Critically evaluate the role of Special Sessions of Parliament in India's legislative process.

The Constitution recognises no category called a "Special Session"; it is a convention-based sitting summoned by the President under Article 85(1), over and above the Budget, Monsoon and Winter sessions, usually to transact one defined item of business [2]. Its worth lies in speed — and its criticism, in the executive's near-total control over when and why it is called.

Merits in the legislative process

• Focused legislative delivery: the four-sitting Special Session of 18–21 September 2023 carried the Constitution (128th Amendment) Bill — the women's reservation law — through both Houses without the distractions of a full session [3].
• Flexibility for urgent business: Article 85's only binding rule is that six months must not elapse between sittings; beyond that, Parliament can be assembled whenever national need demands, avoiding legislation by ordinance.
• Symbolic and deliberative value: commemorative and single-issue sittings allow Parliament, not the executive alone, to mark constitutional moments.

Limitations and concerns

• Executive monopoly over summoning: the President acts on ministerial advice, so the agenda, timing and even prior disclosure of business rest with the government; the Opposition learns the purpose late.
• Procedural grey zones: after the Monsoon Session 2026 was adjourned sine die on 13 August (19 sittings, 25 days, 12 Bills passed), prorogation was not notified for over two weeks, keeping the session "alive" for a possible reconvening — the Congress alleged this was to time a Delimitation Bill [1][4].
• Numbers, not deliberation: a constitutional amendment needs a two-thirds majority; the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill on delimitation was negatived in April 2026, showing that compressed sittings cannot substitute for consensus-building [5].
• Truncated scrutiny: short sittings limit committee reference, amendments and Question Hour.

Special Sessions are best seen as an instrument of legislative agility that must not become one of legislative surprise. Codifying reasonable notice, advance publication of the agenda and a settled adjournment-to-prorogation timeline would align the practice with the accountability that Article 85 presumes.