Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India

Facts

Section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1951 originally required a Rajya Sabha candidate to be an elector in the State he sought to represent. A 2003 amendment replaced the words 'in that State or territory' with 'in India', dispensing with the State-residence requirement. The amendment was challenged by writ petition under Article 32 as destroying the federal character of the Council of States and the basic structure of the Constitution.

Issues

• Whether removing the State-domicile/residence qualification for Rajya Sabha membership violates the federal principle and the basic structure of the Constitution.
• Whether residence is a constitutional requirement for representation of a State in the Rajya Sabha absent express constitutional provision.

Arguments

The petitioners argued that the Rajya Sabha exists to represent the constituent States, that a member must have an identifiable nexus with his State, and that the amendment obliterated the distinction between the two Houses and abdicated Parliament's duty under Article 84(c). The Union defended the amendment as within Parliament's competence and consistent with a federal model in which residence is not constitutionally mandated.

Held

The Court rejected the challenge, holding the amendment constitutionally valid. While reaffirming that the federal principle is dominant and is a basic feature, it held that federalism under the Indian Constitution leans in favour of a strong Centre, pointing to Parliament's disproportionate legislative powers, single (national) citizenship and the Article 3 power to create and reorganise States. The Chief Justice held that, in the Indian context, the federal principle is not territory-related, so no 'identifiable nexus' of residence between a member and his State is required. Residence becomes a constitutional qualification only where, as in the United States or Canada, the constitution so expressly provides, which the Indian Constitution does not.

Ratio decidendi

Indian federalism is not territory-bound and leans toward a strong Centre; a State-residence qualification for Rajya Sabha membership is not constitutionally mandated and its statutory removal does not violate the basic structure.

Significance

A modern authoritative restatement of the nature of Indian federalism, consolidating earlier precedent (State of West Bengal, S.R. Bommai) to characterise the model as federal but Centre-leaning, and confirming federalism as part of the basic structure. It is the leading case on the constitutional character of the Rajya Sabha and the limits of the federal argument.

Related