By Inder Jit
(Released on 11 March, 1980)
Attention is widely focused on the Rajya Sabha as both houses of Parliament reassemble today for a brief budget session. A question uppermost in the minds of legislators and thinking people is: How will the Rajya Sabha take what one of its seniormost members, Mr. Bhupesh Gupta, has denounced as “downright contempt” of the House? What can it do to retrieve its “honour” and ensure that the House has a specific and crucial role to play and its wishes are not trampled upon. Proverbial fuel has, meanwhile, been added to the fire of anger lit by the Government’s decision to dissolve nine State Assemblies “ignoring” its resolution — and the President’s “prompt acquiescence” in affixing his seal of approval. Informal Press briefings by the ruling Congress (I) have sought to make the Rajya Sabha appear in some metropolitan dailies as redundant and one whose resolution can be conveniently ignored by the Government of the day.
The Government, according to these briefings, need not worry too much even if the proclamations dissolving the nine Assemblies are disproved by the Rajya Sabhabecause of the numerical superiority of the Opposition in the House. The proclamations would still stand and would not be revoked, nor would status quo ante be restored. There would be “no unconstitutionality” to embarrass the Government. The line of argument advanced broadly runs as follows: The Government is not answerable to the Rajya Sabha in the same way as it is to the Lok Sabha. The Government, thus, need not act as the Rajya Sabha directs it, presuming that the Opposition is able at the very start to get the House to disapprove the proclamations. Further, the Government has a precedent for “ignoring” such Opposition directives. The Janata Government, it is recalled, “ignored” the Opposition resolution asking for a Commission of inquiry into charges of corruption against members of the families of Mr. Morarji Desai and Mr. Charan Singh.
Ignorance about the Rajya Sabha and its role in our system continues to be astonishing. Not a few senior members of the House have shown keen interest in what I wrote a fortnight back: Contempt of the Rajya Sabha? Many were inclined earlier to regard their House as of “little consequence” compared to the elected Lok Sabha and no more than a second, deliberative chamber. Incredible as it may seem, even a former Prime Minister is known to have told some senior Rajya Sabha MPs on more than one occasion: “The Lok Sabha is the real Parliament. We are elected directly by the people, not indirectly. Whom does your House represent? It should be abolished.” My quotation of Nehru on the role of the Rajya Sabha has, therefore, not only put heart into them but made them feel like Archimedes and shouting “eureka”. Nehru, as I wrote, was clear that “neither House by itself constitutes Parliament. It is the two Houses together that are the Parliament of India.” Each had its “allotted sphere.”
There is no gainsaying that the Rajya Sabha cannot make or unmake Governments. 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. The Rajya Sabha has the power to discuss the budget. But 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 appears to suffer 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 is 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 Sate 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 is no doubt numerically weaker than the Lok Sabha and may appear to suffer in a joint session called by the President to resolve a deadlock between the two Houses. But in actual practice this is not necessarily so. In May 1961 when both the Houses met to resolve a deadlock on the Dowry Prohibition Bill, one of the more important amendments suggested by the Rajya Sabha was accepted. At any rate, the Rajya Sabha is empowered to hold its own against the Lok Sabha in regard to basic issues such as amendment of the Constitution. Significantly, there is no provision for a joint session of the two Houses to resolve any deadlock in regard to changes in the Constitution. (Remember, the Constitution Amendments Bill to abolish Privy Purses.) Likewise, the Presidential proclamation dissolving a State Assembly has to be placed before “each House of Parliament” and has to be “approved by resolutions of both Houses.” There is no scope for a joint sitting.
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 being elected 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.
One question remains: is there a precedent for “ignoring” the Rajya Sabha, as made out by Congress (I) leaders. Candidly, the answer is no. The Rajya Sabha did adopt a resolution on August 10, 1978 demanding a probe into allegations of corruption against members of the families of Mr. Morarji Desai and Mr. Charan Singh. But, as pointed out by the then Chairman, Mr. B.D. Jatti, the motion was essentially “a recommendation” addressed to the Government to “seek the advice and guidance” from a Committee to be appointed by the Chairman for “appropriate and necessary actions or straightway to appoint two separate Commissions of Inquiry.” The motion worded did not stipulate what the Committee should be appointed “even if the Government declines to accept any of the two alternatives.” What is more, the Rajya Sabha did assert itself in a way when Mr. Desai announced the Government’s decision to refer various charges to the Chief Justice of India — eventually leading to the Vaidyalingam probe.
Doubts about the role and relevance of the Rajya Sabha need to be removed and issues raised clearly answered. The world has come a long way from Abbe Sieyes, the great constitutionalist of revolutionary France, who disfavoured two Houses with the epigram: “If a second chamber dissents from the first, it is mischievous; if it agrees it is superfluous.” Almost all modern legislatures have two chambers and thinking has tended to go along with John Stuart Mill who wrote: “a majority in a single assembly…. Easily becomes despotic and overweening, if released from the necessity of considering whether its acts will be concurred by another constituted authority.” India’s has its own tradition about Assemblies. One can do no better than to quote a verse from the Mahabharata inscribed on the opening page of Twenty Five Years of Rajya Sabha, a commemoration volume brought out by the Rajya Sabha Secretariat in 1977:
That’s not an Assembly where there are no elderman.
Those are not elders, who do not speak with righteousness,
That’s not the truth which leads one to deceit. —INFA