|
The staying of elections to Rajya Sabha by the apex court threatens to revive a few unseemly spectres. Court versus Legislature, since the law that is being challenged in court rode an all-party consensus in 2003, or nearly so, given that the Left parties which raised the objections were a far less notable presence in that House. Court versus Election Commission, since the commission had already issued the notification for the election, setting the process in motion. But away from the squalling over jurisdictions, the Court’s order may have provided a pause in which to revisit the merits of the law.
The Representation of the People (Amendment) Act, 2003, introduced an open ballot system in polls to the RS and dispensed with the domicile requirement for the Upper House. Looking back, the abandoning of secret ballot was an ill thought out measure, or even a conspiratorial one. It is true that revelations of rampant cross-voting have confirmed that the RS elections have been hopelessly hijacked by those who can pay their way into the august house. But the remedy may prove to be completely misguided. In the name of lending transparency to the election process, the open ballot may only ensure that votes bought by a particular candidate finally did end up in his account. It will bolster the authority of high commands in parties that are already overly centralised. More fundamentally, it does violence to the very notion and practice of “free and fair” elections. No election may be deemed genuine unless the voters have the freedom to vote according to their conscience. Elections to RS, as indeed all elections, need to be freed from the stranglehold of money and muscle power. But perhaps that requires more creativity from our legislators. Pushing through a quick-fix that seems primarily designed to fatten the clout of party bosses is no answer.
 | | | | RELATED STORIES |
|
|
The dispensing of the domicile requirement, on the other hand, seems more reasonable. To begin with, a reminder is in order that the Constitution does not prescribe any residency qualifications; it was the RPA that laid it down. Then there is the argument that parties have anyway observed the rule mostly in the breach, to usher in senior or talented or even unsuccessful Lok Sabha aspirants to berths in the RS. But more than that, it can be argued that notions of representation that fall back upon those neat dividing lines between those who belong and others who are “outsiders” are terribly outdated. There is no reason why a person who does not reside within the territorial boundaries of the state cannot comprehensively and sensitively represent its concerns in the Council of States.
|
