What has Rajya Sabha achieved that a stand-alone Lok Sabha has not, or would not? | The Indian Express

Manish Tewari writes: It would be instructive to keep in mind that the Basic Structure doctrine enunciated by the Supreme Court in Re: Kesvananda Bharti holds parliamentary democracy to be basic structure, not bicameralism.

The objective of writing this piece is not to make a case for the abolition of the Rajya Sabha, for that would be a fool’s errand. It is, rather, to re-articulate a question that was uppermost even in the minds of members of the Constituent Assembly as they deliberated upon draft Article 67 corresponding to Article 80 of the Constitution of India, pertaining to the composition of the Council of States.

Lokanath Misra led the charge against a federal second chamber in the Constituent Assembly stating: “Sir,…I do not think there is any real need for the second chamber, nor do I think that it will serve any useful purpose. Sir, so far as I have studied the Constitution and the constitutional precedents, it is now admitted almost on all hands that second chambers are out of date. The only argument that is generally advanced in favour of such a chamber is that it will have a sobering effect on the decisions of the Lower House which is more representative of the people and that the people are now restive… Its creation will only result in so much waste of public money and so much waste of time… I do not think that without a second chamber the country will be any the poorer for it, as now we stand.”

Elaborating further Misra stated: “From our actual experience we find that such a huge number of people either in the House of the People or in the Council of States does not serve any very useful purpose. And we know that there is real difficulty in finding out so many members who will be qualified and quite interested in such law-making. We see from the proceedings of this very House which consists of more than three hundred members that so few of us take real part in and are really useful to constitution making”.

This, perhaps, is the most profound argument even today against enlarging the size of either Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha.

Lokanath Misra was not alone in opposing a federal second chamber. His colleague, Shibban Lal Saksena, was equally emphatic: “I cannot refrain from saying that I am one of those who believe in only one chamber and not two chambers. Here they have provided for two chambers and the worst part of this is that in the Upper Chamber we shall have twelve nominated members; and we passed the other day that even those members, who have been nominated and who will never seek the vote of the people, can become ministers also. I think this is a most undemocratic aspect of our Constitution..”

https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/upper-house-a-question-manish-tewari-writes-7965706/

---