The Rajya Sabha was designed as a chamber of mature deliberation and a federal voice. Evaluate its performance against the Constituent Assembly’s intention.
Subtopic: Polity · Parliament & Bicameralism
How to structure your answer
Introduction: The Rajya Sabha was modelled on the US Senate but with State legislatures as the electing college; the Constituent Assembly Debates (28 July 1947) record Gopalaswami Ayyangar's defence of bicameralism as a check on hasty legislation.
Body: Three dimensions — (i) constitutional architecture — Article 80 (composition of 245 with 12 nominated), Article 84 (qualifications), Article 249 (legislation on State List by two-thirds majority), Article 312 (creation of All India Services); (ii) federal voice — the Representation of the People (Amendment) Act 2003 removed the domicile requirement, criticised in Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India (2006) as diluting federal representation, though upheld; (iii) performance — fewer Bills properly debated, the Money Bill route under Article 110 has bypassed the Upper House on key laws.
Way forward / Conclusion: Restore the domicile requirement, narrow the Money Bill exception by judicial review, and use Article 249 as a federal trust mechanism rather than a Union override.
Written within the word limit
138 words · target 150 words · 9 min
Introduction: The Rajya Sabha was modelled on the US Senate but with State legislatures as the electing college; Gopalaswami Ayyangar's Constituent Assembly speech of 28 July 1947 defended bicameralism as a check on hasty legislation.
Body: Three dimensions evaluate the chamber. First, constitutional architecture — Article 80 (245 seats including 12 nominated), Article 84 (qualifications), Article 249 (legislation on State List by a two-thirds resolution) and Article 312 (All India Services). Second, federal voice — the Representation of the People (Amendment) Act 2003 removed the domicile requirement; Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India (2006) upheld it but the change has diluted State identity. Third, performance — fewer Bills properly debated, and the Money Bill route under Article 110 has bypassed the Upper House, as in the Aadhaar Act 2016 upheld in Puttaswamy II (2018).
Conclusion: Restore the domicile requirement, narrow the Money Bill exception judicially, and use Article 249 as federal trust, not Union override.
What an examiner expects to see
- Article 80 — Rajya Sabha composition: 245 seats (233 elected + 12 nominated)
- Article 249 — Parliament can legislate on State List with two-thirds Rajya Sabha resolution
- Article 312 — All India Services created by Rajya Sabha resolution
- Representation of the People (Amendment) Act 2003 — removed domicile requirement
- Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India (2006) upheld the 2003 amendment
- Article 110 — Money Bill exclusively in Lok Sabha; Rajya Sabha can only recommend
- Constituent Assembly Debates 28 July 1947 — Gopalaswami Ayyangar on bicameralism
Concrete cases, schemes and judgments
- Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India (2006)
- Aadhaar Act 2016 passed as Money Bill — Puttaswamy II (2018) upheld
- Land Boundary Agreement (100th Amendment, 2015) ratified by Rajya Sabha
- Article 249 resolution on Services in past sessions
- Vice-President as ex officio Chairman, Article 89