Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly has adopted a resolution to revive the Legislative Council abolished in 1986.As expected the major opposition party and its allies are against the revival.During the the Janata Party rule at the centre upper houses in many Indian states were abolished.Few states like Maharashtra UP Bihar Karnataka Jammu and Kashmir continued with their Legislative councils.In 2007 AP again revived the upper house.The TDP is against upper house and wants to abolish it again if it comes back to power again in AP.Now Punjab and Tamil Nadu wants Legislative councils to be revived.The BJP is against revival of Upper house in States.
The upper house was conceived during the British days with a purpose.The idea was to restrain the democratically elected lower house. While the lower house made the laws,the upper house evaluated the laws objectively.It was a 'check and balance ' mechanism to ensure that only well conceived legislation are passed by the law makers.For this reason,those days,the upper house had highly qualified professionals from a variety of spheres.It also gave representations to minority communities,who stay away from electoral politics.Hence the name 'House of Commons' and 'House of Lords' to lower and upper houses in the Birtish Parliament.Even in India, the upper house members were collectively known as 'Elders'.
The upper house was abolished in many states because it was considered as a drain to the state exchequer.More importantly many political parties felt the Legislative council puts a brake on many political reforms.Once a legislature becomes bicameral it becomes difficult to pass legislation's because concurrent majority becomes a requisite.Conflict between two houses would put in cold storage many proposed legislations.
The domicile clause for Rajya Sabha members were deleted for political convenience. It has struck at the essential federal character of the Rajya Sabha.Political parties are circumventing rules to suit their convenience.The call for revival of legislative councils is also one of them. Though it was originally conceived for a laudable purpose,now states wants to revive upper houses only to rehabilitate political favorites at public exchequer. Political parties would try to push favorites who lost an election to upper house easily .Apart from the expenses to maintain an upper house develoment funds are also to be allocated to each member of the legislative council.These funds are hardly utilized fruitfully.Revival of upper house would help political parties to satisfy disgruntled elements in their parties and is not going to help in improving the quality of debates in the upper house.Eminent Parliamentarian Madhu Dantavade once said the tradition of debating a legislation in depth is slowly eroded because of the caliber of parliamentarians.This defeats the very purpose of having an upper house.
The Indian Constitution says all states are welcome to have Legislative Councils.It is a prerogative of the State Government.I feel if upper houses are revived for political conveniences to accommodate favorites disgruntled elements and defeated candidates of general elections it is not going to serve any useful purpose.Besides the upper houses would become a 'White Elephant' for each state.
The upper house was conceived during the British days with a purpose.The idea was to restrain the democratically elected lower house. While the lower house made the laws,the upper house evaluated the laws objectively.It was a 'check and balance ' mechanism to ensure that only well conceived legislation are passed by the law makers.For this reason,those days,the upper house had highly qualified professionals from a variety of spheres.It also gave representations to minority communities,who stay away from electoral politics.Hence the name 'House of Commons' and 'House of Lords' to lower and upper houses in the Birtish Parliament.Even in India, the upper house members were collectively known as 'Elders'.
The upper house was abolished in many states because it was considered as a drain to the state exchequer.More importantly many political parties felt the Legislative council puts a brake on many political reforms.Once a legislature becomes bicameral it becomes difficult to pass legislation's because concurrent majority becomes a requisite.Conflict between two houses would put in cold storage many proposed legislations.
The domicile clause for Rajya Sabha members were deleted for political convenience. It has struck at the essential federal character of the Rajya Sabha.Political parties are circumventing rules to suit their convenience.The call for revival of legislative councils is also one of them. Though it was originally conceived for a laudable purpose,now states wants to revive upper houses only to rehabilitate political favorites at public exchequer. Political parties would try to push favorites who lost an election to upper house easily .Apart from the expenses to maintain an upper house develoment funds are also to be allocated to each member of the legislative council.These funds are hardly utilized fruitfully.Revival of upper house would help political parties to satisfy disgruntled elements in their parties and is not going to help in improving the quality of debates in the upper house.Eminent Parliamentarian Madhu Dantavade once said the tradition of debating a legislation in depth is slowly eroded because of the caliber of parliamentarians.This defeats the very purpose of having an upper house.
The Indian Constitution says all states are welcome to have Legislative Councils.It is a prerogative of the State Government.I feel if upper houses are revived for political conveniences to accommodate favorites disgruntled elements and defeated candidates of general elections it is not going to serve any useful purpose.Besides the upper houses would become a 'White Elephant' for each state.
No comments:
Post a Comment