REWIND
New Delhi, 9 June 2022
MORE THAN THE HOUSE
OF LORDS
By Inder Jit
(Released on 22 Nov.
1983)
It is time the Rajya Sabha played the
specific role specifically envisaged for it by the founding fathers of the
Constitution. Thirty-three years after it came into being, the Rajya Sabha
regrettably continues to be what it is not: a Second Chamber or an Upper House.
True, our Parliamentary system is largely modeled on the Westminster pattern.
However, it is not merely a House of Elders like the House of Lords. (It is a
lot more. Nehru clarified this as early as 1953 when a controversy erupted in
regard to the respective powers of the two Houses. He then stated: “Under our
Constitution, Parliament consists of two Houses, each functioning in the
allotted sphere laid down in the Constitution… sometimes we refer to the
practice and convention 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.”
These thoughts are prompted by certain recent
happenings in the States raising basic issues of Centre-State relations.
Prominent among these is the Moily scandal, or the latest brazen bid by the
Congress-I to topple the Ramakrishna Hegde Ministry in Karnataka. Qualitatively
different but no less important in our federal polity is New Delhi’s recent
move to replace the sales tax (a state subject) on vanaspati, drugs and
medicines, cement, paper and paper board by additional excise duty. Both the
subjects, for instance, require the Rajya Sabha’s pointed attention in the
interest of harmonious functioning of Centre-State relations. Yet, the bizarre
happening in Karnataka, which raises several fundamental issues, has not
received adequate attention of the House. A one-day debate, interrupted by a
two-and-a-half hour discussion on a private member’s bill, is hardly enough by
any standard. There has been no discussion on the issue of sales tax and excise
duty in the Rajya Sabha. What is worse, the thought of such a debate does not
seem to have even crossed the Government’s mind or that of the Opposition.
The Rajya Sabha as the Council of States
represents the federal principle in our polity even if the House does not have
certain powers of the Lok Sabha. It cannot, for instance, pass a vote of no
confidence and make or unmake Governments. The Council of Ministers is not
required to resign in case it is defeated on the floor of the House, unlike in
the case of the Lok Sabha. The Rajya Sabha’s powers in regard to financial matters
and the budget are also much less. Nevertheless, the Rajya Sabha enjoys certain
special powers vis-à-vis the Lok Sabha which add to its importance in our
federal set-up. The Constitution, for instance, bars the Lok Sabha from
legislating in regard to matters specified in the State list. But the Rajya
Sabha is specially entitled under Article 249 to make it lawful for Parliament
to “enact in the national interest” legislation in regard to any matter in the
State list for the whole or part of India. Further, it alone can empower
Parliament to create in the national interest one or more all India services,
as was done in 1961 and in 1965.
Such confusion in regard to the respective
powers of the two Houses has been created by the fact that the Lok Sabha is
elected directly and the Rajya Sabha indirectly --- by the State Assemblies.
Most people, including many in the Press corps, therefore, tend to consider the
Lok Sabha members to be “more representative”. But all of themand many others
ignore the basic scheme of the Constitution under which the founding fathers
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 into the House
comparatively experienced persons. The Constitution provides a minimum age
limit of 30 for the Rajya Sabha as against 25 for the Lok Sabha. Not without
reason, Nehru always took special note of what was said in the Rajya Sabha.
This casts on the Rajya Sabha a special
responsibility to thrash out the basic issues concerning the States, such as
the one raised by the Moily scandal which has appropriately provoked the
Karnataka Chief Minister, Mr. Hegde, to pointedly ask: Are lawfully and
democratically elected State Governments to be allowed to function without let
or hindrance? Is it democratic and constitutional to subvert the mandate of the
people by illegal and immoral means like bribery through black money? Is the
country to be ruled at the Centre and in the States by one party? The Moily
scandal did come up in the Lok Sabha and in the Rajya Sabha. But it did so only
indirectly --- in the Lok Sabha through a discussion on electoral reforms with
reference to Karnataka development and in the Rajya Sabha likewise through a
calling attention notice on the need for urgent electoral reforms. This robbed
the debate of much of its sharpness and purposefulness even though the Rajya
Sabha members, unlike those of the Lok Sabha, were able to name the principal
actors in Karnataka’s sordid defection drama.
Mercifully, the need to end defections was
spotlighted once again. However, this extracted from the Law Minister, Mr. J.N.
Kaushal no more than the platitudinous assurance which many Parliament watchers
like me have got sick and tired of hearing over the past decade and more. Mr.
Kaushal told the Lok Sabha: “The proposal for electoral reforms is under
examination. … the reforms cannot be made unless there is a consensus among us
all…. We do not want to tinker with the present laws”. In the Rajya Sabha, he
said a day later: “Any attempt to rush through the reforms could do more damage
than good.” Little thought, however, came to be given to the strong desire of
Karnataka and other non-Congress-I States to ban defections through their own
legislation without further delay. (Jammu and Kashmir, which has a separate
Constitution,enacted legislation under thelate Sheikh Abdullah to ban
defections. This Act is now before the Supreme Court). The Rajya Sabha as the
Council of States surely needs to ask: Must the States be forced to allow
political harlotry to flourish unchecked so long as the Centre does not wish to
end the evil?
The Centre’sproposal to replace sales tax on
vanaspati etc by additional excise duty, as suggested by the Tripathi
Committee, came up in the Lok Sabha during question time on Friday. The Finance
Minister,Mr. Pranab Mukherjee, declined to assure the House that the proposal
would be implemented only after obtaining the unanimous consent of all the
State Chief Ministers. Answering supplementaries he said: “My effort is to narrow
down the differences and widen the area of agreement.” A laudable effort
undoubtedly. But before Mr. Mukherjee decides on the next step he should not
overlook his own responsibility to the Rajya Sabha as leader of the House. The Rajya
Sabha and its members are entitled to be consulted on the subject on the basis
of the Tripathi Committee’s full report and not merely on the Government’s
version of it. Contrary to an impression given by the Centre,the
three-manTripathi Committee,headed by Mr.K.P. Tripathi, presently Congress-I
Working President, was not unanimous. The only expert member, Dr.P.H. Prasad,
opposed the proposal. The third member was an official of the Finance Ministry.
It is no body’s case that the Government
should implement the proposal only if the Rajya Sabha approves it unanimously.
But the issue could surely be treated on par with a constitutional amendment
requiring a minimum two-thirds majority. Such a discussion would be helpful all
round --- both in ensuring a meaningful consideration and in educating public
opinion since the proposal is intended to make life a little easier for the
common man. It would also help the better informed members to expose the
Centre’s earlier breach of faith on the same subject: replacement of sales tax by
additional excise duty. Many years ago, the States agreed to surrender the
sales tax on textiles, sugar and tobacco to the Centre on the understanding
that it would levy additional excise duty and share the gains with the States.
But the Centre subsequently increased only the basic excise duties and
appropriated the entire money giving nothing to the States! Much of this was
disclosed to the Lok Sabha by Mr. R. Venkataraman on March 1, 1978, who said:
“I was a Minister in a State for ten years… and I wanted to cry out. Now I have
a chance…”
One question remains. Who should raise the
Centre-State issues in the Rajya Sabha? Clearly, the Government should itself
come forward and seek a discussion in some cases as, for instance, in regard to
sales tax. In some others, the Opposition parties should do so on their own.
Not only the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman but also the Government should
extend to the Opposition on such occasions their enlightened cooperation and
support. One other thought also comes to mind. We must seriously think in terms
of amending the Constitution and entitling the State Chief Ministers to address
the Houses on crucial matters. I for one would have liked to see Mr. Hegde
address the House on the disgusting happenings in Karnataka and the basic
issues it has raised. It is a pity that the Karnataka Government’s seminar on
Centre-State relations altogether missed taking a look at the Rajya Sabha and
its vital role in our federal polity. All in all, we can help ensure smoother
and happier Centre-State relations if the Rajya Sabha plays its designated role
--- and plays it well. ---INFA
(Copyright, India
News and Feature Alliance)
|