Domicile not needed to be RS MP: SC

The verdict will grant relief to several MPs including the Prime Minister.

In a pivotal judgment, the Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the constitutional validity of amendments to the Representation of the People Act that dispensed with the domicile requirement for getting elected to the Rajya Sabha and introduced an open voting system in elections to the Upper House.

HT Image

The effect of the amendments, which came into force from Aug 28, 2003, is two-fold. First, the earlier prerequisite that a candidate had to be ordinarily a resident in a constituency to qualify to be enrolled as an elector in such a constituency was given the go and the domicile requirement was done away with.

Second, the concept of secrecy of vote was no longer applied and the open ballot system was introduced.

Former Rajya Sabha member and eminent journalist Kuldip Nayar and others had challenged these amendments contending that they violated the basic structure of the constitution and the concept of federalism.

The constitution bench headed by Chief Justice YK Sabharwal rejected this contention and held that Parliament had the competence to introduce such amendments.

The bench held that as long as the state has a right to be represented in the council of states (Rajya Sabha) by its chosen representatives, who were citizens of the country, it cannot be said that federalism is affected by the amendments.

The bench noted that the Rajya Sabha, as a revising chamber, helps in improving the bills passed by the Lok Sabha. Although the Rajya Sabha is designed to serve as a chamber where the states in the union of India are represented, in practice, the Rajya Sabha does not act as a champion of local interest.

The bench said the constitution recognised the need for changes in the law relating to elections from time to time and entrusted Parliament with the responsibility, as also the requisite power to bring in legislative measures, which include the power to amend the existing measure.

It held that it was not correct to say that Parliament had abdicated its obligation since it was not obligatory on its part to enact a law regarding qualifications to frame any new qualifications.

The bench found that the amendment cannot be assailed as unconstitutional.

Regarding the introduction of the open ballot system, the bench said voting at elections to the Rajya Sabha cannot be compared with the general election. Political parties are essential for our parliamentary democracy and protection of party discipline can be introduced as an essential feature of purity of elections.

According to the court, since the amendment has been brought in to avoid cross voting and wipe out evils of corruption as also to maintain the integrity of our democratic set up, it can be justified by the state as a reasonable restriction.