The Current Composition
The Indian parliament is a bicameral system viz. a system of government in which the legislature comprises two houses. In India the two houses are The House of the People or The Lok Sabha and The Council of States or The Rajya Sabha. The Lok Sabha comprises of 543 individuals elected by direct elections with a tenure of five years and is presided over by the speaker, whereas the Rajya Sabha houses a maximum of 250 individuals, 238 of which are elected by state legislatures through a single transferrable vote system and the other 12 are nominated by the President. The Rajya Sabha is presided over by the Vice President.
Constitutionalised Asymmetry
The founding fathers had envisioned a bicameral legislature for they were certain that a chamber housing the elites and experts would enhance the quality of debates and discussions in the parliament. The necessity of an upper house was justified based on three considerations:
- Representation of States: It would counterbalance the federation’s centralizing inclinations by acting as the states’ advocate.
- Inclusion of Distinguished Individuals: It would accommodate certain eminent personalities, who might be disinclined to participate in Lok Sabha elections, through nomination.
- Legislative Review: It would serve as a revising chamber for bills approved by the Lok Sabha, ensuring that legislation is not enacted in haste or under the influence of transient emotions.
However, the same forefathers who established two houses under article 79 of the constitution also made the two houses extremely asymmetrical.
The Rajya Sabha in its number itself is dwarfed in front of the Lok Sabha, being almost half of it. This lack of figures has impacted the proceedings in all the instances of the joint session. In all three instances[1] of the joint session being convened by the President[2], the will of Lok Sabha has prevailed. Rajya Sabha also has limited powers when it comes to Money Bills, as a money bill cannot be raised in this chamber. Under the Indian Constitution[3], the Lok Sabha holds exclusive authority to sanction money bills. While the Rajya Sabha may propose amendments, the Lok Sabha is not obligated to accept them. Should the Rajya Sabha not endorse a money bill within 14 days, it is deemed to have been passed by both chambers once the time limit expires. It cannot initiate constitutional amendments bills either[4]. Also, under article 75(3) the ‘Council of Ministers’ are responsible to the House of the People and not to the parliament. These deficiencies in the upper house beg the question if there is even a need for a Rajya Sabha.
Is an Upper House needed?
This question has been raised by many in academia. Many in the constituent assembly did not see the need for an upper house either. One of them was Lokanath Mishra who, while discussing article 66 of the draft constitution, moved the amendment that the Council of States be deleted from the article. He proposed that, “There shall be a Parliament for the Union which shall consist of the President and the House of the People,” this amendment failed though.
In the past years of a functional Rajya Sabha, we have seen it not functioning optimally. It has failed to deliver on the three reasons given for its establishment. One of the primary reasons given for its establishment was to prevent a centralized federalization, however the constitution itself has created a centralized federation- be it the much longer Union List[5], or the fact that the central government’s will prevails in case of a Concurrent list. Emergency powers, control over the Goods and Services Tax[6], and a single citizenship further prove the centralized approach of our constitution.
The framers of the Constitution provided for this by introducing the Rajya Sabha and intending to bring intellectuals by way of nominations by the President. But, instead of nominating the full House, they only kept 12 seats for all the dignitaries[7]. It is hard to see how these 12 well known figures could make a big difference in a 250 member House (238 of which are hard-nosed politicians dealing with the world from behind the blinkers of political party). Second, the 12 members are appointed by the president in his/ her own discretion and mostly at the advice of the prime minister hence, they remain open to political biases which may make them only a mirror of the views of their political masters.
Having an upper house for a legislative review also does not make sense if the house is asymmetrical, as has been discussed. Certainly, the architects of the Constitution anticipated that the Rajya Sabha would occasionally perform admirably by utilizing its power to postpone legislation. However, it’s important to remember that undue delays can lead to squandering public funds and the nation’s valuable time.
Representative Democracy
Representative Democracy is a political system in which citizens of a country vote for representatives to handle law-making and govern on their behalf. So, a truly representative democracy is a democracy where the population is truly represented, i.e. to say that the votes of all the citizens across the country hold the same weightage. Though, that is not the case as of now. If the data of the 2011 census is to be taken, and the number of seats in Lok Sabha is to be considered proportional to the population, Uttar Pradesh should have 90 seats instead of 80 and Kerala should have 15 seats instead of 20. This, however, opens the floor for a more serious debate- How can it be guaranteed that the concerns of less populous states will be addressed in parliament?
The Rajya Sabha was intended to do that, or was it? When it should have been a house with its basis not being population, that’s exactly what it is. Uttar Pradesh has 31 seats in Rajya Sabha while Manipur has just 1, maybe this lack of representation is the reason why the violence in Manipur has not been discussed in the Parliament.
Definition of ‘Profit’
One of the reasons that could arise for the disqualification of membership is if he/she holds an office of profit[8]. This has been the reason for the disqualification of a few MPs in the past too[9]. The exact definition of what offices fall under ‘offices of profit’ is to much debate. Additionally, in the case of Jaya Bachchan vs Union of India, although Jaya Bachchan served as the chairperson of the Uttar Pradesh Film Development Council, she did not accept any allowances or benefits that came with the position. The Court determined that “where the office carries with it certain emoluments then it will be an office of profit even if the holder chooses not to draw/receive these emoluments.” Though there is a parliamentary committee to establish a definition for the same, it has at times failed and the court had to intervene[10]. This thus needs broader consideration by parliament.
A boon or a bane?
So, is the current make-up of the parliament a boon or a bane? In my opinion- neither. The Indian legislature has passed too important bills to be deemed a bane and has much road to cover to be called a boon. Many changes are needed to the current system before it can be considered a boon. One of them could be replacing Rajya Sabha with a different chamber, a chamber which comprises of only nominated individuals in equal numbers from every state.
— Avdhesh Mishra
The opinion expressed is solely that of the author and does not reflect the views of Cognizen.
Citations:
- A joint session of Parliament has been called only three times in India:
- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
- Banking Service Commission Act (Repeal), 1979
- Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002
- — — —
- Article 108 of the Indian Constitution
- Article 109 of the Indian Constitution
- Article 368 of the Indian Constitution
- Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution
- Article 246A (2) of the Indian Constitution
- Article 80 of the Indian Constitution
- Article 102(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution
- In 2006 Jaya Bachchan was expelled from Rajya Sabha because she was also the chairperson of the Uttar Pradesh Film Development Council
- Chander Nath vs Kunwar Jaswant Singh found that… Profit… does not necessarily mean any remuneration in cash but it certainly means some kind of advantage or gain which can be perceived, the mere influence which one gains by virtue of his position as a member of a Committee which has no remuneration attached to it is not profit.
