Why in news?

Union Minister for Women and Child Development Smriti Irani recently became an elector from her Lok Sabha constituency, Amethi.  It should be noted that a candidate is not required to be a voter or a resident of a constituency from where he or she is contesting under election rules.

What’s in today’s article?

• Requirements for a parliamentary candidate
• Domicile of the constituency as a condition for candidates
• Domicile criteria in Rajya Sabha
• SC on Domicile criteria

What are the requirements for a parliamentary candidate?

• Constitutional provisions
  • As per Article 84 of the Constitution, both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha candidates must be citizens of India.
  • While for the Lok Sabha, they need to be at least 25 years of age, the minimum age limit for the Upper House is 30.
    • For election to state Assemblies too, the candidates must be citizens, aged at least 25 years and be enrolled as electors.
  • The Article also says that the candidates should possess such other qualifications as may be prescribed in that behalf by or under any law made by Parliament.
• Legal provisions
  • The Representation of the People Act, 1951, lays down that candidates for the Lok Sabha should be enrolled as electors, from any constituency.
    • The nomination papers that candidates fill out require them to attach the extract of the electoral roll where they are enrolled.

Was being a domicile of the constituency ever considered a condition for candidates?

• Constituent assembly left the matter for Parliament to deliberate on in the future
  • The Constituent Assembly discussed the issue of age and educational qualifications for MPs.
  • However, it eventually left the matter for Parliament to deliberate on in the future.
• Candidates can contest from two seats
  • Given that candidates can contest from two seats, and cannot be residents of both constituencies, a domicile condition was not on the table.

Domicile criteria in Rajya Sabha

• Originally, Rajya Sabha candidates from a state or Union territory had to ordinarily reside there.
• In 2003, the then government brought in an amendment to the RP Act, 1951, removing the domicile requirement for Rajya Sabha candidates.
  • Some reasons for this change were that residency rules could make the Rajya Sabha:
    • less focused on national issues,
    • restrict the number of candidates, which might leave out people with useful skills, and
    • promote politics that only focuses on local concerns.
  • Some people who opposed removing the residency requirements said it would weaken India's federal structure.
    • They also argued that it might lead to defections, buying and selling of votes, and voting across party lines in Rajya Sabha elections.
• The 2003 amendment also changed the system of voting for the Rajya Sabha elections from secret to open ballot.

Removal of domicile requirement – challenged in Supreme Court

• 2003 amendment challenged
  • The 2003 amendment was challenged by journalist and former Rajya Sabha MP Kuldeep Nayar, among others.
  • They argued that the domicile requirement was an intrinsic part and removal of it would affect the federal structure, one of the basic features of the Constitution.
  • As per them, the amendment had destroyed the essential characteristic of the Council of States.
    • This is because someone who lives in any constituency in India could be chosen to represent a state in the Rajya Sabha only by virtue of being elected by the MLAs of the state.
  • The need for a Second Chamber, that is, the Council of States had become redundant due to this amendment, as it now merely duplicated the House of the People.
• SC Verdict
  • In 2006, the Supreme Court rejected the arguments regarding both the removal of domicile requirement and open ballot.
    • The court decided that the changes didn't break any rules in the Constitution.
    • They pointed out that Article 80(4) states that state representatives should be chosen by the MLAs using a method called proportional representation with a single transferable vote.
    • Besides this, the Constitution doesn't say Parliament can't make its own rules about this.