Sambhav-2024

• Define the terms domiciliary requirements in Rajya Sabha elections.
• Explain the background and context of the issue, such as the 2003 amendment that removed the domicile requirement for Rajya Sabha members, and the arguments for and against it.
• Conclude Suitably.

Introduction

Domiciliary requirements are the conditions that require a person to be a resident or an elector of a particular state or territory in order to be eligible for membership of a representative body.

• In 2003, the Parliament passed an amendment to Section 3 of the Representation of People’s Act, 1951, which scrapped the domicile requirement for Rajya Sabha members. This meant that a person could be elected to the Rajya Sabha from any state or union territory, irrespective of his or her residence or electoral status in that state or territory.
  • In the Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India Case, the Supreme Court upheld the amendment and held that there was no constitutional requirement for a Rajya Sabha member to be either an elector or an ordinary resident of the state or territory that he or she represents.

Body

The argument against considering domiciliary requirements for Rajya Sabha elections:

• Domiciliary requirements may compromise the national focus of the Rajya Sabha, designed to address issues at the national level.
• Imposing domicile criteria limits the candidate pool, potentially excluding individuals with valuable expertise from outside the state.
• Not considering domiciliary requirements helps avoid dual representation, maintaining a clear separation between the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha.
• Domiciliary criteria might encourage local-centric politics, detracting from the Rajya Sabha's intended role as a representative of the entire nation.
• Advocates for disregarding domicile argue for merit-based elections, selecting candidates based on qualifications rather than geographical location.

The argument in favour of considering domiciliary requirements for Rajya Sabha elections:

• The removal of the domicile requirement dilutes the federal character of India, as it weakens the link between the Rajya Sabha members and the states and union territories that they represent.
• It leads to the misuse and manipulation of the Rajya Sabha elections, as it enables the political parties to bypass the anti-defection law, indulge in horse-trading and cross-voting, and nominate outsiders and defectors who have no stake or connection with the state or territory that they are elected from.
• The amendment undermines the principle of federalism, as it erodes the autonomy and identity of the states and union territories.

Conclusion

The issue of domiciliary requirements for Rajya Sabha elections is complex. Some possible reforms or alternatives that can be considered are:

• Reintroducing the domicile requirement for Rajya Sabha members, with some flexibility and exceptions, such as
  • Allowing a person to represent a state or union territory if he or she has resided or worked there for a minimum period of time, or has some ancestral or cultural connection with it.
• Strengthening the anti-defection law and the code of conduct for Rajya Sabha elections, to prevent the malpractices of cross-voting, horse-trading, and defection, and to ensure the accountability and integrity of the Rajya Sabha members.