You must Sign In to post a response.
  • Category: Miscellaneous

    Why some States are not having Vidhan Parishad?

    We all know that our country follows a bicameral system at both the central and state levels. The state's legislature will have two parts. One is the Legislative Assembly or Vidhan Sabha and the other is the Legislative Council or Vidhan Parishad. Members of the Legislative Assembly are directly elected by the people through assembly elections. Vidhan Parishad or Legislative Council members are indirectly elected.

    But what I understand is as per our constitution it is not mandatory to have Vidhan Parishad. Many states do not have Vidhan Paroshad. When NT Rama Rao became Chief Minister he cancelled the Vidhan Parishad of the United AP. But when Congress came to power it was revoked.

    What may be the reason for not making it mandatory? Why all the states are not following the same system? Why there is no uniformity? I like to know the views of various members.
  • #780189
    Our parliament has two houses - Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. It is mandatory requirement. But in case of State this compulsion is not there. If a state wishes to have one like that then it can have a Vidhan Parishad in addition to Vidhan Sabha. Our constitution makers did not see it as a necessary part of state legislature.
    There are varied opinions regarding this issue. Sone people say that it is a good idea to have a Vidhan Parishad so that review of bills passed can be done by some eminent people sitting in Vidhan Parishad. At the same time some experts feel this only a redundant legislative group and is not worth at the state level.
    So a state is free to choose a Vidhan Parishad if it so wishes. Only thing is it has to get it enacted and rectified by the approval of parliament.

    Knowledge is power.

  • #780191
    It surprises us that such an option is there with the state government for having a Vidhan Parishad or not. We can discuss the pros and cons of having it but when it is an option and is not mandatory then it loses its basic purpose as many states do not have it.
    It is something like Rajya Sabha at the state level. It would give opportunity to the nominated people to participate in the legislature without coming through the route of election. In my view if it has a usefulness then it should be made mandatory otherwise should be scrapped to avoid unnecessary redundancy and expenses on running and maintaining it.

    Thoughts exchanged is knowledge gained.

  • #780192
    Most states in India have a unicameral legislature, where legislative powers are vested solely in the Vidhan Sabha (Legislative Assembly). However, some of the bigger states are bi-cameral. These states are: Karnataka, Maharashtra, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh. These states have both Vidhan Sabha (Legislative Assembly) and Vidhan Parishad (Legislative Council).

    According to the Indian Constitution, it is not mandatory for all states to have a bi-cameral legislature. Article 169 of the Constitution of India allows states to establish or abolish the Vidhan Parishad (Legislative Council) through a resolution passed by the state Legislative Assembly and approved by the Parliament.

    The decision to have or not to have Vidhan Parishad varies from state to state and is influenced by various factors like constitutional provision, historical contexts, financial consideration, political will and debate on legislative efficiency.

    Personally, I feel that financial consideration is the main factor behind not having Legislative Council or abolishing Legislative Council by some states.

    Billo Rani kahon to abhi jaan de doon: Oh dear Billo, if you ask, I will give my life

  • #780194
    It is also relevant to know what Article 169 states.

    Article 169 of the Constitution of India stipulates:

    169. Abolition or creation of Legislative Councils in States

    (1) Notwithstanding anything in article 168, Parliament may by law provide for the abolition of the Legislative Council of a State having such a Council or for the creation of such a Council in a state having no such Council, if the Legislative Assembly of the State passes a resolution to that effect by a majority of the total membership of the Assembly and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of the Assembly present and voting.

    (2) Any law referred to in clause (1) shall contain such provisions for the amendment of this Constitution as may be necessary to give effect to the provisions of the law and may also contain such supplemental, incidental and consequential provisions as Parliament may deem necessary.

    (3) No such law as aforesaid shall be deemed to be an amendment of this Constitution for the purposes of article 368.

    [Exactly copied: Not even a single word changed. For information of Editor(s).]

    Billo Rani kahon to abhi jaan de doon: Oh dear Billo, if you ask, I will give my life

  • #780204
    When the ruling party in the Assembly does not have a majority in the Vidhan Parishad, they will think of cancelling the Vidhan Parishad. Now in Andhra Pradesh NDA has 164 MLAs out of 175. But their numbers in Vidhan Parishad are less and there they may face some difficulty in getting their bills approved. Of course. they can't stop it forever. If the Assembly approves and sends it to Parishad, they may have to approve. But it is time-consuming. So the ruling party may think of cancelling the same. In my view, MLC seats are used for the rehabilitation of trusted people of the party who could not win the elections. In Telangana, the daughter of the then CM, KCR lost elections as MP. Then she was made an MLC in Vidhan Parishad of the state of Telangana. There may be many other examples like that. Except this, it is not serving any purpose, in my opinion.
    drrao
    always confident


  • Sign In to post your comments