The Constitution of India
Article 118
Rules of procedure
(1) Each House of Parliament may make rules for regulating, subject to the provisions of this Constitution, its procedure and the conduct of its business.
(2) Until rules are made under clause (1), the rules of procedure and standing orders in force immediately before the commencement of this Constitution with respect to the Legislature of the Dominion of India shall have effect in relation to Parliament subject to such modifications and adaptations as may be made therein by the Chairman of the Council of States or the Speaker of the House of the People, as the case may be.
(3) The President, after consultation with the Chairman of the Council of States and the Speaker of the House of the People, may make rules as to the procedure with respect to joint sittings of, and communications between, the two Houses.
(4) At a joint sitting of the two Houses the Speaker of the House of the People, or in his absence such person as may be determined by rules of procedure made under clause (3), shall preside.
Why this exists
The framers wanted Parliament to be self-governing in its internal working, similar to the British parliamentary tradition of each House controlling its own procedure. At independence, no fresh rules existed yet, so clause (2) ensured continuity by carrying over the pre-existing colonial-era legislative rules until updated. Clause (3) and (4) address a practical need: since India has two Houses that can disagree, a joint sitting mechanism (used for resolving deadlocks under Article 108) required clear procedural rules and a presiding authority, and giving that role to the Lok Sabha Speaker reflects the Lok Sabha's directly elected, larger representative character.
How courts read it
Courts have generally treated the internal procedural rules made under Article 118 as matters for parliamentary self-regulation, linking this Article to the broader immunity given to legislative proceedings under Articles 105 and 122. Judicial review of pure procedural rule-making has been limited; courts have been reluctant to interfere in how Houses conduct their internal business unless constitutional provisions are violated, though the exact contours have been discussed in passing in privilege and parliamentary procedure cases rather than through one landmark judgment specifically interpreting Article 118 itself.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: Parliament can make any procedural rule it likes, with no limits.
Fact: Clause (1) says such rules are 'subject to the provisions of this Constitution,' so procedural rules cannot override or violate constitutional requirements. - Myth: Joint sittings happen often and are a routine legislative tool.
Fact: Joint sittings under Article 108 (which Article 118(3)-(4) procedurally supports) are rare and used only to resolve specific deadlocks between the two Houses over a bill.