By Inder Jit

(Released on 27 March 1984)

Prepare to shed tears for the Rajya Sabha. For years now, the House has been what it was never intended to be – a mere Second Chamber at the Centre. Even this complexion will undergo a change for the worse once the biennial poll ends on Saturday. Every party is entitled to choose its candidates for the House according to its lights and long-term interests. The Congress-I and the Opposition parties have exercised this right fully. Unfortunately, however, few among the powers that be have in doing so cared the slightest for the basic character of the House and its purpose. Youth, for instance, deserve every encouragement. Nehru, for his part, took pains to bring young people into the Lok Sabha. Many of the big names in the Congress-I and other parties belong to those inducted by Nehru into the House in 1952 or 1957. But he also took care to see that this was not at the cost of institutions and their functioning, As it should be, institutions were acknowledged to be greater than individuals and party interests.

Undoubtedly, the Congress-I has chosen its candidates in accordance with a strategy, fashioned by Mr Rajiv Gandhi and his close aides and approved by Mrs Gandhi. The party is certain to win at least 48 of the 73 seats for which the biennial poll is being held. With luck and, candidly, with the help of unrivalled resources, the Congress-I may even succeed in winning another three to four seats, giving it a total strength of about 157 to 158 in a House of 244 members. This would bring the party close to a two-thirds majority of 163 seats and give Mrs Gandhi the power to amend the Constitution and take the country over to the Presidential system in case she still desires so ignoring the advantages of the Westminster pattern. The Congress-I tickets have, therefore, been given to those who can be trusted to stay solidly committed to the party and its leadership. Those who wavered once or may possibly waver again have been left out. But also have been loyalists like Mr Kamlapati Tripathi. Thereby hangs a story.

Thought and care have been devoted by the Congress-I High Command also to the Lok Sabha poll. Many persons considered obvious for the Rajya Sabha have been left out with a purpose. Mrs Gandhi and, importantly, Mr Rajiv Gandhi, would like them to stand for the Lok Sabha poll and help the party put its best foot forward. The names of Mr Dinesh Singh and Mr K.C. Pant are cases in point. (Mr Dinesh Singh is expected to contest from Pratapgarh, a constituency which he represented ably for many years. Significantly, Pratapgarh lies between Amethi and Rae Bareli – constituencies represented by Mr Rajiv Gandhi and Mr Arun Nehru presently. However, Mrs Gandhi herself is expected to revert to Rae Bareli from Medak in Andhra Pradesh.) Clearly, Mr Kamlapati Tripathi, who served Mrs Gandhi well as the leader of the Congress-I Opposition in the Rajya Sabha during the Janata rule, deserved a berth in the House. But this did not happen as Mrs Gandhi would like him to actively help mobilize Brahmin votes in the Hindi heartland. In 1980, he trounced Mr Raj Narain in the Lok Sabha election from Varanasi.

Unfortunately, ignorance about the Rajya Sabha and its role in India’s federal polity continues to abound, even among top leaders and many others, who are expected to know better. Parliament is not just the Lok Sabha, as a former Prime Minister once asserted. It consists of the President and the two Houses the Council of States, namely the Rajya Sabha, and the House of the People, namely the Lok Sabha. The Rajya Sabha represents the federal or Union principle and the Lok Sabha the national principle of the Government. Both have equal status and stipulated functions. Under the Constitution, any voter in India can contest election to the Lok Sabha from anywhere in the country. But the same is not permitted for the Rajya Sabha because of its specific and special obligations. Each member represents a State and is therefore elected by the members of the Assembly of that State. As a corollary, he is expected to be normally a resident of the State. That this principle has been violated time and again is another matter.

The Rajya Sabha is not the Upper House or the Second Chamber, an expression which cannotes an inferior position. It has a status of its own and a specific role to play unlike the House of Lords. In fact, Nehru made this position abundantly clear in 1953 when a controversy erupted in regard to the respective powers of two Houses. He then stated the following in the Rajya Sabha on May 6, 1953: “Under our Constitution, Parliament consists of two Houses, each functioning in the allotted sphere laid down in the Constitution. We derive authority from the Constitution. Sometimes we refer to the practice and conventions prevailing in the United Kingdom… Our guide must, however, be our own Constitution… To call either of these Houses as Upper House or a Lower House is not correct… Neither House by itself constitutes Parliament. It is the two Houses together that are the Parliament of India. The successful working of our democratic structure demands the closest cooperation between the two Houses.”

Many of the big names in the Congress-I and other parties belong to those inducted by Nehru into the House in 1952 or 1957. But he also took care to see that this was not at the cost of institutions and their functioning, As it should be, institutions were acknowledged to be greater than individuals and party interests.

Some basic facts about the Rajya Sabha require to be recalled. The Rajya Sabha cannot make or unmake Governments. Specifically, it cannot pass a vote of no-confidence against the Council of Ministers. Nor is the Council of Ministers under any obligation to resign if defeated on the floor of the House. The Rajya Sabha’s powers in relation to financial matters and the budget are also much less than those of the Lok Sabha. It has, no doubt, the power to discuss the budget. However, it is barred from either rejecting or amending a money bill. It can only make recommendations to the Lok Sabha which the latter may or may not accept. A money bill is deemed to have been passed by both Houses of Parliament if the Lok Sabha declines to accept the recommendations of the Rajya Sabha. The Rajya Sabha also suffers a certain disability in a joint session of the two Houses because of its numerical weakness — its membership is limited to 250 as against 544 of the Lok Sabha. Nevertheless, the Rajya Sabha is invested with certain special powers which add to its prestige and dignity.

The Constitution bars the Lok Sabha from legislating in regard to matters specified in the State List. But the Rajya Sabha as the Council of States and representing the federal principle is specially empowered under Article 249 to make it lawful for Parliament to enact “in the national interest” legislation in regard to any matter enumerated in the State list for the whole or any part of India. Again, under Article 312(1) of the Constitution, the Rajya Sabha alone can empower Parliament to create in the national interest one or more all India services common to the Union and/or States. In exercise of this power, the Rajya Sabha passed in 1961 a resolution for the creation of the Indian Service of Engineers, the Indian Forest Service and the Indian Medical Health Service. A similar resolution for the creation of the Indian Agricultural Service and the Indian Educational Service was passed in 1965 by the Rajya Sabha by not less than two-thirds of its members present and voting, a Constitutional requirement.

The Rajya Sabha represents the federal or Union principle and the Lok Sabha the national principle of the Government. Both have equal status and stipulated functions. 

Most Lok Sabha MPs are currently inclined to consider themselves “more representative” than their opposite numbers in the Rajya Sabha because they have been elected directly. But, here again, these friends ignore the basic scheme of the Constitution which deliberately opted for indirect election to the Rajya Sabha from electoral colleges comprising the State legislatures. Indirect election was intended to help induct experienced and seasoned persons from different walks of life into the House — stalwarts who would normally be disinclined to face the rough and tumble of a poll battle. Indeed, it is not generally remembered that even the minimum age requirement for the Rajya Sabha is designed to bring in to the House comparatively experienced men. The Constitution provides a minimum age limit of 30 for election to the Rajya Sabha as against the minimum age limit of 25 prescribed for the Lok Sabha. Not without reason, Nehru always took special note of what was said in the House.

What is worse even where the Constitution has provided a yardstick, the qualification has been distorted, and diluted over the years. The Constitution provides for the nomination of 12 members to the Rajya Sabha consisting of persons “having special knowledge or practical experience in regard to such matters as literature, science, art and social science.”

Sadly, the Rajya Sabha today is not what it was intended to be on one other score: the quality of its membership. What is worse even where the Constitution has provided a yardstick, the qualification has been distorted, and diluted over the years. The Constitution provides for the nomination of 12 members to the Rajya Sabha consisting of persons “having special knowledge or practical experience in regard to such matters as literature, science, art and social science.” The provision enables the Government to make available to Parliament the services of distinguished persons. Several eminent men like Dr Zakir Husain, Dr Tara Chand and Maithli Sharan Gupta have adorned the Rajya Sabha. But all this no longer holds good. In the past decade and more, the Government has tended to nominate their committed favourites, at times even party members. The face of the House has changed fast. This should stop. Simultaneously, the function of the Rajya Sabha must be understood and the House enabled to play its vital role as the Council of States in our federal polity. Much damage has already been caused to Parliament as an institution. — INFA