Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India

The story

In the early 2000s, Parliament amended election law to scrap the rule that Rajya Sabha candidates must reside in the state they wished to represent, and also switched from secret to open voting for these elections. Kuldip Nayar, a respected journalist and public figure, along with others, took this to the Supreme Court, arguing it gutted the very idea of the Rajya Sabha as a 'Council of States' and opened the door to manipulation by making MLAs' votes visible to party bosses. The stakes were high: at issue was whether India's federal upper house would remain rooted in state identity, and whether electoral secrecy—long seen as sacred—could be sacrificed for transparency. The government countered that rampant cross-voting and bribery in Rajya Sabha polls demanded open ballots to let parties track loyalty, and that domicile was never a rigid constitutional rule. In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court sided with the government, holding neither change violated the Constitution's basic structure. Residency requirements fell away, letting national leaders contest from any state, and open voting became the norm, aimed at curbing corruption even as it changed the character of what many had assumed was a secret ballot democracy.

The facts

Kuldip Nayar and other petitioners challenged amendments made in 2003 to the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which removed the requirement that a candidate for the Rajya Sabha must be a registered elector (i.e., domiciled) in the state from which he sought election, and which replaced the secret ballot with an open ballot system for Rajya Sabha elections. They contended these changes destroyed the federal character of the Rajya Sabha and undermined free and fair elections. The Union of India defended the amendments as within Parliament's legislative competence and consistent with constitutional design.

The question before the court

Whether Parliament could validly remove the domicile requirement for Rajya Sabha candidature without violating the federal structure of the Constitution, and whether substituting an open ballot for a secret ballot in Rajya Sabha elections violated the principle of free and fair elections as part of the basic structure.

The holding

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of both impugned amendments. It held that the Constitution does not mandate that a Rajya Sabha member must be domiciled in the state he represents; Article 80 requires representation of states as constitutional entities, not necessarily by residents, and Parliament's amendment to Section 3 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 removing the domicile requirement was within its competence and did not violate federalism or the basic structure. The Court also upheld the open ballot system for Rajya Sabha elections, holding that secrecy of ballot is not an inviolable constitutional requirement in this context and that open voting was a reasonable measure to curb defection, cross-voting, and corrupt practices, thus serving rather than undermining free and fair elections.

The principle it stands for

Parliament has plenary power under Article 246 read with the relevant entries to amend electoral laws, including qualifications for Rajya Sabha membership, so long as it does not violate an express constitutional mandate; domicile in the represented state is not a constitutional requirement for Rajya Sabha candidature. Secrecy of ballot is not part of the basic structure for every election, and an open ballot system for Rajya Sabha polls is constitutionally permissible where it serves the legitimate purpose of preventing corrupt practices such as cross-voting and horse-trading.

Provisions this case shaped

• Art. 80Composition of the Council of Statesinterpreted — Court held Article 80 does not require Rajya Sabha members to be domiciled in the state they represent.
• Art. 368Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and procedure thereforlimited — Basic structure doctrine invoked but held not violated by removal of domicile requirement or open ballot system.