Who among the following recommends to the Parliament for the aboliation of the Legislative Council in a State ?

1. Structure of State Legislatures: Unicameral vs. Bicameralism (basic)

In India, the structure of the state legislature is not uniform across all states. While the Union Parliament is inherently bicameral (having two houses: the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha), the Constitution gives states the flexibility to choose their own organizational structure NCERT Class XI, Indian Constitution at Work, Chapter 5, p.102. A unicameral legislature consists of only one house—the Legislative Assembly (Vidhan Sabha)—and the Governor. In contrast, a bicameral legislature consists of the Governor and two houses: the Legislative Assembly (Lower House) and the Legislative Council (Vidhan Parishad) (Upper House) Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 33, p.334. At present, only six states in India have a bicameral system: Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Maharashtra, and Karnataka. The remaining states follow a unicameral system. The logic behind this flexibility is rooted in practical governance; smaller states might find a second house to be an unnecessary financial and administrative burden, while larger states may prefer a second house to ensure more deliberative law-making and to provide a platform for experts who may not wish to contest direct elections.

Comparison Table: State Legislative Structures

Feature	Unicameral Legislature	Bicameral Legislature
Composition	Governor + Legislative Assembly	Governor + Assembly + Council
Indian Context	Adopted by 22 states	Adopted by 6 states
Decision Maker	State choice based on size/need	State choice based on size/need

The process of moving from one system to another is governed by Article 169. Interestingly, the power to create or abolish a Legislative Council rests with the Parliament, but it cannot act unilaterally. The process must be initiated by the respective State Legislative Assembly passing a resolution with a special majority—that is, a majority of the total membership of the Assembly AND a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 33, p.334. Once this recommendation is made, Parliament can pass a law to effect the change. Notably, such a law is not considered a formal amendment to the Constitution under Article 368, making the process relatively flexible.

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 33: State Legislature, p.334; NCERT Class XI, Indian Constitution at Work, Chapter 5: Legislature, p.102

2. Comparison: Rajya Sabha vs. State Legislative Council (intermediate)

When we look at the Indian legislative structure, both the Rajya Sabha (at the Center) and the Legislative Council (at the State level) are termed 'Upper Houses' or 'Second Chambers'. On the surface, they look identical: both are permanent bodies not subject to dissolution, and in both, one-third of the members retire every second year Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, State Legislature, p.337. However, from a constitutional perspective, the Rajya Sabha is a lion, while the Legislative Council is often described as a 'shadow' or a 'dilatory chamber'.

The most fundamental difference lies in their existence. The Rajya Sabha is a constitutional necessity representing the federal character of India; it cannot be abolished. In contrast, under Article 169, the Legislative Council is optional. It can be created or abolished by the Parliament if the State Legislative Assembly passes a resolution with a special majority Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, State Legislature, p.334. This means the very life of the Council depends on the will of the Lower House (Assembly), a vulnerability the Rajya Sabha never faces.

Regarding legislative powers, the Rajya Sabha is almost co-equal with the Lok Sabha in ordinary legislation. If they disagree, a joint sitting is held to resolve the deadlock. However, there is no provision for a joint sitting in the state legislature. If the Council rejects a bill passed by the Assembly, the Assembly can simply pass it again, and after a specific delay (total 4 months), the bill is deemed passed Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, State Legislature, p.347. Thus, the Council can only delay, not stop, the Assembly.

Feature	Rajya Sabha (RS)	Legislative Council (LC)
Permanence	Permanent; cannot be abolished.	Permanent; but can be abolished by Parliament.
Deadlock Resolution	Joint Sitting (Article 108).	No Joint Sitting; Assembly prevails.
Presidential Election	Elected members participate.	Members do NOT participate.
Nominated Members	12 members (by President).	1/6th of total members (by Governor).

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, State Legislature, p.334; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, State Legislature, p.337; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, State Legislature, p.341; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, State Legislature, p.347

3. Types of Majorities in the Indian Constitution (intermediate)

To understand how our Constitution functions, we must look at how decisions are made. Not all decisions carry the same weight; therefore, the Constitution prescribes different majorities—the minimum number of votes required to pass a motion or a bill. These majorities act as a safeguard, ensuring that while day-to-day governance is easy (Simple Majority), fundamental changes to our democratic structure require a broader consensus (Special Majority).

There are four primary types of majorities used in the Indian Parliament and State Legislatures:

• Simple Majority: This refers to a majority of more than 50% of the members present and voting. It is the most common form, used for passing ordinary bills, money bills, and even the creation or abolition of a State Legislative Council by the Parliament Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Amendment of the Constitution, p.124.
• Absolute Majority: This is a majority of more than 50% of the total strength of the House, regardless of vacancies or absentees. While not used alone to pass bills, it forms a base requirement for certain special majorities.
• Effective Majority: This is a majority of more than 50% of the effective strength (Total strength minus vacancies). This is typically used for the removal of the Vice-President or the Speaker.
• Special Majority: This is the most complex category, requiring more than a simple majority. Under Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Parliament, p.240, these are classified into three distinct types depending on the gravity of the matter.

Types of Special Majorities

The term 'Special Majority' is used in different contexts. A key example is Article 368, which is used for amending the Constitution or removing Supreme Court judges. This specific type requires two conditions to be met simultaneously: a majority of the total membership of the House AND a majority of two-thirds of the members present and voting NCERT Class XI, Indian Constitution at Work, ELECTION AND REPRESENTATION, p.69.

Type	Requirement	Typical Usage
Special Majority I	Majority of Total Strength + 2/3rd of Present & Voting	Constitutional Amendments (Art 368), Removal of CAG, SC/HC Judges Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Parliament, p.240.
Special Majority II	2/3rd of the Total Strength of the House	Impeachment of the President (Art 61). This is the toughest majority to achieve Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Parliament, p.240.
Special Majority III	2/3rd of members Present & Voting only	Rajya Sabha resolutions for All-India Services (Art 312) or State List legislation (Art 249) Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Parliament, p.240.

Sources: Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Amendment of the Constitution, p.124; Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Parliament, p.240; Indian Constitution at Work, Political Science Class XI (NCERT 2025 ed.), ELECTION AND REPRESENTATION, p.69

4. Legislative Relations: The Deadlock Mechanism in States (exam-level)

In the study of Indian Polity, a 'deadlock' occurs when the two Houses of a legislature cannot agree on the passage of a bill. At the Central level, you might be familiar with the provision for a joint sitting under Article 108. However, a critical distinction at the state level is that the Constitution does not provide for a joint sitting to resolve disagreements between the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity. 7th ed., McGraw Hill. Chapter 33: State Legislature, p.345. Instead, the ultimate power rests firmly with the Legislative Assembly, rendering the Council a purely advisory or delaying chamber.
The mechanism for resolving deadlocks depends on the type of bill involved:

• Money Bills: There is virtually no possibility of a deadlock. The Council can neither reject nor amend a Money Bill; it can only make recommendations within 14 days. If it fails to return the bill within this period, the bill is deemed passed by both Houses in its original form Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). The State Legislature, p.284.
• Ordinary Bills: If the Council rejects a bill, suggests unacceptable amendments, or sits on it for more than three months, the Assembly can pass the bill again. If the Council rejects it a second time or delays it for more than one month, the bill is deemed passed by both Houses. Thus, the Council can only delay an Ordinary Bill for a maximum of four months (3 months in the first instance and 1 month in the second) Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). The State Legislature, p.285.

This setup ensures that the 'will of the people' (represented by the Assembly) always prevails over the nominated or indirectly elected Council. Here is a quick comparison to help you visualize the disparity:

Feature	Parliament (Union)	State Legislature
Deadlock Resolution	Joint Sitting (Article 108)	No Joint Sitting; Assembly prevails
Max Delay (Ordinary Bill)	6 months (leads to joint sitting)	4 months total (3+1)

Sources: Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity. 7th ed., McGraw Hill., Chapter 33: State Legislature, p.345; Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.), The State Legislature, p.284-285

5. The Role of Governor and President in State Bills (intermediate)

In the Indian federal structure, the Governor and the President act as constitutional gatekeepers for legislation passed by state legislatures. When a bill (other than a Money Bill) is passed by the State Legislative Assembly (and the Council, where one exists), it is presented to the Governor for assent. Under Article 200, the Governor has four distinct pathways: they may give assent, withhold assent, return the bill for reconsideration, or—most crucially—reserve the bill for the consideration of the President Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth (7th ed.), Governor, p.318. While the Governor generally acts on the advice of the State Council of Ministers, the power to reserve a bill is often used when a state law might endanger the position of the High Court or conflict with Union laws. Once a bill is reserved for the President, the Governor's role in the process effectively concludes. Under Article 201, the President then has three options: they can give assent, withhold it, or direct the Governor to return the bill to the state legislature for reconsideration Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, President, p.196. A critical nuance here is that if the state legislature passes the bill again (with or without amendments) and sends it back, the President is not bound to give assent. This differs from the President’s power over Central bills, where they must give assent if a bill is repassed after a return.

To better understand the hierarchy of these powers, let's look at how their alternatives compare:

Feature	Governor's Power (Art 200)	President's Power (Art 201)
Assent	Can grant assent to make it an Act.	Can grant assent to make it an Act.
Reconsideration	Can return the bill once; if repassed, Governor must give assent.	Can direct the Governor to return it; even if repassed, President is not bound to give assent.
Reservation	Can reserve the bill for the President.	Not applicable (President is the final authority).

Regarding the Legislative Council specifically, it is important to distinguish between ordinary bills and the resolution to create or abolish a Council. While the Governor and President handle the assent of bills, the power to actually create or abolish a Legislative Council rests with the Parliament, following a specific recommendation (resolution) passed by the State Assembly with a special majority Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth (7th ed.), State Legislature, p.334.

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Governor, p.318; Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, President, p.196; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), State Legislature, p.334

6. Article 169: Procedure for Creation and Abolition of Councils (exam-level)

The Constitution of India provides a unique, flexible mechanism for the creation and abolition of a Legislative Council (Vidhan Parishad) under Article 169. Unlike the Rajya Sabha, which is a permanent body at the Union level, the upper house in a state exists at the discretion of the state's Legislative Assembly and the Union Parliament. The process is a two-step collaborative effort: it must be initiated by the State Legislative Assembly and finalized by the Parliament. As noted in Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Chapter 33, p. 334, the Parliament has the power to abolish or create a Council, but only if the Legislative Assembly of the concerned state passes a resolution to that effect.

The resolution in the State Legislative Assembly is the most critical hurdle. It requires a special majority, which is defined as: (a) a majority of the total membership of the Assembly, and (b) a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of the Assembly present and voting. Once this resolution is passed, it is sent to the Parliament. Interestingly, the Parliament is not constitutionally bound to act on this resolution immediately; however, if it chooses to act, it does so by passing an ordinary law.

A vital nuance for the UPSC exam is the constitutional status of this law. Although the creation or abolition of a Council effectively modifies the Constitution, Article 169(3) explicitly states that any such law is not to be deemed an amendment of the Constitution for the purposes of Article 368. This means the Parliament can pass this law with a simple majority, just like any ordinary piece of legislation. This makes the process much simpler than a formal constitutional amendment.

Step	Body Involved	Required Majority
Initiation	State Legislative Assembly	Special Majority (Total Membership + 2/3rd Present & Voting)
Enactment	Parliament	Simple Majority (Ordinary Law)

Over the years, several states have used this provision to alter their legislative structure. For instance, the West Bengal Legislative Council was abolished in 1969, and Andhra Pradesh has seen both the abolition (1985) and the subsequent re-creation (2005) of its Council Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Chapter 33, p. 352.

Sources: Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Chapter 33: State Legislature, p.334; Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Chapter 33: State Legislature, p.352

7. Solving the Original PYQ (exam-level)

Now that you have mastered the structural differences between unicameral and bicameral legislatures, this question tests your ability to apply the procedural bridge found in Article 169. The core concept here is the distribution of power between the Union and the States. While the Parliament has the final legal authority to abolish or create a Legislative Council, it cannot act suo motu (on its own). The constitutional building block you must remember is that the process is strictly "bottom-up," requiring a formal trigger from the state level to ensure federal respect for the state's own legislative preference.

To arrive at the correct answer, (D) The Legislative Assembly of the concerned State, you must focus on the specific "recommendatory" role. The reasoning follows a clear sequence: first, the Assembly must pass a resolution by a special majority (a majority of the total membership and two-thirds of those present and voting). Think of this as the essential democratic mandate; only after this resolution is passed does the Parliament gain the jurisdiction to enact a law. As highlighted in Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, the Assembly acts as the initiator, making its recommendation the mandatory prerequisite for any Parliamentary action.

UPSC frequently uses the President and the Governor (Options A and B) as distractors because they are the executive heads who usually sign off on bills; however, they have no constitutional power to "recommend" this specific structural change. Similarly, the Legislative Council (Option C) is a trap designed to test if you realize that a body cannot vote on its own existence. The most common pitfall is confusing the deciding authority (Parliament) with the recommending authority (Legislative Assembly). Always look for the "originating trigger" in constitutional procedures to avoid these traps.