Domiciliary Requirements (DR)
- DR 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 in a representative body.
- In 2003, the Parliament passed an amendment to Section 3 of the RPA, 1951, which scrapped the domicile requirement for Rajya Sabha members.
- This meant that a person could be elected to the RS from any state or UT, irrespective of their residence or electoral status in that state or territory.
- In the Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India Case, the Supreme Court upheld the amendment.
- It held that there was no constitutional requirement for a RS member to be either an elector or an ordinary resident of the state or territory that they represent.
The Argument against considering DR for RS Elections
- DR may compromise the national focus of the RS, which is designed to address issues at the national level.
- DR may limit the candidate pool, potentially excluding individuals with valuable expertise from outside the state.
- It might encourage local-centric politics, detracting from the Rajya Sabha’s intended role as a representative of the entire nation.
The Argument in favour of considering DR for RS Elections
- The removal of the DR dilutes the federal character of India, as it weakens the link between the RS members and the states and UTs that they represent.
- The removal of the DR leads to the misuse and manipulation of the RS elections-
- It enables the political parties to bypass the anti-defection law, indulge in defection 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 UTs.
|