TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether Parliament could amend Section 3 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 to remove the requirement that a candidate for the Council of States be an elector in the concerned State or Union Territory and instead require only that the candidate be an elector in India. (ii) Whether the amendments introducing open ballot voting for elections to the Council of States in Sections 59, 94 and 128 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 were unconstitutional.
Issue (i): Whether Parliament could amend Section 3 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 to remove the requirement that a candidate for the Council of States be an elector in the concerned State or Union Territory and instead require only that the candidate be an elector in India.
Analysis: Article 80 deals with the composition of the Council of States and Article 84 leaves to Parliament the power to prescribe other qualifications for membership of Parliament. The constitutional text does not expressly require that a representative of a State in the Council of States must be ordinarily resident in that State. The word "representative" in Article 80(4) describes the person chosen by the electoral college after election and does not impose, by itself, a pre-election territorial qualification. The scheme of the electoral laws shows that residence is relevant for registration as an elector under the 1950 Act, but that requirement does not become a constitutional condition for membership of the Council of States. Federalism in India is important, but it is not a classical federal model in which State representation must necessarily be confined to residents of the State. Parliament therefore remained competent to broaden the field of eligibility by removing the State-specific elector requirement.
Conclusion: The amendment to Section 3 was valid and does not violate the Constitution; the challenge failed.
Issue (ii): Whether the amendments introducing open ballot voting for elections to the Council of States in Sections 59, 94 and 128 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 were unconstitutional.
Analysis: Secrecy of voting is an important incident of free and fair elections, but it is not an absolute constitutional requirement in every electoral context. The Constitution expressly requires secret ballot only where it so provides, as in the elections of the President and the Vice-President. Elections to the Council of States are indirect elections through elected members of State Legislative Assemblies, and Parliament could rationally prescribe open ballot to curb cross-voting, money power, and corruption, while preserving the integrity of the electoral process. The open ballot mechanism was limited and operated only in the context of Rajya Sabha elections, with the purpose of ensuring purity of elections in a party-based representative system. The right to vote in such an election was not taken away, and the law did not infringe any guaranteed constitutional secrecy applicable in this setting. The challenge based on Article 19(1)(a), democratic principles, and the Tenth Schedule was rejected.
Conclusion: The open ballot amendments were constitutionally valid and the challenge failed.
Final Conclusion: The impugned amendments were upheld in full; Parliament's legislative choice on eligibility and voting procedure for Council of States elections was held to be within constitutional limits.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the Constitution does not expressly make State residence or secret ballot an essential condition, Parliament may prescribe or withdraw electoral qualifications and voting procedures for Council of States elections so long as the measure remains within legislative competence and does not violate an express constitutional prohibition or a protected fundamental right.
TaxTMI 
