72nd Day Of Lockdown

Maharashtra74860323292587 Tamil Nadu2587214316208 Delhi236459542615 Gujarat18117122121122 Rajasthan96526744209 Uttar Pradesh88705257230 Madhya Pradesh82835003358 West Bengal61682410364 Karnataka4063151453 Andhra Pradesh3971246468 Bihar3945174123 Telangana3020155699 Jammu and Kashmir260194631 Odisha238814169 Haryana2356105521 Punjab2301200044 Kerala149565112 Assam14862854 Uttarakhand9592225 Jharkhand6612965 Chhatisgarh5481211 Tripura4231730 Himachal Pradesh3401186 Chandigarh2972144 Puducherry88300 Manipur83110 Goa73500 Nagaland5800 Arunachal Pradesh3710 Meghalaya33131 Mizoram1410 Sikkim200
Opinion DC Comment 29 Jan 2020 Why abolish AP Counc ...

Why abolish AP Council?

DECCAN CHRONICLE.
Published Jan 29, 2020, 2:12 am IST
Updated Jan 29, 2020, 2:12 am IST
It is not compulsory for states to have an Upper House, and most don’t.
AP CM YS Jagan Mohan Reddy
 AP CM YS Jagan Mohan Reddy

There is nothing to suggest that Andhra Pradesh’s decision to abolish the state’s Legislative Council on Monday was taken after examining the issue properly. United Andhra Pradesh gave itself the legislative upper chamber in 1958, but it was scrapped in 1985 by then then chief minister and TD founder N.T. Rama Rao. He felt, like incumbent CM Jagan Mohan Reddy, that his opponents, who dominated the Upper House, were being needlessly obstructive over legislation. But it was revived in 2007 by then CM Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy, the present CM’s father. This should have given Mr Reddy pause. Reflection away from the rough and tumble of day-to-day politics was in order.

It is not compulsory for states to have an Upper House, and most don’t. We have taken the idea of a bicameral legislature from Britain. The House of Lords, in principle, is meant to be a deliberative body away from the everyday push and pull of politics. In Britain’s special circumstances, the hereditary peers had to be given a place in lawmaking even as democracy had taken full charge. Nevertheless, from time to time demands are made to abolish the Lords completely, though its powers are already truncated.

 

In India, the Upper House is meant to allow those of eminence and substance, who aren’t politicians, to weigh in on the legislative process, cutting out partisan politics.

This worked to an extent in the early years of the republic. Then even senior politicians, no longer active, who came to the Rajya Sabha appeared more thoughtful and contemplative.

This alas seems to be less so today. Nevertheless, the second chamber at the Centre and in states has sometimes enriched debate and produced thoughtfulness. A state may have good reasons to discard it. But political hubris is best avoided in such decisions. Opponents in the Upper House also represent an important constituency.

...




ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT