Sir, article 43 provides, for the election of the President of the Union of India, an electoral college composed of the members of both Houses of Parliament and elected members of the Legislatures of the States, while article 44 lays down the details of the procedure to be adopted in the elections of the representatives of the States. Now, so far as the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote is concerned, I hope every honourable Member of the House will welcome it. But so far as the inclusion of members of the Council of States and the members of the Legislative Councils of the States is concerned, I am opposed to their inclusion in the election of the President. Not only that, Sir, I am opposed to the very existence of these Houses under the new Constitution. Now, Sir, bicameral legislation is no more regarded as an essential feature of the Federal polity or of a sound democratic Constitution. At best it is a conservative device to delay progress. Sir, Prof. Laski has very rightly remarked that the safeguards required for the protection of the unit of a federation do not need the Armour of a second chamber. All the requisite protection to the units of a federation is secured by the terms of the original distribution of powers embodied in the Constitution, and the right to judicial review by the courts. In all federal States, Sir, the party system operates alike in both the chambers of the legislatures, and the members of the second chamber are also elected on party system. Not only that, they work and vote also under the guidance of the party in much the same way as members of their respective parties in the Lower House. The relative strength of the national parties in the two Houses is no doubt different, but this difference in the number of members of the two Houses only promotes confusion and deadlock. Neither is it wise to entrust the protection of regional and national interests to two different chambers of federal legislature; nor have second chambers justified their existence by protecting the regional and national interests. The members of both the chambers have reacted to national and regional interests in much the same way. The principle of representation of constituent units as political entities through nomination by the local executive, or election by the legislature of the units is also not accepted by modern thinkers as valid. While most of the members of the Council of State are to be elected by indirect election, some are also to be nominated. The system of nomination, Sir, is undemocratic, while that of indirect election, in the words of Prof. Laski, “is the worst system which maximises corruption. Now, Sir, as for the details of the procedure of election given in article 44, and in the foot-note to that article, I submit that it is not only complex, but very complicated, and do not ensure uniformity in the scale of representation of the State. My amendment, on the other hand, Sir, suggests a system which is very simple and can be operated without much difficulty, and does, at the same time, ensure uniformity, as desired, in the scale of representation of the State. I therefore, hope that the House would have no hesitation in accepting this amendment of mine.
