Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Jun 09, 2004

About Us
Contact Us
Opinion
News: Front Page | National | Tamil Nadu | Andhra Pradesh | Karnataka | Kerala | New Delhi | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous |
Advts:
Classifieds | Employment |

Opinion - Letters to the Editor Printer Friendly Page   Send this Article to a Friend

Rajya Sabha elections

Sir, — The editorial, `Undoing the fraud' (June 7), was educative. The constitutional provision regarding the Council of States (eventually renamed the Rajya Sabha) was a council representing the interests of the States within the country's federal structure. That a nominee for the Rajya Sabha should be ordinarily resident in the State from which he is to be elected is a natural pre-requisite.

Hence, the amendment made to the Representation of the People Act, 1951 in August 2003, doing away with this requirement, is in conflict with the spirit of the Constitution.

K.X.M. John,
Kochi, Kerala

* *

Sir, — The said amendment has a lot to do with the political dynamics of India. After all, in the election of Rajya Sabha members, the parties issue whips to the MLAs and so it is evident that the dictates of the parties prevail. The country's federalism did not suffer on account of the election of Manmohan Singh from Assam.

S. Jayachandran Nair,
Thiruvanathapuram

* *

Sir, — The removal of the domicile requirement not only violates the basic structure of the Constitution but also undermines the intentions of its makers.

It is time the Supreme Court struck down the amendment.

Ake Ravikrishna,
Hyderabad

* *

Sir, — The amendment strengthens the belief that our politicians can unite across party line to serve their vested interests.

Alok Kumar,
Chhapkahia, Bihar

* *

Sir, — By not heeding to the "urgent" plea of the Election Commission to vacate the stay on the Rajya Sabha election, the Supreme Court has once again played its role as the "saviour of the Constitution."

V.A. Vasudevaraju,
Pondicherry

* *

Sir, — The media did not object in a big way to the waiving of the domiciliary requirement in August 2003. Had they objected then, this crisis would not have come about.

R. Rajamani,
Chennai

* *

Sir, — A way must be found to ensure that the residency requirement intended by the Constitution-makers is honoured.

Mahesh Mahadarshee,
Hyderabad

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

Opinion

News: Front Page | National | Tamil Nadu | Andhra Pradesh | Karnataka | Kerala | New Delhi | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous |
Advts:
Classifieds | Employment | Updates: Breaking News |


News Update


The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription
Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | The Hindu eBooks | Home |

Copyright © 2004, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu