Article 108 – Joint sitting of both Houses in certain cases

Article 108 of the Constitution of India provides for a joint sitting of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha to resolve certain deadlocks between the two Houses over an ordinary Bill.

The provision allows the President, in specified circumstances, to summon both Houses to meet together so that the Bill can be deliberated upon and voted on jointly. It is an important mechanism for resolving legislative disagreement in India’s bicameral Parliament.

However, Article 108 does not apply to a Money Bill.

Meaning of Article 108

Normally, an ordinary Bill must be agreed to by both Houses of Parliament. Where the two Houses disagree, the legislative process may become deadlocked.

Article 108 provides a constitutional mechanism for resolving three specific types of disagreement:

• rejection of a Bill by the other House;
• final disagreement between the Houses regarding amendments; or
• failure of the other House to pass the Bill for more than six months after receiving it.

In such circumstances, the President may notify the Houses of the intention to summon them for a joint sitting.

The Bill can then be considered and voted upon by members of both Houses sitting together.

Clause-wise Explanation

Article 108(1): When Can a Joint Sitting Be Called?

Article 108(1) applies when:

1. a Bill has been passed by one House; and
2. the Bill has been transmitted to the other House.

A joint sitting may then be considered if any of the three constitutionally specified situations occurs.

Ground 1: Bill rejected by the other House

Under Article 108(1)(a), a joint sitting may be called if the House to which the Bill was transmitted rejects the Bill.

For example:

Lok Sabha passes Bill → Rajya Sabha rejects Bill → joint sitting may be summoned

The same principle applies if the Bill originates in the Rajya Sabha and is subsequently rejected by the Lok Sabha.

The rejection must occur after the Bill has been passed by the first House and transmitted to the other House.

Ground 2: Final disagreement regarding amendments

Article 108(1)(b) applies where the two Houses have finally disagreed as to the amendments to be made in the Bill.

This situation arises where both Houses accept the Bill in principle but cannot agree on the amendments proposed to it.

For example:

Lok Sabha passes Bill → Rajya Sabha proposes amendments → Lok Sabha disagrees → Houses finally disagree

A joint sitting may then be summoned to resolve the disagreement.

The key requirement is a final disagreement. A mere temporary difference or ongoing discussion between the Houses is not by itself sufficient.

Ground 3: More than six months without passage

Article 108(1)(c) provides another ground.

A joint sitting may be considered where more than six months elapse from the date on which the other House receives the Bill without that House passing it.

The six-month period is therefore calculated from the date of reception of the Bill by the other House.

This provision addresses legislative inaction or prolonged delay by one House after the other House has passed the Bill.

How the Three Grounds Differ

Ground	Situation
Rejection	Other House rejects the Bill
Final disagreement	Houses finally disagree over amendments
Six-month delay	Other House does not pass the Bill for more than six months

All three situations arise only after the Bill has been passed by one House and transmitted to the other House.

President’s Power to Notify the Intention

Article 108 does not state that a joint sitting automatically takes place as soon as one of the three situations arises.

The President may notify the Houses of the intention to summon them to meet in a joint sitting.

If the Houses are sitting, the notification is made by message.

If they are not sitting, the notification is made by public notification.

The purpose of the notification is to communicate the President’s intention to summon the Houses for joint consideration and voting on the Bill.

Effect of Dissolution of the Lok Sabha

Article 108(1) contains an important limitation.

The President may exercise the power under Article 108 unless the Bill has lapsed by reason of a dissolution of the House of the People.

This connects Article 108 with Article 107, which determines when Bills lapse upon dissolution of the Lok Sabha.

However, Article 108(5) creates an important special rule where the President has already notified the intention to summon a joint sitting.

Article 108(2): Calculation of Six Months

Article 108(2) deals specifically with the six-month period mentioned in Article 108(1)(c).

While calculating the six-month period, the following periods are not counted:

• any period during which the relevant House is prorogued; and
• any period during which that House is adjourned for more than four consecutive days.

Therefore, the six-month period is not simply six uninterrupted calendar months.

Example

Suppose a Bill is received by the second House and six months are being calculated.

If the House is prorogued for a certain period, that period is excluded from the calculation.

Similarly, if the House is adjourned for more than four consecutive days, that period is also excluded.

The constitutional calculation therefore concerns the effective period during which the House could consider the Bill.

Important Distinction: Adjournment of Four Days or Less

Article 108(2) excludes a period during which the relevant House is adjourned for more than four consecutive days.

Therefore, the constitutional text does not exclude every period of adjournment.

The threshold is specifically more than four consecutive days.

Article 108(3): Effect of Presidential Notification

Once the President has notified the intention to summon the Houses to a joint sitting under Article 108(1), neither House may proceed further with the Bill.

This prevents either House from independently continuing the legislative process after the joint-sitting mechanism has been formally triggered.

However, the President may summon the Houses to meet in a joint sitting at any time after the date of the notification.

If the President does so, the Houses must meet accordingly.

The sequence is therefore:

Presidential notification → neither House proceeds further with the Bill → President summons joint sitting → both Houses meet together

Article 108(4): Passage at the Joint Sitting

At the joint sitting, the Bill is considered and voted upon by members of both Houses together.

If the Bill, with any amendments agreed to at the joint sitting, is passed by a:

majority of the total number of members of both Houses present and voting

the Bill is deemed, for constitutional purposes, to have been passed by both Houses.

Important: What Majority Is Required?

The Constitution does not require a majority of the entire combined membership of both Houses.

The relevant formula is:

Majority of the total number of members of both Houses present and voting.

This means the voting strength at the joint sitting is determined by the members of both Houses who are present and voting.

Meaning of “Majority of the Total Number of Members of Both Houses Present and Voting”

The phrase should be read carefully.

It does not mean:

Majority of the total sanctioned strength of both Houses.

Instead, it means a majority among the members of both Houses who are present and voting at the joint sitting.

For example, if 700 members of both Houses are present and voting, more than half of those members must vote in favour for the Bill to be passed at the joint sitting.

Amendments at a Joint Sitting

Article 108 does not permit unrestricted amendments to a Bill at the joint sitting.

The permissible amendments depend upon the stage at which the disagreement between the Houses arose.

Article 108(4)(a): Bill not yet passed by the other House with amendments

If the Bill has been passed by one House and the other House has not passed it with amendments and returned it to the House in which it originated, no amendment may be proposed at the joint sitting except amendments that are:

made necessary by the delay in the passage of the Bill.

The purpose is to prevent the joint sitting from becoming an opportunity to introduce unrelated amendments.

Article 108(4)(b): Bill passed and returned with amendments

If the other House has passed the Bill with amendments and returned it to the originating House, amendments at the joint sitting may include:

• amendments made necessary by the delay in passage; and
• amendments relevant to the matters on which the Houses have not agreed.

Thus, the scope of permissible amendments is connected with the actual disagreement between the Houses.

Decision of the Presiding Officer on Amendments

Article 108(4) provides that the decision of the person presiding as to whether an amendment is admissible under the clause is final.

The presiding officer therefore determines whether a proposed amendment falls within the constitutionally permissible scope.

Who Presides Over a Joint Sitting?

The detailed presiding arrangement for a joint sitting is governed by Article 118(4) and the rules of procedure.

Broadly, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha presides over a joint sitting.

In the Speaker’s absence, the Deputy Speaker may preside, and in the circumstances specified by the constitutional and parliamentary rules, the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha may preside.

Therefore, Article 108 should be read together with Article 118(4) for the presiding arrangements.

Article 108(5): Dissolution After Presidential Notification

Article 108(5) contains an important exception to the normal effect of Lok Sabha dissolution.

A joint sitting may be held under Article 108, and a Bill may be passed at that joint sitting, even if the Lok Sabha has been dissolved after the President notified the intention to summon the Houses to a joint sitting.

This means that once the President has issued the relevant notification, a subsequent dissolution of the Lok Sabha does not necessarily destroy the possibility of holding the joint sitting.

Why is Article 108(5) Important?

Ordinarily, dissolution of the Lok Sabha causes certain pending Bills to lapse under Article 107.

Article 108(5) creates a specific exception where the President has already notified the intention to summon a joint sitting.

Thus:

Notification before dissolution → joint sitting can still be held despite subsequent dissolution

This is an important constitutional exception.

Money Bills and Article 108

The proviso to Article 108(1) expressly states that nothing in clause (1) applies to a Money Bill.

Therefore, a joint sitting cannot be used to resolve a disagreement concerning a Money Bill.

This follows from the special constitutional position of Money Bills under Article 109.

The Rajya Sabha has a limited role in relation to Money Bills and cannot reject or amend them in the same manner as an ordinary Bill.

Can a Money Bill Be Sent to Joint Sitting?

No.

Article 108 expressly excludes Money Bills from its joint-sitting mechanism.

A disagreement between the Houses concerning a Money Bill must be dealt with according to the special procedure under Article 109.

Constitutional Amendment Bills and Article 108

A Constitutional Amendment Bill is governed by Article 368 and cannot be passed through the joint-sitting mechanism under Article 108.

A Constitutional Amendment Bill must be passed by each House separately in accordance with the special majority requirements prescribed by Article 368.

Therefore, Article 108 cannot be used to overcome disagreement between the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha on a Constitutional Amendment Bill.

Joint Sitting and Ordinary Bills

The joint-sitting mechanism is principally designed to resolve legislative deadlocks concerning ordinary Bills.

It should not be treated as a general mechanism applicable to every category of legislation.

Type of Bill	Joint sitting under Article 108
Ordinary Bill	Yes, if constitutional conditions are satisfied
Money Bill	No
Constitutional Amendment Bill	No

Article 108 and Article 107

Article 107 establishes the general framework for introduction and passage of Bills.

Article 108 provides an exception to the ordinary requirement that both Houses agree to a Bill separately.

The relationship can be understood as:

Article 107 → ordinary legislative passage

Article 108 → mechanism for resolving certain disagreements between Houses

Article 107 itself expressly makes the passage of Bills subject to Article 108.

Article 108 and Article 109

Article 109 provides the special procedure for Money Bills.

Since Article 108 expressly excludes Money Bills, the two provisions must be distinguished carefully.

Article 108 → joint sitting for certain ordinary Bills

Article 109 → special procedure for Money Bills

Article 108 and Article 110

Article 110 defines a Money Bill.

Determining whether Article 108 can apply therefore requires first determining whether the Bill is a Money Bill within Article 110.

If it is a Money Bill, the joint-sitting mechanism under Article 108 is unavailable.

Article 108 and Article 111

Article 111 deals with the President’s assent to Bills.

Article 108 concerns the legislative stage at which the Houses resolve disagreement.

Once a Bill has been passed in accordance with the Constitution, including through a joint sitting where applicable, it proceeds to the stage governed by Article 111.

Article 108 and Article 118

Article 118 concerns the rules of procedure of Parliament.

Article 118(4) specifically addresses the conduct of joint sittings.

Thus:

Article 108 → when and how a joint sitting may be used to resolve a legislative deadlock

Article 118 → procedural framework, including presiding arrangements

Important Distinctions

Rejection vs final disagreement on amendments

Rejection means the other House refuses to pass the Bill.

Final disagreement on amendments means the Houses have considered the Bill but cannot agree on the amendments to be made.

These are separate grounds under Article 108(1).

Six months vs six consecutive months of sitting

The six-month period under Article 108(1)(c) is not simply six months of continuous sittings.

Article 108(2) specifically excludes periods of prorogation and adjournment for more than four consecutive days.

Joint sitting vs ordinary sitting

A joint sitting brings members of both Houses together for the specific Bill identified in the President’s notification.

It is not a permanent merger of the two Houses.

Joint sitting vs Money Bill procedure

A Money Bill cannot be taken to a joint sitting.

Its passage is governed by Article 109.

Joint sitting vs Constitutional Amendment

A Constitutional Amendment Bill cannot be passed through a joint sitting.

Each House must separately satisfy Article 368.

Dissolution before notification vs dissolution after notification

This is a particularly important distinction.

If a Bill lapses because of dissolution before the relevant Article 108 notification, a joint sitting cannot ordinarily revive it.

But where the President has already notified the intention to summon a joint sitting, Article 108(5) allows the joint sitting to take place notwithstanding a subsequent dissolution of the Lok Sabha.

Common Confusions

Is a joint sitting automatically called whenever the Houses disagree?

No.

One of the conditions in Article 108(1) must be satisfied, and the President may notify the intention to summon the Houses to a joint sitting.

Can a joint sitting be held for every Bill?

No.

Article 108 does not apply to Money Bills, and a Constitutional Amendment Bill cannot be passed through a joint sitting.

What are the three grounds for a joint sitting?

1. The other House rejects the Bill.
2. The Houses finally disagree over amendments.
3. More than six months elapse after the other House receives the Bill without passing it, subject to the exclusions in Article 108(2).

From when is the six-month period calculated?

From the date of reception of the Bill by the other House.

Are periods of prorogation counted in the six-month period?

No.

They are excluded.

Is every adjournment excluded?

No.

Only a period during which the relevant House is adjourned for more than four consecutive days is excluded.

What majority is required at a joint sitting?

The Bill must be passed by a majority of the total number of members of both Houses present and voting.

Can unlimited amendments be proposed at a joint sitting?

No.

Article 108(4) restricts the amendments that may be proposed to those permitted by the constitutional conditions.

Can a Money Bill be passed at a joint sitting?

No.

Article 108(1) expressly excludes Money Bills.

Can a Constitutional Amendment Bill be passed at a joint sitting?

No.

It must be separately passed by each House according to Article 368.

What happens if the Lok Sabha is dissolved after the President has notified the intention to summon a joint sitting?

The joint sitting may still be held, and the Bill may be passed at that joint sitting under Article 108(5).

Does a joint sitting permanently combine the two Houses?

No.

It is a temporary joint meeting for deliberating and voting on the specified Bill.

Article at a Glance

Point	Position
Article	Article 108
Subject	Joint sitting of both Houses
Primary purpose	Resolve legislative deadlock
Bill must first be	Passed by one House and transmitted to the other
Ground 1	Rejection by the other House
Ground 2	Final disagreement over amendments
Ground 3	More than six months without passage
Six-month calculation	Starts from receipt by the other House
Excluded periods	Prorogation; adjournment for more than four consecutive days
Authority	President may notify intention and summon joint sitting
Effect of notification	Neither House proceeds further with the Bill
Voting requirement	Majority of members of both Houses present and voting
Amendments	Limited by Article 108(4)
Money Bill	Joint sitting not available
Constitutional Amendment Bill	Joint sitting not available
Dissolution after notification	Joint sitting may still be held
Related Articles	107, 109, 110, 111, 118

Quick Revision

• Article 108 provides for a joint sitting of both Houses of Parliament in specified cases.
• It is primarily a mechanism for resolving a deadlock over an ordinary Bill.
• The Bill must first have been passed by one House and transmitted to the other House.
• Three grounds can trigger the mechanism:
  • rejection by the other House;
  • final disagreement over amendments;
  • more than six months without the other House passing the Bill.
• The six-month period is calculated from the date of reception of the Bill by the other House.
• Periods of prorogation are excluded from the calculation.
• Periods of adjournment for more than four consecutive days are also excluded.
• The President may notify the Houses of the intention to summon a joint sitting.
• After notification, neither House can proceed further with the Bill.
• The Bill is passed at the joint sitting by a majority of the total number of members of both Houses present and voting.
• Amendments at the joint sitting are subject to the restrictions in Article 108(4).
• Money Bills cannot be dealt with through a joint sitting.
• Constitutional Amendment Bills cannot be passed through a joint sitting.
• Under Article 108(5), a joint sitting may still be held if the Lok Sabha is dissolved after the President has already notified the intention to summon it.
• Article 108 should be read with Articles 107, 109, 110, 111 and 118.

Conclusion

Article 108 provides an important constitutional mechanism for resolving deadlocks between the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha over ordinary Bills. It identifies three specific situations in which a joint sitting may be summoned and establishes the voting and amendment rules applicable to that sitting. At the same time, the Constitution deliberately excludes Money Bills and does not permit Constitutional Amendment Bills to be resolved through this mechanism. Article 108 therefore balances the bicameral character of Parliament with a practical mechanism for preventing legislative deadlock.