What is the role of Legislative Councils?

1. At a Glance

• The Legislative Council (Vidhan Parishad) is the upper house in States that have two houses. Article 169 lets a State create or abolish one, so bicameralism is optional at State level [2][3].
• Its purpose is to act as a revising chamber. It is meant to bring in expertise through seats for graduates, teachers and nominees, and to check hasty law-making by the Assembly [1][3].
• It is a weak upper house. It can only delay ordinary Bills and has very limited say on Money Bills, so the Legislative Assembly dominates [1][3].
• UPSC relevance: it recurs in Prelims (Articles 169, 171 and the composition fractions) and in Mains GS-II (federalism, State legislatures, bicameralism).

2. Why in the News

• Elections to 28 Legislative Council seats were held in late October 2026 in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Maharashtra and Karnataka [1].
• The BJP won four seats in the Karnataka Legislative Council polls on 28 October 2026 [1].
• Political leaders, including the Prime Minister, traded remarks after the results. This renewed public interest in what the Councils are for [1].
• There is a continuing debate on reviving Councils in other States, such as West Bengal [4].

3. Background & Evolution

• Government of India Act, 1935: created two-house legislatures in six provinces: Madras, Bombay, Bengal, United Provinces, Bihar and Assam [1].
• The electorate was highly restricted and elitist: only a wealthy or educated minority could vote [1].
• The Councils were designed as revising chambers for the Provincial Legislative Assemblies [1].
• They could not be dissolved. Members served 9 years, and one-third retired every 3 years [1].

• They had equal powers with the Assemblies on passing Bills. If the houses disagreed, or a Bill stayed pending in the Council for 12 months, the Governor could break the deadlock by calling a joint sitting [1].

• Constituent Assembly: Article 169 was drafted so that States could change their second chamber without meeting the demanding conditions for a constitutional amendment [2].

• Milestones:
• 1969: West Bengal abolished its Council [4].
• 1 November 1986: Tamil Nadu's Council was abolished [7].
• 2010: the Tamil Nadu Assembly passed a resolution to revive its Council (Tamil Nadu Legislative Council Bill, 2010). The revival was never completed [7][8].
• 2013: the Rajasthan Legislative Council Bill, 2013 was introduced in Parliament and sent to a Standing Committee [5][6].
• 2019: the Jammu & Kashmir Council was abolished after J&K was reorganised into a Union Territory [4].
• Later (date not in sources): the West Bengal Trinamool Congress government approved setting up a Council again [4].

4. Core Static Facts

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Legal / Constitutional

• Article 169 gives the Assembly the first move but Parliament the final say. A State cannot create or abolish a Council on its own [2].
• The Council's powers on ordinary Bills are only to delay. Article 197 lets the Assembly override it, so the Council has no veto [3].
• Its position is weaker than that of the Councils under the 1935 Act, which had equal law-making powers and joint sittings to resolve deadlocks [1][3].

Federalism / Governance

• Arguments for Councils:
• They allow a second look at hasty laws [1].
• They represent local bodies, graduates and teachers, which brings sub-State and expert voices into the legislature [3].

• Members serve staggered terms, which gives continuity [3].

• Arguments against Councils:

• They are seen as dilatory and costly.
• They can become a back door for candidates who lost elections and a place to reward political loyalists.

• Their elitist roots go back to the restricted 1935 electorate [1].

• A parliamentary committee examining the Rajasthan Bill said there should be a national policy. In its view, whether a State has a second chamber should not depend on the mood of the government of the day [5].

Political / Historical

• Councils have been created and abolished repeatedly depending on which party is in power. Examples are Tamil Nadu's abolition in 1986 and failed revival in 2010, and West Bengal's abolition in 1969 and recent move to revive [4][7][8].
• The 2013 Rajasthan proposal shows revival Bills can remain pending in Parliament for years [5][6].

Administrative

• Councils sit in only 6 of 28 States (per PRS), so representation across India is uneven [4].
• PRS has written about a "Rajya Sabha for every State", which frames the debate on standardising bicameralism [9].

Democratic representation

• The graduate and teacher constituencies are a functional, not territorial, basis for representation that is unusual in India's legislatures [3].
• Indirect election through MLAs and local bodies makes the Council's mandate less directly democratic than the Assembly's [3].

6. Recent Developments (last 12–18 months)

• October 2026: polls held for 28 Council seats across UP, Bihar, Maharashtra and Karnataka [1].
• 28 October 2026: BJP won 4 seats in the Karnataka Council polls [1].
• Early November 2026: exchanges among party leaders, including the PM, over the results drew public attention to the role of Councils [1].
• Pending revival proposals from West Bengal (State-level approval) and Rajasthan (2013 Bill) remain part of the debate [4][5][6].
• My searches found no other dated official developments from this period.

7. Prelims Hooks

• Creating or abolishing a State Legislative Council falls under Article 169 [2].
• The Assembly resolution needs a majority of total membership plus two-thirds of members present and voting [2].
• The Parliament law under Art. 169 is not deemed an amendment under Article 368 [2].
• A Council's size is capped at one-third of the Assembly and cannot fall below 40 [3][10].
• Composition: 1/3 elected by MLAs; 1/3 by local authorities; 1/12 by graduates; 1/12 by teachers; 1/6 nominated by the Governor [3].
• A Council is a permanent house: one-third of members retire every 2 years, and each member serves 6 years [3].
• The Government of India Act, 1935 created Councils in 6 provinces: Madras, Bombay, Bengal, United Provinces, Bihar and Assam [1].
• Under the 1935 Act, Council members served 9 years, with one-third retiring every 3 years [1].
• Under the 1935 Act, a Bill pending in the Council for 12 months could lead the Governor to call a joint sitting [1].
• The present Constitution has no joint-sitting provision for State legislatures [3].
• The Council can delay an ordinary Bill for at most 3 months, then 1 month (Art. 197) [3].
• The Council must return a Money Bill within 14 days (Art. 198) [3].
• Tamil Nadu's Council was abolished with effect from 1 November 1986 [7].
• West Bengal abolished its Council in 1969 [4].
• The J&K Council was abolished after the 2019 reorganisation into a UT [4].

8. Why the Graduate and Teacher Seats Look Out of Date

• These seats were made for a time when graduates were rare
• Article 171 keeps 1/12 of Council seats for graduates and 1/12 for teachers [3].
• PRS notes that these groups may have made sense just after independence, when they were a small minority [11].

• Today India has many graduates. Being a graduate no longer marks out a special, expert voter, so the original reason for the seat is weak.

• The parliamentary committee itself wanted these seats removed

• The Rajya Sabha Standing Committee report on the Rajasthan Legislative Council Bill, 2013 said these constituencies should be dropped. Its reason was that graduates and teachers were rare and respected only in the years soon after independence [5].

• So the main official review of a new Council did not just ask whether to create it. It also questioned how Councils are made up.

• Election campaigns can enter schools and colleges

• When teachers are a voter group, parties try to win them over. This pulls party politics into schools and colleges.
• A member of the committee pointed to the old Jammu & Kashmir Constitution. It had removed the teacher and graduate seats to keep educational institutions away from politics [5].
• This is an Indian example, not a theory. One State had already tried the reform.

9. Why the Founders Were Unsure, and Left It to Each State

• Most members of the Constituent Assembly did not want second chambers in the provinces
• The reasons usually given for a second chamber are that it checks hasty laws and adds more voices. These did not convince most members when it came to the provinces. Their main fear was delay in law-making [12].

• One member called a State upper house a "dilatory engine" (a machine for delay). He said it slowed things down more than it helped show what people wanted [12].

• The compromise: only willing States got one

• The Drafting Committee listed only the States that had agreed to keep a second chamber [12].

• Article 169 then gave an easy route to change this later. An ordinary law of Parliament is enough, and no constitutional amendment is needed [2].

• Because the route is easy, it gets used for party purposes

• A low bar means a ruling party with enough MLAs can start creating or abolishing a Council whenever it suits that party.
• The Rajya Sabha committee called Article 169 "highly politicised" today and gave Tamil Nadu as its example [5].

• Tamil Nadu shows the cycle. Its Council was abolished in 1986, and a revival law was passed in 2010 but never completed [7][8].

• Parliament can also block a revival just by not acting on it

• The State only proposes. Parliament must pass the law [2].
• The Rajasthan Bill was introduced in 2013 and sent to a committee, and it has stayed pending [5][6].
• Parliament never voted against it. It simply did not act, and that was enough to stop it. The Constitution sets no time limit for Parliament to decide.

10. The Best Case for Keeping Councils, and Where It Falls Short

• The strongest argument for Councils
• In most States, the government controls the Assembly. Bills can be passed fast, with little debate.
• A permanent house is never dissolved, and only one-third of its members retire every 2 years [3]. Such a house can give a calmer second reading of Bills. It also brings in local-body, graduate and teacher voices that the Assembly does not have [3].

• This was exactly the job given to the 1935 Councils as revising chambers (houses that re-check Bills) [1].

• Why the argument is weaker than it sounds

• The Council can hold an ordinary Bill for at most 3 months the first time and 1 month the second time. After that, the Assembly's version becomes law [3].
• There is no joint sitting (both houses meeting together to settle a dispute) at State level [3]. So the Council has no way to force a compromise. It can only wait.
• On a Money Bill it gets just 14 days, and it can only suggest changes [3].

• So a determined government loses a few months at most. The "check" is a delay, not a real block.

• Why the Council is weak: power and legitimacy go together

• The 1935 Councils had equal powers. But they were chosen by a small, wealthy or educated group of voters [1].
• Today's Councils are mostly elected indirectly, by MLAs and local bodies, or nominated [3]. A house without a direct popular mandate cannot claim the right to block an elected Assembly.

• So the weak powers are a deliberate choice, not a mistake. Giving Councils more power would mean changing how members are chosen.

• What the critics should accept

• Even a short delay has value. It gives the press, the opposition and the public time to study a Bill before it becomes law.
• The real question is whether that delay is worth what a full second house costs. A stronger Assembly committee system might give the same second look at lower cost.

11. What a National Policy on Councils Would Have to Decide

• The parliamentary committee asked for one common rule
• The Rajya Sabha committee on the Rajasthan Bill said there should be a national policy. In its view, whether a State has a Council should not depend on the mood of the government of the day [5].

• In practice, Parliament (on a proposal from the Union Government) would have to set fixed criteria. Any State meeting them could have a Council, and no State could drop one just for party reasons.

• Question 1: who sits in the Council?

• The committee's own suggestion was to remove the teacher and graduate seats [5].

• Any national policy would first have to decide what expertise the Council is meant to bring in, and how to bring it in without party politics.

• Question 2: should every State have one?

• Only 6 of 28 States have Councils [4]. So the same type of State law gets a second look in Bihar but not in Rajasthan.

• PRS has discussed the idea of "a Rajya Sabha for every State" [9]. Applying one model everywhere would end this unevenness. But it would also force a Council on States that do not want one.

• Question 3: how long can Parliament take to decide?

• The Rajasthan Bill has been pending since 2013 [6]. A national policy could ask Parliament to decide a State's Article 169 resolution within a fixed time. Then silence could no longer work as a hidden veto.

12. Anchors for Answers

• Data: Only 6 of 28 States have a Legislative Council: Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh [4]
• Data: The Council can delay an ordinary Bill by at most 3 + 1 months and a Money Bill by 14 days, and it has no joint sitting [3]
• Report/Committee: Rajya Sabha Standing Committee report on the Rajasthan Legislative Council Bill, 2013: asked for a national policy, called Article 169 "highly politicised" and suggested dropping teacher and graduate seats [5]
• Report/Committee: Constituent Assembly debates: most members opposed provincial second chambers; one called them a "dilatory engine" [12]
• Law/Case: Articles 169 (creation and abolition), 171 (composition), 172 (permanent house), 197 and 198 (limits on powers) [2][3]
• Comparison: The old Jammu & Kashmir Constitution removed teacher and graduate seats to keep educational institutions out of politics [5]
• Comparison: The 1935 Act Councils had equal powers and joint sittings, but a narrow, elitist electorate [1]

13. Mains Relevance

• GS-II: Parliament and State Legislatures — structure, functioning, conduct of business, powers and privileges.
• GS-II: Federalism, and comparing India's constitutional scheme with that of other countries.
• Possible question stems: 1. Legislative Councils in States have been described as a 'costly ornament'. Critically examine their relevance in the light of their constitutional powers and composition. (15 marks) 2. The creation and abolition of State Legislative Councils has been driven by political expediency rather than principle. Discuss, and suggest the need for a national policy on bicameralism in States. (10 marks) 3. Compare the position of the Legislative Council in a State with that of the Rajya Sabha in Parliament. (10 marks)

14. Related Topics to Study Next

• Rajya Sabha (Art. 80, 108): the Union-level upper house, which has more power, including joint sittings. Compare it with the Council [9].
• Money Bills (Art. 110 and 199): the 14-day rule and the Speaker's certification apply at both Union and State level.
• Governor's nominating and discretionary powers (Art. 163, 171(5)): the Governor fills 1/6 of Council seats [3].
• 73rd and 74th Amendments (local bodies): local authorities form one-third of the Council electorate [3].
• J&K Reorganisation Act, 2019: it led to the abolition of the J&K Council [4].
• Government of India Act, 1935: the origin of provincial bicameralism [1].
• Second Administrative Reforms Commission: the source article raises its reform ideas for Councils. I could not retrieve the specific recommendations, so check them separately [1].
• Anti-defection law (Tenth Schedule): it applies to Council members (MLCs) too.

15. NCERT Concepts to Revise

• Creation and abolition of Legislative Councils (Polity): Explains the Article 169 route: Assembly resolution, then Parliament's ordinary law, which the note stresses repeatedly.
• Position of the Legislative Council (Polity): Covers the Council's weak powers: delay of ordinary Bills, 14 days for money Bills, and no joint sitting.
• Special majority (Polity): The Assembly resolution needs this majority, a frequent Prelims trap the note flags.
• Rajya Sabha (Polity): Mains asks to compare the Council with the Rajya Sabha, the Union-level upper house.
• Bicameralism (Polity): The whole debate on keeping, creating or abolishing Councils rests on the two-house system.
• Government of India Act 1935 (Polity): Created the first provincial Councils, with equal powers and joint sittings, unlike today's weak Councils.

16. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• "States can create Councils on their own": wrong. The Assembly passes a resolution, but only a law of Parliament creates or abolishes the Council [2].
• The voting threshold: the resolution needs a special majority (total-membership majority plus two-thirds present and voting). It is not just two-thirds of total membership [2].
• The fractions: graduates and teachers each get 1/12, nominees get 1/6, and MLAs and local bodies each get 1/3. Aspirants often swap them [3].
• Joint sittings: these existed under the 1935 Act for provincial legislatures [1]. No such mechanism exists for States today [3].
• Which States have Councils: the count is 6 per PRS. Tamil Nadu, West Bengal and J&K do not have one, despite past revival attempts [4][7].