The Upper House of the Indian Parliament traces its direct history to the first bicameral

legislature introduced in British India in 1919 as a consequence of the Montagu-Chelmsford

reforms.

Immediately before and after Independence, the bicameral question was raised in the
Constituent Assembly debates. Professor Shibban Lal Saksena represented the position against a
bicameral legislature thus: “In this motion, we have been asked to vote for two Houses, the
Lower House and the Upper House. I wish to point out that our experience has been that the
Upper House acts as a clog in the wheel of progress. I think that everywhere in the world the
experience about Upper Houses has been the same. It has always acted as a sort of hindrance
to quick progress."

Many years later, Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, speaking as the first chairman of the Rajya Sabha,
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, which a revising chamber can fulfill
fruitfully. Parliament is not only a legislative but a deliberative body. So 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 contemporary argument against it comes from two primary angles. The first one suggests
that a Lok Sabha that has representation from several regional parties more than adequately
represents a federal country. The second argument charges that the Rajya Sabha has become a
haven for losers in elections, crony capitalists, compromised journalists and party fundraisers.

Benefits of Upper House

The Lok Sabha certainly represents the people directly. But, there can conceivably be a situation
where a party in the Lok Sabha has an absolute majority. Also, Lok Sabha follows the principle
of proportional representation. So, big states with huge populations dominate the proceedings
of the Lower House. Would not those states not in the ruling dispensation need a second
chamber where their interests find due reflection?

Again, a political party with an absolute Lok Sabha majority could, under the pressure of the
Whip system, pass inadequate or ill-considered bills. Should such bills not be given another
consideration in a second House conceived precisely for this purpose?
With an absolute majority in Lok Sabha, BJP faced uncomfortable questions in the Rajya Sabha
where it is in a minority (in 2015). But this ‘discomfort’ was precisely the intention of the far-
sighted makers of our Constitution, as can be seen from extensive discussions on the relevance
of a second chamber in the Constituent Assembly. Finally, the makers of our Constitution
decided that in a federal system reflecting the size and diversity of India, the Council of States
was necessary.

In creating Rajya Sabha, our Constitution took care to make crucial differences with Lok Sabha.
The council of ministers is collectively responsible to Lok Sabha which means that the Rajya
Sabha cannot make the government fall; a money bill can only be introduced in Lok Sabha; the
Rajya Sabha can discuss it, make recommendations, but not amend it; the national budget,
finance bill, and demand for grants of various ministries can be discussed but not voted in Rajya
Sabha; however, a Constitution amendment bill needs the specific approval of both Houses.

In addition, Rajya Sabha has two exclusive powers: it can with the support of two-thirds of its
members delist a subject under the exclusive State List and declare it to be of national
importance, empowering Parliament to legislate on it; and it can create one or more new All
India Services.

The Rajya Sabha as the second and permanent Chamber is a revisionary house for laws and
bills, offers checks and balances for greater executive accountability and is a platform for diverse
talent and expertise.

Women, religious, ethnic and linguistic minority groups are not adequately represented in the
Lok Sabha (due to first past the post-election system).

Problems

Those opposed to the idea of a second chamber argue that sending Bills to Rajya Sabha only
delayed the legislative process.

In some cases, ordinary bills are being passed in the form of a Money Bill, circumventing the
Rajya Sabha and giving rise to the question about the very efficacy of the upper house of
Parliament. This move was used by the Modi government in 2017, as the combined Opposition
in the Rajya Sabha outweighed the ruling alliance. (Unlike general bills, a “money bill” has to be
related to matters of public finance. This broadly means taxes, spending or borrowing of the
government, according to Article 110 of the Constitution.)

When anything in the form of a money bill comes to the Rajya Sabha, it does have the right to
recommend changes. But, such recommended changes aren’t binding. If the lower house, where
the BJP obviously has the majority, rejects Rajya Sabha’s suggestions on a money bill, the bill
then is automatically passed.

The manner in which the “domicile” status clause was amended in 2003 left a lot to be desired.
In simple terms, it means a person who does not belong to a state can contest the Rajya Sabha
elections from that state of which they are neither a resident nor a domicile. This was a path
used by any ruling party to get some of their defeated candidates in the Lok Sabha election, to
get elected in the Rajya Sabha.

Another red flag is the sincerity of nominated members being questioned in many cases.
Nominations are made by the government to acknowledge either the celebrity status of some
icons or to gratify influencers. After getting nominated, these members rarely participate in the
working of the House.

Probable solutions

One useful reform step would be to have members of the Rajya Sabha be directly elected by the
citizens of a state. This will reduce cronyism and patronage appointments. This step should be
combined with equal representation for each state (say, five members) so that large states do
not dominate the proceedings in the House. This streamlined Rajya Sabha should remain
deliberative, but there should be deadlines set for responding to bills initiated in the Lok Sabha.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/toi-edit-page/why-rajya-sabha-is-essential-it-represents-
the-states-and-balances-an-impetuous-lok-sabha/
https://www.firstpost.com/politics/why-rajya-sabha-is-essential-for-indian-democracy-and-saving-i
t-is-not-mission-impossible-10507121.html

https://www.livemint.com/Opinion/ZhlriTSTMkik4PP5p6xSWI/Is-the-Rajya-Sabha-essential.html