On 27 February 2024, biennial elections to the Rajya Sabha were scheduled to be held to replace 46 retiring members in 15 States. Each member of the Rajya Sabha is elected for a term of six years. According to clause (1) of article 83 of the Constitution of India, the Council of States (i.e. the Rajya Sabha) shall not be subject to dissolution, but one-third of its members shall retire every second year.
The Constitutional Scheme and the Reality
This scheme has been considerably altered, and elections to the Rajya Sabha are being held on more than three occasions in a time span of six years. This has come about on account of the imposition of the President’s Rule and / or dissolution of the State Assemblies for a variety of reasons from time to time, before the completion of their five year term, over the past several years. Some of State Assemblies were thus in a state of dissolution when the biennial elections to the Rajya Sabha were due, and hence elections to Rajya Sabha seats of those States were held later. This staggering of elections has played havoc with the biennial schedule.
Article 80 of the Constitution of India provides for the Council of States / Rajya Sabha consisting of 12 members nominated by the President of India and not more than 238 representatives of the States and the Union Territories. As against this sanctioned strength of 250 members, the Rajya Sabha at present has 245 members, the number of elected members having been restricted to 233 as detailed in the 4th Schedule of the Constitution. There is a correspondence between the numbers of Rajya Sabha seats allotted to various States and their respective population.
The Electoral System
According to clause (4) of article 80, the representatives of each State in the Council of States shall be elected by the elected members of the Legislative Assembly of the State in accordance with the system of “proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote”. In simple terms “proportional representation” means a political party gets to elect one or more member(s) to the Rajya Sabha in proportion to the number of its members in the State Assembly. Again, the vote of each member of the State Assembly is “single” but “transferable”. Thus, in the Ballot Paper the names of all the contesting candidates are listed and the electors are required to indicate their order of preference against them. The elector MLA has to put at least number “1” against one of the candidates. His other preferences come into play only if the number of contesting candidates is more than the current vacancies in that state and, in the first round of counting, one or more candidates do not get the required number of votes to get elected.
The formula for deciding the minimum number of votes required by a candidate to get elected is as follows:
Total Number of MLAs +1/ Number of Vacancies+1
For example, let us look at the scenario in the Legislative assembly of Uttar Pradesh in the forthcoming elections. First the facts: the Strength of the State Assembly is 403, however the current number of MLAs in the assembly is 399. The number of Rajya Sabha seats for which elections are scheduled is 10. According to the formula given above, the minimum number of votes required by a candidate to get elected to the Rajya Sabha would be as follows:
399 +1 / 10+1 = 37.2 (say 37)
Each of the candidates nominated by a party would thus need to secure at least 37 votes in order to get elected. Since, the BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party) has a strength of 252 in the Assembly, it can easily get 6 candidates elected on its own. It would, therefore, need to issue a whip to at least 222 (37 x 6) MLAs to mark their first preference in the Ballot Paper for one or the other of the candidates nominated by their party. With the surplus votes of remaining 30 MLAs the party can secure one more seat with the support of its allies in the NDA to reach the magic figure of 37. The BJP can also cede its remaining votes to a candidate of one of its allies in the NDA. If there are more candidates than the number of clear votes available, an election would need to be held. If the BJP fields an additional candidate, it would put a spanner in the works of the opposition and there may be cross voting.
Dilution of the Second Chamber
During the debates in the Constituent Assembly, Lok Nath Mishra conceptualised the Council of States as “a sobering House, a reviewing House, a House standing for quality and the members will be exercising their right to be heard on the merits of what they say, for their sobriety and knowledge of special problems…” M. Ananthsayanam Ayyangar thought that on such a platform of reflective consideration “the genius of people may have full play”, and it can make place for people “who may not be able to win popular mandate”.
However, overtime, we have somehow moved away considerably from the original vision and design of the Rajya Sabha, in letter as well spirit. The Rajya Sabha, as envisioned by the framers of the constitution, has been ‘basically’ modified by removal of the domicile requirement originally mandated by the Representation of the People Act, 1951. In permitting anyone to contest the elections to the Rajya Sabha, irrespective of the domicile, the diversity, which was the hallmark of the Upper House, has been watered down and it has, to some extent, become a House somewhat akin to the Lok Sabha. It is no longer the Council of States, and at present is, to all intents and purposes, a council of politicians or ‘nominees’. Moreover, all the persons elected to the Rajya Sabha are not uniformly “seasoned” persons, who add value to parliamentary proceedings. Having thus meddled with the scheme of the Constitution, we cannot expect the Rajya Sabha to deliver its original mandate. This is something to ponder over and requires introspection on the part of all the stakeholders.
Most of the problems that the critics associate with the Rajya Sabha are often about the functioning of the Indian Parliament as such. It would, therefore, be wrong to blame the Rajya Sabha for all the parliamentary disruptions and declining legislative work. Indian Parliament has a splendid blend of continuity (Rajya Sabha) and change (Lok Sabha), in the true Indian tradition.
The debate regarding the relevance of the second chamber is perhaps as old as the second chamber itself. The story goes that in the late 18th century, when the American constitutional framework was on the anvil, Thomas Jefferson one day protested to George Washington at the breakfast table against the establishment of two houses in the legislature.
Washington asked him, "Why do you pour that coffee into your saucer?"
"To cool it," replied Jefferson.
"Even so," said Washington, "we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it."
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of ETV Bharat)
