Do we really need the Rajya Sabha? The answer is a clear NO. The main reason is that it has become a refuge for shameless power addicts. Even after serving as prime minister for 10 years, Manmohan Singh remained a member of the Rajya Sabha, although he was wheelchair-bound and never attended the proceedings. Many will remember when he entered the Rajya Sabha in a wheelchair. Sonia Gandhi, now a member of the Rajya Sabha with two family members already in the Lok Sabha, is the only one who knows what contributions she is making to the nation.
Sharad Pawar, now 86, is returning to the Rajya Sabha. He has served as the Chief Minister of Maharashtra four times and was a Union Minister during the governments of Narasimha Rao and Manmohan Singh. Additionally, he served as the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha. Still, his attachment to power remains strong. Just imagine a man who can’t walk four steps without support, speak two words, ask questions in the Rajya Sabha, or say anything, yet he still has to go there. In politics, he has been an inspiring figure since he first became an MLA in 1967 at age 27. Since then, he has never looked back in his electoral career and has stayed active in both state and national politics for sixty years. However, Sharad Pawar is not the only one and cannot be blamed for his ambition. Instead, the institution — in this case, the Rajya Sabha — that provides the opportunity for such ambitions should be held responsible.
Before discussing our reasoning in detail, let’s first understand how it began.
The Upper House, originally called the Council of State, was formed in 1919 as part of Britain’s first bicameral legislature in India, following the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms. It had 60 members, including 34 Indian members elected by an elite through a communal franchise. Traditionally viewed as a European-style caste system of clergy, nobility, and commoners, supporters argue that the Upper House serves as a deliberative body to oppose what James Madison, author of the Federalist Papers, called the “fickleness and passion” of the elected Lower House.
Parliamentary records show that the bicameral system was discussed in the Constituent Assembly. The views varied. I will quote Professor Shibban Lal Saksena, who noted: “In this motion, we have been asked to vote for two Houses, the Lower House and the Upper House. I would like to point out that our experience has been that the Upper House often acts as a hindrance to progress. I think that everywhere in the world, the experience of Upper Houses has been the same.”
When Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan became the first chairman of the Rajya Sabha, he said, “There is a general impression that this House cannot make or unmake governments and, therefore, it is a superfluous body. But there are functions that a revising chamber can fulfill fruitfully. Parliament is not only a legislative but also a deliberative body. As far as its deliberative functions are concerned, it will be open to us to make very valuable contributions, and it will depend on our work whether we justify this two-chamber system.”
The Constitution’s architects established the Council of States to represent the states in India’s federal structure. Under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, a candidate must be an elector in a parliamentary constituency of a specific state or Union Territory to be eligible as its Rajya Sabha member. However, many Rajya Sabha members are chosen from states where they live little or have limited ethnic or linguistic ties. An example is the late Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
The domicile issue first arose in the 1990s when T.N. Seshan, then Chief Election Commissioner, tried to disqualify Dr. Manmohan Singh, then the finance minister, for not normally residing in Assam and thus not meeting the legal residency requirement for House membership. However, Seshan’s efforts failed. But politicians are politicians. They could not tolerate suggestions that would cause them trouble. So, in August 2003, the domicile requirement was officially removed through an amendment to Section 3 of the Act.
This amendment was challenged in the Supreme Court through a PIL filed by Kuldip Nayar and Indrajit Singh. They argued it violated the Constitution’s basic structure, asserting that such a requirement is a fundamental principle of the Council of States. They also noted that in 1951, Parliament included the domiciliary qualification in the electoral law. They contended that only residents of the state should be eligible to contest Rajya Sabha elections. However, a five-judge bench unanimously supported the amendment. Do we need any more proof of how the Supreme Court has been siding with politicians, ignoring all progressive issues?
The Rajya Sabha is generally expected to hold detailed and informed debates on Bills. Even bills that pass quickly in the Lower House should go through a thorough review. Currently, the idea that the Rajya Sabha improves the quality of discussion is before us. Furthermore, it is being manipulated to delay and restrict laws passed by the Lok Sabha, mainly for political gain, thereby obstructing the rapid legislative process.
People sent here are not chosen for their qualifications and knowledge but because they are assets to the party and can hardly win an election. Assets mean they can represent the party’s corrupt leaders in court, whose numbers are large. Or they are just bootlickers, yet they are important for running the party with the help of lobbyists or other supporters. It all depends on how close they are to the party’s top leader who sends them. In practice, the members end up serving their masters rather than the nation.
One argument made by supporters is that it preserves continuity in Parliament since, unlike the Lok Sabha, it cannot be dissolved. But what kind of continuity does a democratic country need?
The reality is that the president’s authority is sufficient, and the outgoing prime minister remains legally accountable until a new government is formed.
Let’s face the facts. Since independence, the Rajya Sabha has acted as a backdoor entry for politicians who lose general elections. It has also become a haven for crony capitalists, biased journalists, and party fundraisers. Since parliamentary privilege provides them with legal protection, they behave like moguls—receiving significant benefits with little accountability. This reckless behavior has damaged the reputation of the Upper House and disrupted legislative proceedings.
Remember the chaotic scene created by the Aam Admi Party and Congress members jumping on the chair with torn pieces of paper. These are not new phenomena. According to available data, the first instance of Rajya Sabha MPs being suspended occurred in 1963, and again in 1966, when two MPs were removed from the Upper House and suspended.
Now, regarding those sent there by the President of India, Samajwadi Party leader and Member of Parliament Naresh Agarwal once raised an important issue in the Rajya Sabha. He criticized cricketer Sachin Tendulkar and actress Rekha, urging them to resign if they were not interested in serving in Parliament, as they had never attended the proceedings.
It is important to recognize that we live in a flawed democracy, as three prime ministers have been appointed to the Rajya Sabha without any voter approval, highlighting its undemocratic aspects. Additionally, maintaining it is costly.
In India, the Upper House has become more symbolic and superficial, diminishing its significance. Times have changed, rendering old rules obsolete. To promote transparent governance, India should reform existing institutions and establish new ones. The Rajya Sabha is one such fragile institution that might no longer be necessary for upholding the federal structure it was originally designed to support.
