Article 183

The Constitution's framers wanted the presiding officers of state Upper Houses (Legislative Councils) to have security of tenure so they could act impartially, while still keeping them accountable to the House. Automatic vacation on losing membership ensures only sitting members hold the post. The resignation clause gives a dignified, simple exit route. The removal clause, borrowed conceptually from provisions for the Rajya Sabha's Chairman and Deputy Chairman, requires an absolute majority and advance notice so that removal cannot be attempted through a snap or surprise vote, protecting the office from arbitrary political maneuvering.

There is little major Supreme Court jurisprudence specifically interpreting Article 183, as it is a procedural provision mirrored across similar articles (like Article 90 for the Rajya Sabha and Article 179 for Legislative Assembly Speakers). Courts have generally read such 'removal by majority of all then members' clauses strictly, insisting on the exact majority threshold and notice period being followed, drawing on parallel case law about the analogous Article 179 covering Assembly Speakers/Deputy Speakers, which has seen more litigation on procedural fairness and the scope of judicial review over such internal House resolutions.

• Myth: The Chairman or Deputy Chairman can be removed by a simple majority of members present and voting.
  Fact: The Constitution requires a majority of *all* the then members of the Council, which is a stricter threshold than just those present at the time of voting.
• Myth: A resignation needs the Council's approval to take effect.
  Fact: Resignation under clause (b) is a unilateral act — it takes effect once the signed letter is properly addressed and delivered, without needing the House's consent.