The Hindu : Rethinking the Rajya Sabha

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Apr 23, 2003

Opinion

Opinion - Leader Page Articles

Rethinking the Rajya Sabha

By Ajay K. Mehra

The residency requirement for Rajya Sabha candidature should not have been undermined... Just because a rule has been flouted does not mean it has outlived its utility.

THE RECENT passing by Parliament of the Bill seeking to do away with the residency qualification for candidates seeking election to the Rajya Sabha has serious implications for federalism. Section 3 of the Representation of the People Act stipulates that a candidate wanting to become a member of the Rajya Sabha should be "ordinarily resident" in the State from which he or she is seeking election. By amending this Section of the RPA, the Government opens the contest for a resident "anywhere in the country". It also switches over to open ballot from secret ballot.

A Bill with the same content and intent was introduced in 2001 in the winter session of Parliament. However, due to serious dissensions, it was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Ministry of Home Affairs, which failed to bridge the differences and the Bill was dropped. The reintroduction of the Bill and its subsequent passage is testimony to the determination within the ruling National Democratic Alliance about effecting a fundamental change in the nature and, by implication, role of the Rajya Sabha. Further, the switchover to open ballot to tighten the shackles of the party on MPs is open to debate as a sound democratic principle.

The residency rule has been flouted with immunity by all the political parties from the very outset. However, the practice was not widely prevalent to begin with and due to "one-party dominance", the pressure of numbers in the Rajya Sabha did not exist. The controversy regarding the rule first erupted in December 1993, when T.N. Seshan, then Chief Election Commissioner, began scanning the election of some Rajya Sabha members and forwarded a list containing the names of 20 MPs, who "appear prima facie" not to be "ordinarily resident" in the State from which they were elected, for the period since January 1, 1988, to the Chief Electoral Officers of the States. Interestingly, seven names were those of Union Ministers, including that of the then Finance Minister, Manmohan Singh. However, after Dr. Singh's election from Assam was cleared by courts, the matter apparently died down because the tendency cut across party lines.

The issue has repeatedly resurfaced since 2000 practically in each biennial election of the Rajya Sabha. This was because, on the one hand, increasing uncertainty in Indian politics made it crucial for the ruling party/coalition at the Centre to count each of its votes in the Rajya Sabha. Political rifts and dissensions in the State units of almost all the parties increased the uncertainties for the NDA in the elections to the Rajya Sabha, as of course for other parties. On the other hand was the readiness and proclivity of some parties, leaders and celebrities to use money power, which vitiated the process of elections too, nay, the very purpose of a second chamber. In fact, in several cases during the past couple of years, various parties have used "celebrity candidates" to embarrass opponents and rival parties. Moreover, such Rajya Sabha MPs, have rarely displayed any commitment either to Parliament, or to the State from which they have been elected. They have been attracted to the Rajya Sabha purely due to the status attached to being an MP for a secure six-year term in a House that is not dissolved.

Though the Constituent Assembly did not appear to assign to the Rajya Sabha an exclusive and pre-eminent role as the House representing the States of the Indian Union, the founding fathers had also not designed the "House of Elders" to be what it has evolved into. While some leaders such as Gopalaswamy Ayyangar and S. Radhakrishnan (first Chairman of the Rajya Sabha) perceived it to be a dignified, cooling and revising chamber, others such as K. T. Shah, Lakshminarayan Sahu and Loknath Mishra, by wanting to assign equal representation to each State in the House, wished it to have the role of the Council of States. However, the overwhelming impression was to have the Rajya Sabha as the second chamber in the traditional sense, with an appearance of the Council of States.

The Constitution did not prescribe any residency criterion for the Rajya Sabha members and left the matter to Parliament, which inserted the "ordinarily resident" clause in the RPA. Supporting the special role assigned to the Rajya Sabha under Articles 249 (authorising Parliament to make laws on a specified matter under the State list in national interest) and 312 (creation of All-India Services) of the Constitution, B. R. Ambedkar said, "ex-hypothesi, the Upper Chamber represents the States and, therefore, their resolution would be tantamount to an authority given by the States". However, though the Sarkaria Commission said that one of the roles assigned to the Rajya Sabha by the Constituent Assembly was "to enable the States to give effective expression to their viewpoints at the parliamentary level", its primary role was "... that of a second chamber of Parliament exercising legislative functions, more or less coordinate with the Lok Sabha".

The Sarkaria Commission and other commentaries have pointed out that the Rajya Sabha would be more federal in nature and functioning, if several of the States are not being ruled by the same party as the one in power at the Centre. However, though greater federalisation with more dispersed power structures in the States is a theoretical possibility, party politics has come in the way of federal assertions in Parliament. Moreover, in the era of coalition politics, interests of parties take precedence over the interests of the States the members represent. Further, the dichotomies and antinomies in the interests of regional parties of various States as well as between the interests of individual States and the larger interests of India could prove irreconcilable.

Since the founding fathers did not design the Rajya Sabha as a federal chamber, does that mean that the residency criterion is superfluous and could be done away with? Before we jump to such a hasty conclusion, three important points must not be missed. First, the Rajya Sabha as the second chamber was being thought of in a strong Centre framework, which placed inherent limitations on its design and evolution since 1950. Second, the importance of the exclusive role of the Rajya Sabha under Articles 249 and 312, which was highlighted by Ambedkar to underscore that it represented the States, must be kept in mind. Last, the residency qualification was brought in by Parliament while enacting the RPA after the Constitution was framed. Obviously, Parliament too underlined that aside from being the classic second chamber, the Rajya Sabha would also be an exclusive forum for the States in the country's highest legislature.

Thus, the residency requirement for Rajya Sabha candidature should not have been undermined. True, all the parties, and the Congress, more than any other party, have sidetracked this requirement for political expediency. However, just because a rule has been flouted does not mean it has outlived its utility. In fact, with the growing federalisation of the party system and power structure in the country, there is a greater need for revitalising the Rajya Sabha and strict adherence to residency requirement would certainly help.

The introduction of an open ballot for the Rajya Sabha election is linked to the uncertainty in Indian politics. Not only do the political parties want to know their dissenters, they also want to keep them on a tight leash. An open ballot will undermine the basic tenet of liberal democracy, without helping the cause of the Rajya Sabha. If the two moves are meant to reform and strengthen the role of the Rajya Sabha, it is surprising that a review of the role of the Upper House does not find a mention in the report of the National Commission for the Working of the Constitution.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

Stories in this Section

The ULFA mortar attacks

Energising the power sector

Rethinking the Rajya Sabha