The representation of people act, 1951, which compelled voters to have a “domicile” in the State in issue in order to be elected to the Council of States, was later removed by the amendment in 2003. This is the subject of the lawsuit kuldip nayar vs union of india (2006). The question of voters’ fundamental rights being violated arose with the adopting of the “open ballot method” for the election of Council of States members.
kuldip nayar vs union of india Case Facts
- Kuldip Nayar, the person who brought the case to court, filed a legal petition in Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India pursuant to article 32 of the indian constitution.
- The goal of this petition was to contest Amendment 40 of 2003, which went into effect on August 28, 2003, and other modifications made to the representation of people act, 1951.
- The amendment was divided into two sections. Firstly, it eliminated a significant regulation concerning the need that a state representative of a specific council of states reside in that state.
- The petitioner said that this modification violated the fundamental principle of federalism found in the Indian Constitution.
- In addition, the modification changed sections 59, 94, and 128 of the Act and instituted a new open-vote election procedure. It was believed that this modification compromised the secret ballot requirement, which is necessary for free and fair elections.
- It also obstructed the right of voters to express themselves freely, as stipulated in article 19 of the indian constitution, which is another essential feature of the document.
kuldip nayar vs union of india Issues
- Is it possible that the representative of people act 2003, which removed the need for “domicile” in the state in question in order to be elected to the Council of States, violates the fundamental constitutional tenet of federalism?
- Does the open ballot method go against the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which is the principle of “secrecy”?
Contentions by the Parties
Petitioner:
- They contended that the Act’s section 3 modification, which removed the residence from the state, effectively violated the fundamentally federal aspect of the Indian Constitution.
- Additionally, he argued that this seeks to upset the balance between the union and the states and turn India from a constitutional republic into a true democracy.
- Furthermore, he claimed that eliminating a representative’s “domicile” would be in violation of certain parts of the constitution and devalue parliamentary democracies like the council of states.
- As a result, he declared in his conclusion that this amendment will deny the people living in such a state the right to have representatives from their own states alone.
Respondent:
- Speaking on behalf of the State, Ms. Vahanvati argued that these revisions were more important than ever in order to make up for the shortcomings in this law (the case under discussion).
- According to article 84(c) of the Indian Constitution, this amendment serves as the sole prerequisite for a member to hold the dual roles of Member of Parliament and Council of States.
- If this amendment were to eliminate the need for a member to reside or domicile within a specific constituency, it would serve as the sole prerequisite. She underlined once more that parliament, not the constitution, should establish and govern these qualifications.
- Finally, they hint that this would be beneficial for the states that have no representatives in Parliament at all.
kuldip nayar vs union of india Judgment
- First, the court considered whether domicile limitations and if it is unconstitutional in Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India. Regarding the same, it noted that the 1951 Act Amendment has expanded the range and options for electors from outside the state, who will be chosen to serve on the state council.
- According to the court, section 3 of this amendment limited a member’s eligibility to the council of states. However, the court believes that this restriction is important because it only applies to non-citizens, not to any Indian citizens. Thus, even in light of the modification, the qualification still complies with Article 84 of the Indian Constitution.
- The court also made clear that, even in the event of an amendment, the state legislative assembly ought to continue to pick the state’s representative to the council of states because members of the assembly will still have the authority to do so. Therefore, the argument that the non-resident individual will not be the person of domicile will be dismissed when the state’s MLAs choose the member for the council of state.
- Second, by differentiating between proportional representation and regular constituency elections, it was possible to determine whether or not the Amendment Act of 2003 violated confidentiality.
- The court observed that proportional representation occurs when state representatives choose the members of parliament. Constituency elections, on the other hand, will see the representatives chosen by the people.
- Therefore, even after the amendment, this claim cannot be deemed unconstitutional because it does not violate Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to free speech. Therefore, secret shall not be required for open ballot elections held in conjunction with indirect elections, and eliminating concealment shall not in any way impair the right to vote.
- As a result, the case in Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India was dismissed after the petitioner’s claims were rejected.
For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf
