The author is aggrieved by what he sees as subversion by the Rajya Sabha in stalling the legislative agenda of the Government. Although this topic will be discussed in general, what specifically got the author to pen this article is the introduction of a Bill called ‘The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) Bill, 2015’ (hereinafter referred to as the said Amendment Bill). This Bill has passed the Lower House i.e. the Lok Sabha on 10-March-2015. This Bill amends the similarly named Act of 2013. The Government has shied away from introducing this Bill in the Rajya Sabha because of strident resistance from the opposition and as it does not have the requisite numbers for a majority there.

To start from the beginning, the people of India have voted in the last general election in 2014 in which they have voted the BJP along with its allies, the NDA alliance, to power. The BJP itself commands a simple majority while the NDA commands an almost two thirds majority, just twenty-six seats short, in the Lok Sabha [Wikipedia contributors, 2015a]. Let us come to the election of the Rajya Sabha. The author asks who has voted for the Rajya Sabha. No common Indian citizen for a fact. The two hundred and fifty members of the Rajya Sabha are indirectly elected by the State Legislative Assemblies and Union Territories by means of proportional voting. A further twelve are just nominated directly by the President for their contributions to art, literature, science, and social services [Wikipedia contributors, 2015b]. In fact, considering the recent accusations of cross voting and horse-trading, it could well be argued that even this ‘indirect election’ is fraught with irregularities thus calling the entire process into question [Ifthikar Gilani, 2016].

To come to the issue at hand, what happens when a Bill is passed by the Lok Sabha and then rejected by the Rajya Sabha? Well, a Joint Session of both the Houses is called and the Bill is put to vote. Now, the implication of this concept is profound. Basically what is happening is this that one member of the Lok Sabha who has, mind you, been elected on average by ten lakh voters (out of the fifteen lakh eligible) [Wikipedia contributors, 2015a] will share a Chamber seat with one member of the Rajya Sabha who, as previously mentioned, is not directly elected but is indirectly elected by a few hundred members of State Assemblies. They both then vote on the Bill and their votes are counted as EQUAL.

I ask the reader, how this can be equal in any sense. The representatives of the people elected by a good eight hundred million plus eligible voters [Wikipedia contributors, 2015a] have equal say to that of an indirectly elected group chosen by a few hundred MLA’s.

Coming to specifics, the said Amendment Bill has passed the Lok Sabha. This is such a monumental event in itself that I must restate it. The Amendment Bill has been passed by representatives of a Chamber that has been directly elected by millions upon millions of Indians. For me this in itself is enough to make said Amendment Bill into Law. But that’s not how our system works. The Bill is then put to vote in the Rajya Sabha where in all probability it will lose. Now, who are these members of the Rajya Sabha that seem to have an almost veto like power and are defying the elected representatives of the people.

Let us have a look at the origins of the Rajya Sabha. It takes its inspiration from the House of Lords, we following the Westminster style of democracy adopted form the UK. Over centuries past, the House of Lords was in fact the unelected but major legislative body in England. The House of Commons a mere spectator, whose opinion and vote were a formality [Wikipedia contributors, 2015c]. It is to the eternal credit of the pioneers of freedom and democracy in the UK in times past who championed the need not only for a House of Commons which initially didn’t even exist as an independent body but for the Commons to have the real power, they being the true representatives of the people [Wikipedia contributors, 2015c]. I salute them and democratic societies throughout the world owe these initial pioneers a great debt of gratitude. From the ‘yes’ men of the King sitting in the Lords giving themselves and the Sovereign almost unrestricted power to being subordinate to the Commons, we have come a long way.

I foresee the reader arguing such; haven’t we followed the same Westminster style parliamentary democracy and therefore the supposed problem the author refers to, which is that of the Rajya Sabha having a right to vote down a Bill, exists both in India and the UK. The answer in fact is NO.

The essential features of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 of the British Parliament entail the House of Lords a right to a once ‘No’, meaning if a Bill is passed by the Commons, the Lords can vote down the same either completely or vote it down and send it back to the Commons with their suggestions. However, if the Commons passes the same Bill twice with or without incorporating the suggestion of the Lords, the Bill then becomes Law. Further for any reason whatsoever, the Lords cannot delay Bills for more than one year [Wikipedia contributors, 2015d] [Purvis, 2011]. This is the crucial point. The Lords have a right of one refusal only. There is No concept of a Joint Session held to have a collective vote, an undertaking which by the author’s opinion devalues the votes of millions of Indians to that having equal status to an indirectly elected or just plain appointed members of the Upper House.

In the UK, a Joint Session is held only when the Sovereign addresses both Houses upon the State opening of Parliament or for addresses by foreign dignitaries [Wikipedia contributors, 2015e]. Similarly for the US too, a Joint Session is held for the annual ‘State of the Union’ address by the President or again for addresses by foreign dignitaries [Wikipedia contributors, 2015e]. I repeat, there is no concept of a Joint Session to debate and pass Bills in either of these two countries as it is in our system. The key realization being that the House of Commons or our Lok Sabha are directly elected and therefore in every sense superior to the House of Lords / Rajya Sabha who are the traditional aristocracy or in our case indirectly elected or nominated individuals. It has to be realized that when the Rajya Sabha rejects a Bill and a Joint Session is called, can we in all fairness equate one vote of the Rajya Sabha as equal to one of the Lok Sabha; the Lok Sabha being constituted by popular vote in which almost a billion Indians participated. To the author, the answer remains a firm NO.

Let me put things in perspective. I am not a pessimist. I believe that our founding fathers, especially Dr. Ambedkar, have dome a marvelous job in drafting our Constitution. To me, it is one of the finest documents penned by the hand of man. However, as they say, perfection will always be a work-in-progress. So, let us accept this anomaly that exists. Let us constitute a Committee to look into Rajya Sabha reforms, let us look at other countries most notably the UK which has already gone down this path and let us ourselves go ahead and take the necessary steps to reform our Upper House and therefore form a more perfect Union.

Now, to all individuals who take on the banner of supposed public interest like Anna Hazare et al. who are opposed to the said Amendment Bill, I say, sure go ahead and be opposed. Tell you what; even I am against this Bill. But to say that just because you and a group of your followers are against, that this Bill must not be passed is ridiculous. I will keep saying this till my throat goes sore. The people of India have voted for their representatives who now sit in the Lok Sabha. How can you negate that vote? If you don’t want this Bill, then form a party, stand up for election get a majority and then don’t pass it or if already passed, go ahead and repeal it. If you think politics is a dirty word and that you don’t want to enter it, that’s your problem. Wade through the murky depths, keep your head held high and come to power. Didn’t Kejriwal do it? Till then your voice is yours alone and cannot be said to represent the people of India. Further, if you do stand and don’t get the requisite majority then be very clear, the people of India are not with you. No amount of dharnas on the public streets or attracting huge crowds in some maidan will hide that fact. I repeat this; the people’s voice is already being represented and resonates in the Lok Sabha. To use any tactic to undermine this either by street protests, dharnas, using the power of the Rajya Sabha etc. stands in contempt of the people’s voice.

To all the political parties who are already represented in the Lok Sabha, take note, that that’s where the debate should be. Why-oh-why do you want to come out on the street to protest. Protest, debate, suggest in the question hour in the Lok Sabha. Why do you think we have that? You coming on the street while not having an informed debate in the peoples Chamber is an insult to democracy. Even though you’re in a minority the people have elected you to be there in the Lok Sabha. Debate the Bills there, suggest, talk and then vote and if you lose, so be it. There must surely be a good reason the people of India have not chosen you; accept it with humility. Not for you to stage walk outs and conduct pseudo debates on the street. Why do we have a Parliament then, I wonder?

In closing, the author gives his suggestions:

1. Have an election in all States at the same time as the Central election in a way ensuring that the States Legislatures who are electing Rajya Sabha members at least reflect the current voice of the people. For e.g., five years back the Congress party had a majority in the Lok Sabha. Now they are reduced to less than fifty seats [Wikipedia contributors, 2015a]. Five years back, the Congress ruled Maharashtra. Now they are again in a minority [Wikipedia contributors, 2015f]. Therefore, let us have this new State Assembly which reflects the current mood of the people the right of selection of Rajya Sabha members. That way the Rajya Sabha will have a similar distribution as the Lok Sabha and much more importantly will reflect the current mood of the people.

2. The author’s preferred suggestion is to have a UK style of House of Lords, since anyways we are following their Westminster style. Reform our Constitution by disallowing Joint Sessions. Allow the Upper House to reject a Bill once but if passed by the Lower House twice, it becomes Law and let the voice of the people reign supreme.