Lok Sabha Prorogation: 'Abnormal' Delay and Its Political Implications

General Studies Paper – II: Governance, Constitution, Polity, Social Justice, and International Relations.

Context

In the Indian parliamentary system, the process from the sine die adjournment of a session to its formal prorogation is usually technical and administrative. However, a prolonged delay of 10 days in prorogation after the recently concluded monsoon session has raised new questions in political corridors and legislative circles.

What is Prorogation?

Prorogation is the process by which the President of India formally brings a session of Parliament to an end. According to normal parliamentary convention, prorogation takes place within two to four days of the sine die adjournment of the House. Through this, the session of the House is officially closed, paving the way for it to be summoned afresh for the next session.

Why is it in the News?

• Speculation over Delimitation Bill: The Congress party and opposition leaders have alleged that this "abnormal" delay in prorogation could be an indication that the central government is trying to gather the necessary political numbers to pass a potential constitutional amendment bill related to 'delimitation' by convening a special session of Parliament.

• Strategic Time Gap: The opposition claims that not proroguing the session despite its termination could be part of the executive's well-thought-out strategy or "cunning move" to manage political equations.

Constitutional Procedure and Provisions

Under Article 85 of the Indian Constitution, the following explicit provisions related to sessions, prorogation, and dissolution of Parliament have been made:

• Article 85(1): The President shall from time to time summon each House of Parliament to meet at such time and place as he thinks fit, and six months shall not intervene between its last sitting in one session and the date appointed for its first sitting in the next session.
• Article 85(2)(a): The President may from time to time prorogue the Houses.
• Article 85(2)(b): The President may dissolve the House of the People (Lok Sabha).
• Implementation: The power of prorogation is formally vested in the President, but it is exercised on the advice of the Central Council of Ministers. No formal resolution is required in the House for this.

History and Traditions of Delay in Prorogation

• Influence of British Parliamentary Tradition: India's prorogation system is based on the British Westminster model, where the Crown (King/Queen) prorogues a parliamentary session on the advice of the Prime Minister.

• Historical Precedent: During discussions in the Constituent Assembly of India after independence, this power was given to the executive so that legislative management could be done in case sessions dragged on indefinitely or reached a deadlock.
• Customs and Rules: According to the esteemed book 'Practice and Procedure of Parliament' by M.N. Kaul and S.L. Shakdher, adjournment and prorogation usually happen immediately or within a few days, though administrative reasons can sometimes take time.
• Historical Examples: There have been prior instances of delays in prorogation in the history of Parliament. For example, during the 2005 monsoon session, there was a prolonged delay of 28 days in prorogation, and in 2021 as well, such a gap stretched up to 20 days. Although back then it was considered a normal administrative process, in the current political landscape, it has become a subject of debate.

Concerns of the Opposition and Critics

• Lack of Parliamentary Transparency: The opposition believes that such unnecessary delays create suspicion about the government's intentions—whether it wants to force a major constitutional amendment upon the country through the back door without adequate public and political discussion.

• Balance of Powers: The delay in prorogation indicates that the executive is trying to manipulate the timing and control of legislative sessions for its political benefit, which is not appropriate for a healthy democracy.

Way Forward

• Administrative Clarity: The government should maintain transparency regarding unnecessary delays in technical and constitutional processes like prorogation so that unintended political speculations can be put to rest.

• Parliamentary Dignity: To maintain the sanctity and neutrality of legislative institutions, it is essential that the management of sessions is conducted in a completely transparent manner and in accordance with established democratic traditions.

Conclusion

While a prolonged delay in prorogation after the sine die adjournment of Parliament may technically be within constitutional bounds, when it is linked with discussions on major political changes and sensitive issues like delimitation, it becomes a matter of serious debate. For the strength of democracy, it is imperative that legislative processes do not merely serve as tools for political strategies, but instead uphold constitutional sanctity, accountability, and transparency.

Definition of 'Triple Test' and 'Industry': The Supreme Court's New Judgment and Its Implications for Labour Jurisprudence

General Studies Paper – II: Governance, Constitution, Polity, Social Justice and International Relations

Context

Recently, a nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant verdict on the legal effect and relevance of the famous 'Triple Test' that defines an 'industry', as laid down in the historic case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa (1978). This matter had been pending before the judiciary for years, eventually reaching the nine-judge bench through the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jaiveer Singh. Although the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has now been repealed and replaced by the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 (IRC), this judgment marks a new turning point in striking a balance between labour jurisprudence, workers' rights, and employers' obligations.

What is the Triple Test?

• The 'Triple Test' was propounded by Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in the seven-judge bench ruling of 1978 to determine whether an activity falls within the scope of an 'industry' under the law.

• This test acts as a robust statutory bridge between labour welfare and industrial peace.

Reasons for Discussion

• Decision of the Constitution Bench: The nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court held by a majority that the 1978 'Triple Test' will continue to apply to all pending disputes under the old repealed law, but it cannot be made the primary basis in the context of the new 'Industrial Relations Code, 2020'.

• Judicial Dissent: While the majority spoke of certain modifications or clarifications in the definition, some judges, including Justice B.V. Nagarathna, dissented and clarified that there was no need for any intervention in this historic test.

Definition of 'Industry': The Triple Test and Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

• Provisions under Section 2(j): The term 'industry' is defined under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

• Three Mandatory Conditions of the Triple Test:
  1. Systematic Activity: The work must be carried out in a systematic or organized manner.
  2. Employer-Employee Cooperation: There must be active cooperation between employers and employees.
  3. Production/Distribution of Goods and Services: There must be production or distribution of goods or services to satisfy human wants (purely religious, spiritual, or domestic activities are excluded).
• Absence of Profit Motive: The most distinctive feature of this test was that the 'profit-making motive' was considered entirely irrelevant, meaning welfare institutions, hospitals, and educational institutions also fell within its ambit. Only strictly sovereign functions were granted exemption.

What is the Core Issue?

• The central dispute was whether the government's welfare departments, research institutions, and forest and irrigation departments can be considered an 'industry'. Should the scope of the 1978 'Triple Test' be altered in the current economic environment, era of liberalization, and privatization, and should old judgments form the basis while interpreting Section 2(p) of the new 'Industrial Relations Code, 2020'?

Court's Judgment: Old Ruling vs. New Ruling

• Old Approach (1978 - BWSSB Case): A very broad and expansive scope was adopted so that maximum workers could receive the protection of labour laws. The nature of the activity was made the primary basis, sidelining the profit motive.

• New Ruling (2026 - Nine-Judge Bench):
  • The Court preserved the 'Triple Test' for older cases (pending disputes).
  • However, for the new law (Section 2(p) of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020), it clarified that the interpretation of the new law will be made independently based on its own language and statutory structure, rather than treating the old 'Triple Test' as its sole 'primary basis'.

Relevance and Implications of the New Judgment

• Legal Clarity and Demarcation: The Court has drawn a clear line between the old and new statutory frameworks, providing an opportunity to understand legislative intent afresh in future code-based litigations.

• Transitional Protection: Since the old test has been upheld for pending cases, current litigation will not face sudden legal uncertainty or erosion of workers' rights.

Statutory Provisions

• Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (old definition of 'industry').

• Section 2(p) of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 (IRC) (current codification of the definition of 'industry').
• Other labour law provisions related to layoffs, lockouts, and strikes that are directly impacted by these definitions.

Constitutional Provisions

• Article 14 (Right to Equality): There should be no arbitrary discrimination in labour rights between a regular daily-wage worker or gardener working under the state and an employee in the private sector.

• Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty): The right to a dignified life and a safe working environment is linked to the fundamental rights of workers.
• Article 43 (Labour Welfare - Directive Principles of State Policy): It is the duty of the state to secure for all workers a standard of life and conditions of work ensuring social and economic justice.

Other Important Points

• Changing Economic Dimensions: Following liberalization, globalization, and privatization in 1991, a large segment of the workforce has moved from government jobs to the private sector and contractual arrangements. Consequently, a clear and robust safety net remains perpetually necessary.

• Industrial Peace vs. Labour Welfare: The 'Triple Test' does not unilaterally favour workers; it also regulates rules regarding layoffs and closure for employers, ultimately establishing 'industrial peace' in the country.

Concerns

• Experts' Concerns: Legal analysts believe that if government departments (such as forests, irrigation, research, etc.) are excluded from the definition of 'industry' on a narrow basis, millions of vulnerable and informal workers employed in these departments could lose protection under labour laws.

• Apprehension of Legal Ambiguity: Separating the old 'primary basis' from the new code may create confusion before lower courts and tribunals regarding fresh interpretation.

Way Forward

• Balanced Approach: Both the legislature and the judiciary must ensure that while interpreting new laws, economic growth and ease of doing business do not compromise the social security interests of workers.

• Clear Legislative Guidelines: The government and labour ministries must clarify the boundary between welfare schemes and sovereign functions to avoid prolonged litigation queues.

Conclusion

This verdict demonstrates that while the judiciary seeks to draw a distinct line between old and new labour legal frameworks, the resulting uncertainty can create fresh challenges for lower courts and workers alike. The real challenge now lies before the legislature and labour ministries to formulate rules and guidelines under IRC 2020 with sufficient clarity so that neither ease of doing business nor labour welfare is overlooked. Ultimately, the definition of 'industry' is not merely a technical legal question, but dictates the reach of labour law protections; hence, maintaining balance in its interpretation is essential for the long-term stability of India's labour jurisprudence.

Women's Labour Force Participation and PLFS-2025 in India: Rising Participation and Challenges of Rural-Urban Disparity

General Studies Paper – III: Technology, Economic Development, Biodiversity, Environment, Security, and Disaster Management.