Can Lok sabha abolish Rajya sabha

Can a Bill be introduced in Lok Sabha to abolish Rajya Sabha?

Comments

  • Strictly No. There are many reason
    1) In order to delete provision of rajya sabha we need to amend constitution with touching Article 368 of Indian Constitution. According to it bill must sign by both the houses. So in order to cancel rajya sabha we need help of rajya sabha that is next to imposible
    2) Constitution has given power to supreme court to check power of executives and Legislature. Even if Legislature get success to pass such a Bill anyhow. Supreme court will jump in and cancel out the law. Supreme court ruled that In any law violating Basic feature of constitution shall hold VOID..



    So even in dream it is not possible. Rajya Sabha is Permanent house considered as basic feature of constitution.
  • Control over rajya sabha can only be achieved if ruling party get success in securing 2/3rd seats of rajya sabha seats during specific period( election for 1/3rd of seats every year). Majority party formed govt can play ground shaking politics if this happens.
  • I think abolishment of Rajya Sabha can happen only if ratified by majority of states too! Because it affects federalism!

    Further:
    Bicameralism is a basic feature of constitution.
    Federalism is a basic feature of constitution.

    So SC will strike down the amendment as ultravires.
    What I cannot do:
    Spell "Antecedent".

    What I can do:
    Crack CSE.
  • To do this, we got to reconstitute constituent assembly once again.
  • It can happen if rs abolishes Ls first . In retaliation Ls can do it otherwise it will not be allowed by prez
    asli pehalwan ki pehchan akhaade me nahi jindaggi me hove hai
    Taki jab jindaggi tumhe utha k pattak pattak k maar giraye
    To koi aisa daav khelo ki jindaggani chit hojave.
  • I think abolishment of Rajya Sabha can happen only if ratified by majority of states too! Because it affects federalism!

    Further:
    Bicameralism is a basic feature of constitution.
    Federalism is a basic feature of constitution.

    So SC will strike down the amendment as ultravires.

    i believe LS can abolish RS if it has strong maj as the IG, RG used to have(both at centre and at 50% of states); they can definitely work out arrangement with judiciary
    but the issue is LS does want RS to be abolished as various powerful people may not get elected even after contesting from 2 seats; they woould want to secure ministerial berth if there goovt came to power

    one thing i would like to know is - is there parliamentary form of govt with only one house of parliament
  • Sounds like constitution has been diagnosed positive for an auto immune disease!!
  • Sounds like constitution has been diagnosed positive for an auto immune disease!!
  • I think abolishment of Rajya Sabha can happen only if ratified by majority of states too! Because it affects federalism!

    Further:
    Bicameralism is a basic feature of constitution.
    Federalism is a basic feature of constitution.

    So SC will strike down the amendment as ultravires.

    Are you sure Bicameralism is a basic feature?
    And moreover, federalism does not imply having bicameralism at the center. It simply means, a system that divides up power between a strong national government and smaller local governments.


  • Are you sure Bicameralism is a basic feature?
    And moreover, federalism does not imply having bicameralism at the center. It simply means, a system that divides up power between a strong national government and smaller local governments.

    Only an SC bench can be sure about whether or not bicameralism is a basic structure :) However, since "the parliamentary system of government" is part of basic structure, by extension - I believe that bicameral parliamentarianism is part of basic structure.

    Rajya Sabha/Bicameralism will again be interpreted as part of Federalism - because, to declare a subject in "state list" as matter of national importance, Rajya Sabha has to pass it with 2/3 majority. Same for All India Service creation. In this sense, "it can be said" that Rajya Sabha has the responsibility and is expected to guard the interests of the states. In this sense, Rajya Sabha is also about protecting federalism.

    Further, Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha have to approve President's rule in states. Without RS, this power will be SOLELY exercised by Lok Sabha. So if the centre has majority in LS, it can dominate the state governments in all states where opposition is ruling. Here again, Rajya Sabha (and the Supreme Court) act as vanguards against the misuse of president's rule. Thus removing RS or bicameralism, is again about federalism, or so it can be argued :)

    What I cannot do:
    Spell "Antecedent".

    What I can do:
    Crack CSE.


  • Are you sure Bicameralism is a basic feature?
    And moreover, federalism does not imply having bicameralism at the center. It simply means, a system that divides up power between a strong national government and smaller local governments.

    Only an SC bench can be sure about whether or not bicameralism is a basic structure :) However, since "the parliamentary system of government" is part of basic structure, by extension - I believe that bicameral parliamentarianism is part of basic structure.

    Rajya Sabha/Bicameralism will again be interpreted as part of Federalism - because, to declare a subject in "state list" as matter of national importance, Rajya Sabha has to pass it with 2/3 majority. Same for All India Service creation. In this sense, "it can be said" that Rajya Sabha has the responsibility and is expected to guard the interests of the states. In this sense, Rajya Sabha is also about protecting federalism.

    Further, Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha have to approve President's rule in states. Without RS, this power will be SOLELY exercised by Lok Sabha. So if the centre has majority in LS, it can dominate the state governments in all states where opposition is ruling. Here again, Rajya Sabha (and the Supreme Court) act as vanguards against the misuse of president's rule. Thus removing RS or bicameralism, is again about federalism, or so it can be argued :)

    I get what you're trying to say but all of what you just said above answers the question as to why an upper house is a die hard necessity for federalism to work, which it is surely is. But again, that's not what federalism inherently means.
    And about the 'parliamentary system' being a basic feature, that again does not imply having bicameralism at the center.
    A parliamentary system is simply one in which the executive is accountable to the house of representatives.

    haha what're we on about. UPSC is not gonna ask such questions.
    It'd be better if people posted relevant doubts (and not their curiosities) here on the forum. lol just kidding.
Sign In or Join to comment.

Courses by ForumIAS for CSE
ForumIAS is trusted by over 10,000+ students for their Prelims, Mains and Interview Preparation and we currently run several assistance programs to help students from Civil Services prelims preparation to rank upgradation to IAS. You can enroll for these programs by visiting http://blog.forumias.com/courses

Welcome!

We are a secret self-moderated community for Civil Services preparation. Feel free to join, start a discussion, answer a question or just to say Thank you.

Just dont spread the word ;)

Sign in or join with Facebook or Google

Subscribe to ForumIAS Blog