Since you have provided the title "Article 97 in Constitution of India" and the court as "Constitution Article" with the date "26 January 1950," it's important to clarify that this isn't a typical court case in the way we understand it. Article 97 is a provision within the Constitution of India itself. Therefore, there isn't a "case" about Article 97 in the same way there would be a case interpreting its application. Instead, I will provide a summary of Article 97 itself, as if the question were about its meaning and purpose within the Constitution.

Short Summary

Article 97 of the Constitution of India deals with the salaries and allowances of the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Council of States (Rajya Sabha) and the Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the House of the People (Lok Sabha). It essentially mandates that these officers receive such salaries and allowances as may be determined by Parliament by law, and until such provision is made, at the rates specified in the Second Schedule of the Constitution.

Facts

Article 97 is a foundational provision within Part V, Chapter II of the Constitution, which outlines the Parliament's officers. It addresses a critical aspect of ensuring the independence and dignity of these high constitutional functionaries by guaranteeing their financial compensation. The Second Schedule, referenced in Article 97, initially specified the rates of salaries and allowances.

Issues

The primary issue addressed by Article 97 is: How are the salaries and allowances of the presiding officers of Parliament to be determined, ensuring their financial independence and preventing undue influence?

Arguments (Hypothetical - if this were a challenge to Article 97)

Petitioner's Arguments (Hypothetical Challenge): A petitioner might argue that the power granted to Parliament to determine salaries is too broad and could be used to undermine the independence of the presiding officers if their compensation is made subject to political whims. They might also argue that the initial rates set in the Second Schedule are inadequate and need revision.

Respondent's Arguments (Hypothetical Defense): The respondent (likely the Government) would argue that Parliament's power is necessary for fiscal responsibility and to adjust salaries based on economic conditions and the evolving role of the presiding officers. They would contend that Parliament is accountable to the people and would not act in a manner that undermines the Constitution or the independence of its officers.

Court's Reasoning (Hypothetical Interpretation)

In interpreting Article 97, a court would likely emphasize the importance of balancing the need for parliamentary control over public finances with the constitutional imperative of ensuring the independence of the presiding officers. The court would likely hold that Parliament's power is subject to constitutional limitations and must be exercised in a manner that is reasonable, non-arbitrary, and consistent with the dignity of the offices in question. The court might also consider international best practices and the need to provide adequate compensation to attract qualified individuals to these important positions.

Conclusion

Article 97 establishes the framework for determining the salaries and allowances of key parliamentary officers. It grants Parliament the power to legislate on this matter while implicitly recognizing the need to maintain the independence and dignity of these constitutional functionaries. The Article provides a mechanism for ensuring these officers receive adequate compensation, either through parliamentary law or, in its absence, according to the rates specified in the Second Schedule of the Constitution.