majority of all the then members of the Assembly:Provided that no resolution for the purpose of clause (c) shall be moved unless at least fourteen days’ notice has been given of the intention to move the resolution.
🔹 Key Features of Article 179:
| Clause | Provision |
|---|---|
| (a) | Speaker/Deputy Speaker vacates office if they cease to be an MLA |
| (b) | Can resign by submitting a written resignation |
| (c) | Can be removed by a resolution passed by majority of total Assembly strength |
| Proviso | 14 days' notice required before moving a resolution for removal |
🔹 Interpretation & Purpose:
Democratic Accountability: Enables the Legislative Assembly to remove Speaker/Deputy Speaker.
Stability & Protection: The 14-day notice protects the offices from impulsive or politically motivated actions.
Applies to: Only the Legislative Assemblies of States, not the Lok Sabha (which is governed by Article 94).
🔹 Important Case Laws on Article 179:
✅ Nabam Rebia & Bamang Felix v. Deputy Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly (2016) 8 SCC 1
Facts: The Deputy Speaker accepted a disqualification petition while a resolution to remove the Speaker was pending.
Held:
A Speaker/Deputy Speaker cannot adjudicate disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule if a removal motion is pending against them.
This protects the impartiality of the Speaker’s office under Article 179(c).
Significance: Limited the Speaker’s power under Tenth Schedule when a motion under Article 179(c) is pending.
✅ Ravi S. Naik v. Union of India (1994) Supp (2) SCC 641
Context: Dealt with resignation and ceasing to be a member under anti-defection.
Relevance: Supported the principle that loss of membership leads to automatic vacation of Speaker’s office under Article 179(a).
✅ Shri Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992) Supp (2) SCC 651 (Kihoto Hollohan Case)
While not directly under Article 179, this case established the role of Speaker as a tribunal under the Tenth Schedule.
After Nabam Rebia, if a Speaker is facing a removal motion under Article 179(c), they cannot act as a tribunal.
✅ Jagjit Singh v. State of Haryana (2006) 11 SCC 1
Held: Removal of Speaker must strictly follow the constitutional process including proper notice under Article 179 Proviso.
Emphasized: The need for procedural fairness and constitutional compliance in the removal process.
🔹 Comparative Insight:
| Article | Applies to | Office | Removal Mechanism |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article 179 | State Assembly | Speaker/Deputy Speaker | Majority resolution (with 14 days’ notice) |
| Article 94 | Lok Sabha | Speaker/Deputy Speaker | Similar procedure |
🔹 Summary Table:
| Provision | Details |
|---|---|
| Article | 179 |
| Offices covered | Speaker and Deputy Speaker of State Assembly |
| Resignation | In writing to each other |
| Removal | By resolution of majority of total Assembly strength |
| Notice required | 14 days |
| Case Law | Nabam Rebia, Jagjit Singh, Ravi Naik |
RELATED Blog
0 comments