Opinion - Editorials   

Rajya Sabha and residency

At one level, the Rajya Sabha is a mirror of India's political diversity. At another, it is a reflection of the federal character of the country, its composition shaped by the popular will of the various State legislatures. It was in keeping with the spirit of the constitutional scheme that the so-called domicile clause found a place in the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The stipulation that Rajya Sabha members must be electors registered in the State they represent (in effect, "ordinarily resident" in any constituency in the State) was in keeping with the purpose for which the Second Chamber was created — to provide representation to the various States within the constitutional framework. By upholding the validity of the controversial amendment to the RP Act, which dispensed with the domicile clause, the Supreme Court might have disappointed all those who believe that the residency requirement is vital to the character and functioning of the Upper House. In its judgment, the five-member Constitution Bench maintained that as long as the State has the right to be represented in the Upper House by its chosen representative, "it cannot be said that federalism is affected." As a purely theoretical construct, this argument may have a plausible ring. But it ignores a disturbing reality: the growing practice of political parties giving Rajya Sabha seats to `outsiders', mainly those who have either lost Lok Sabha elections or cannot be enabled to get into the Rajya Sabha from their own States.

While arriving at the conclusion that dispensing with the domiciliary requirement does not offend the principle of federalism or affect the basic structure of the Constitution, the Court analysed the role of the Rajya Sabha. It observed: "Although... [it] is designed to serve as a Chamber where the States and the Union of India are represented, in practice, the Rajya Sabha does not act as a champion of local [State] interests." This may be true. However, the pertinent question is: what is the conclusion that flows from this? Should we see this as a failure of its intended role? Or, as the Court has done, use it as a basis to justify scrapping the domicile clause? In stark contrast with the abstract, theoretical way it dealt with the residency issue, the Court took into account the existing political realities when deciding on the open ballot matter. It ruled that the amendments that introduced the open ballot system to elect Rajya Sabha members were justified on the grounds they had "been brought in to avoid cross voting and wipe out the evils of corruption... " In ruling that "sunlight and transparency" would serve the larger objective — namely, free and fair elections — the Court rejected the contention that the right to vote invariably implies the "right of secrecy of vote." It needs to be noted that while the Court has held that the changes do not offend the basic structure of the Constitution, the wisdom behind them is debatable.

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

Stories in this Section

Rajya Sabha and residency
Hard-hearted astronomers
Memories of Mother Teresa
Gas, gas everywhere but not a bit to sell
Commerce, cosmopolitanism, and bans
Rising to Africa's challenge
Raw Chinese medicinal herbs in short supply
Corrections and Clarifications
Appalling behaviour
The Telangana issue
Save RTI Act
Mid-air witch-hunt

Copyright © 2006, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu