A good thing about nomination of persons like Sachin Tendulkar and Rekha to the Rajya Sabha is that it brings into focus role and responsibilities of Presidential nominees to the House. Under article 80 of the Constitution, the Council of States is composed of not more than 250 members, of whom 12 are nominated by the President of India from amongst persons who have special knowledge or practical experience in respect of such matters as literature, science, art and social service. Sachin is perhaps the first sports-person to be nominated in this category.
The nominations obviously indicate the political preferences of the ruling party, so as the political inclination of the nominated persons. It is heartening to know that Sachin, in a way, has distanced himself from parochial outfits like MNS and Shiv Sena by accepting the offer made by UPA government at the Centre. However, it is a common understanding that such personalities should not be active members of any political parties, and must rise above the political partisans during debates and voting. However, these are mere moral expectations. It is completely justified, according to Rajya Sabha rules, if any nominated member(s) decides to join a political grouping in the House within 6 months of their oath-taking. Thus, rules allow what a common political sense objects to. During the NDA regime, Hema Malini was nominated to Rajya Sabha, but she had chosen to get affiliated with the BJP. This trend continued during the UPA regime too. There is need to evolve a consensus on this matter so that the stark contrast between political morality and parliamentary rules should be erased.
In this context, the Upper House should formulate certain guidelines to select the nominated members. For example, nominated members must not have held any office of the recognized political party or for last 5 years. Once nominated, the members should not be allowed to officially join any parliamentary party/group. It is only a matter of political restraint that no nominated member has ever been inducted into the Union Cabinet. However, silence of the Constitution and Parliamentary rules with this regard needs to be rectified by converting the practice into rule. These would ensure that the nominated members would not be lured away by political parties on the promises of gifting them public offices.
It would also be wise decision if the Presidential nominees are treated as a separate group in the Rajya Sabha, along with separate list of rules and privileges for them distinguished from independents and party members. It would be gross injustice to assume that few of the nominated members, who have joined a parliamentary party, have done so only in the hope of acquiring bigger public office or to receive any other favors. Other considerations, for example, to get proper time to speak during important debates, to get representation in parliamentary committees etc might factor in their decision to join a political grouping. Data on the website of PRS Legislative Research provides some insights on functioning of nominated members. Out of 4 members nominated in the year 2010 and still serving in the House, Javed Akhtar and B Jayshree remain ‘independent’, while Mani Shankar Aiyyar and Bhalchandra Mungekar preferred to join Congress. Mr. Akhtar’s average attendance in the Rajya Sabha is 54% and B Jayshree’s attendance is 65%. On the other hand, Mr. Aiyar and Dr. Mungekar have registered higher attendance of 72% and 86% respectively. The national average attendance in the Upper house is 72%. While congress affiliated Mr. Aiyar and Mr. Mungekar participated in respectively 12 and 18 debates in last two years, ‘independent’ members Mr. Akhtar and B Jayshree participated in 0 and 3 debates respectively. Similarly, Aiyar and Mungekar respectively raised 73 and 60 questions in the House, but Mr. Akhtar and B Jayshree have not put up a single question to the government.
It is important to ensure nomination of non-partisan members to the Upper House, however, it is equally important to pin down their accountability with respect to their performance in the House. Unfortunately, many of the nominated members have dismally failed to take up issues of their respective fields in the Rajya Sabha. Few of them, for example Bharat Ratna Lata Mangeshakar, have shown utter disrespect to the proceedings of the Upper House by remaining absent throughout most of their tenure. Hopefully, the God of Cricket will show similar passion and sincerity in the Rajya Sabha as he has demonstrated on the cricketing fields all over the world since 1989, and will at least bat for better sporting opportunities for India’s youth that constitutes more than 50% of country’s population.
