Creating or abolishing a state Legislative Council requires the full constitutional amendment process under Article 368, including ratification by other states.

Article 169(3) explicitly states that such a law is not considered an amendment under Article 368, so it only needs an ordinary Parliamentary law — though the state's own resolution must meet a special majority first.

A state's Legislative Assembly can abolish or create its own Council on its own, without Parliament.

The Assembly can only pass a resolution recommending the change; the actual legal action of abolition or creation is carried out only by a law of Parliament, not by the state legislature.

The Constitution of India

Article 169

Abolition or creation of Legislative Councils in States

(1) Notwithstanding anything in article 168, Parliament may by law provide for the abolition of the Legislative Council of a State having such a Council or for the creation of such a Council in a State having no such Council, if the Legislative Assembly of the State passes a resolution to that effect by a majority of the total membership of the Assembly and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of the Assembly present and voting.§

(2) Any law referred to in clause (1) shall contain such provisions for the amendment of this Constitution as may be necessary to give effect to the provisions of the law and may also contain such supplemental, incidental and consequential provisions as Parliament may deem necessary.§

(3) No such law as aforesaid shall be deemed to be an amendment of this Constitution for the purposes of article 368.§

Why this exists

India's states can optionally have a bicameral legislature — an Assembly (Lower House) and a Council (Upper House, akin to a mini Rajya Sabha). The Constitution-makers wanted state legislatures to have flexibility to add or remove this second chamber based on changing needs and political consensus, without going through the rigid, multi-state-ratification process required for typical constitutional amendments under Article 368. Article 169 balances state autonomy (the Assembly must initiate the request with a strong majority) with central authority (only Parliament can actually pass the law), while explicitly exempting this special process from Article 368's stricter amendment procedure.

How courts read it

There isn't a large body of Supreme Court case law directly interpreting Article 169's mechanics, since it's largely a procedural, self-contained provision. Courts have generally treated the special majority resolution requirement as a mandatory pre-condition, and have recognized Parliament's law under this Article as a valid, self-executing method of constitutional change that bypasses Article 368, consistent with the plain language of clause (3). Notable real-world instances of its use — such as Andhra Pradesh's Council being abolished and later recreated, and Tamil Nadu's abolition in 1986 — reflect the political rather than judicial life of this Article.

Common misconceptions

Myth: Creating or abolishing a state Legislative Council requires the full constitutional amendment process under Article 368, including ratification by other states.
Fact: Article 169(3) explicitly states that such a law is not considered an amendment under Article 368, so it only needs an ordinary Parliamentary law — though the state's own resolution must meet a special majority first.
Myth: A state's Legislative Assembly can abolish or create its own Council on its own, without Parliament.
Fact: The Assembly can only pass a resolution recommending the change; the actual legal action of abolition or creation is carried out only by a law of Parliament, not by the state legislature.