Speaking to the media after the conclusion of the budget session of Parliament last week, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley remarked that Indian democracy currently faces a serious challenge with an “indirectly elected” Upper House questioning the wisdom of the “directly elected” Lower House.

Jaitley’s statement has inadvertently resurrected an old debate about India’s decision to opt for a bicameral system of legislature. Opinion on this has been sharply divided across the globe. Those opposed to a second chamber have taken the same position as Jaitley: that a second chamber is essentially undemocratic as it can override the opinion of a directly elected House. Those advocating the need for a second chamber, on the other hand, have maintained that the Upper House provides for detailed scrutiny of  bills which may have been rushed through in haste due to political compulsions by elected members and also acts as a check  on such actions.

This issue was taken up for discussion in the Constituent Assembly on July 28, 1947, when  Jawaharlal Nehru submitted a report of the Union Constitution Committee,  which contained detailed proposals about the membership and the role of the proposed second chamber. There was a lively debate on the subject with several members raising strong objections to the need for setting up a second chamber on the plea that it would act as a “clog in the wheel of progress”.   These objections were eventually overruled as those framing  independent India’s constitution believed that such a House was an absolute necessity as it would reflect the country’s pluralistic character and  safeguard the interests of  the states in the true spirit of federalism as the second chamber was envisaged as a council of states.

Excerpts from the debate in the Constituent Assembly:

 Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena (United Provinces: General):
"Mr. President, Sir, in this motion we have been asked to vote for two Houses, the Lower House and the Upper House. I wish to point out that our experience in the last so many years has been that the Upper House acts as a clog in the wheel of progress. I do not think it is very wise to continue the same thing again in our new Constitution. I think that everywhere in the world the experience about Upper Houses has been the same. In no country an Upper House has helped progress. It has always acted as a sort of hindrance to quick progress. Therefore, if we are not careful at present, we shall not be able to make as rapid progress as we need. India is probably the biggest nation in the world. We will have to catch up with Russia and America if we want to occupy our proper position in the international field. In the next five or ten years we will have to cover the progress which in the normal course would take 50 years. I do not think two chambers will help us in the realisation of our new programme with the required rapidity. Therefore I think that the Mover will kindly review this matter and see that in our new Constitution we do not have two chambers."

Naziruddin Ahmad (West Bengal: Muslim):
"Mr. President, Sir, I beg to support the clause as it stands and therefore oppose the motion to omit the second chamber. We are going to obtain supreme sovereign powers. We have to deal with foreign and domestic matters of extreme importance. In these circumstances it will be wise for us to have two Houses. A popular house is known for its vitality and vigour and that House will have the exclusive power in regard to money. But a second chamber introduces an element of sobriety and second thought. In these circumstances it would be wise for us, especially in view of many foreign subjects which are looming large in our minds, to have a second chamber would be a disadvantage is, I think, not correct. I submit. Sir, that a second chamber would not only be an advantage but an absolute necessity.

Then agan, we have to consider the entry of the states into the Federation, and if we have this in mind, a second chamber would be an absolute necessity. Without a second chamber it would be difficult to fit in the representatives of the States in the scheme of things.

With these few words Sir, I would oppose the amendment to do away with the Council of States, that is, the second chamber."

 N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar:
 "Sir, I do not think any elaborate justification is necessary for this clause which states that there will be two chambers in the Federal Legislature. The need for a second chamber has been felt practically all over the world wherever there are federations of any importance. After all, the question for us, to consider is whether it performs any useful function.

The most that we expect the second chamber to do is perhaps to hold dignified debates on important issues and to delay legislations which might be the outcome of passions of the moment until the passions have subsided and calm consideration could be bestowed on the measures which will be before the Legislature; and we shall take care to provide in the Constitution that whenever on any important matter, particularly matters relating to finance, there is conflict between the House of the People and the Council of States, it is the view of the House of the People that shall prevail.

Therefore, what we really achieve by the existence of this second chamber is only an instrument by which we delay action which might be hastily conceived, and we also give an opportunity, perhaps, to seasoned people who may not be in the thickest of the political fray, but who might be willing to participate in the debate with an amount of learning and importance which we do not ordinarily associate with a House of the People. That is all that is proposed in regard to this second chamber. I think, on the whole, the- balance of consideration is in favour of having such a chamber and taking care to see that it does not prove a clog either to legislation or administration."

The motion was adopted by the Constituent Assembly on 28 July 1947.

While India’s founding fathers decided in favour of a bicameral system of Parliament after detailed deliberations, there  is widespread speculation that the Bharatiya Janata Party-led National Democrastic Alliance government  wants to undo their work by  exploring ways of undermining the Rajya Sabha’s powers. Opposition parties are suspicious about the NDA government’s motives after it converted the black money bill into a money bill to ensure that it is not blocked by the Rajya Sabha. The Upper House has no authority to vote out a money bill. There is widespread speculation that the ruling alliance may take this route in the future to bypass the Upper House.

Some irony

Jaitely’s recent outburst against the functioning of the Rajya Sabha is clearly a reflection of the Modi government’s growing frustration over  its inability to push through its key reform legislation, the Land Acquisition Bill and the Goods and Services Tax Bill , after it hit a wall in the Rajya Sabha where the opposition enjoys a  majority.

The finance minister’s angry remark had a touch of irony to it.  The move to circumvent the Rajya Sabha  militates against Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s push for “cooperative federalism”  and the  need for giving greater say to states in policy-making.

Jaitley’s comment on the Rajya Sabha has also rendered him personally vulnerable to attack from his critics. After all, he has been a member of the Upper House since 1999 when he entered Parliament. During his stint as   leader of opposition during the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance regime, the BJP members were instrumental in blocking  the passage of  several bills. Jaitley did attempt to shift to the Lower House when he contested the Lok Sabha elections last year but he failed to make the cut. He is currently leader of the House in the Rajya Sabha.