Opinion VP Radhakrishnan’s challenge — defending federalism in Rajya Sabha
India’s federal balance rests on the daily practice of bicameralism under an impartial Chair. That is the standard by which any VP should be judged
As the Rajya Sabha acts as a bridge between the Union and the states, its credibility rests heavily on the person in the Chair. (ANI Photo) 
The vice-presidential election is over. C P Radhakrishnan, nominee of the ruling alliance, has been elected with a comfortable margin. As per the official tallies, he got 452 votes against the Opposition nominee Justice B Sudershan Reddy’s 300. The run-up to the poll was unusually charged. From Justice Reddy’s warning on GST restructuring to his earlier verdict on Salwa Judum and its impact on the government’s efforts to end Naxalism — many things shaped the debate. Such discussions bring up a crucial point: The Vice President, by virtue of being the ex officio chairperson of the Rajya Sabha, matters for federalism and should not be treated as a mere partisan representative.
India’s Parliament is bicameral by design. The Lok Sabha reflects direct representation, while the Rajya Sabha, the Council of States, institutionalises federalism by giving state legislatures an indirect but structured voice. It is not simply a chamber for revision. Under Article 249, by a two-thirds majority of members present and voting, it can authorise Parliament to legislate on a subject in the state list for the national interest. Under Article 312, by the same majority, it can create new All-India services that shape the Union’s administrative framework. Most constitutional amendments require clearance from both Houses, often with special majorities, which means that the Rajya Sabha, by its very constitutive nature, is empowered to take crucial decisions. Even in the case of finance, where the Lok Sabha has primacy, the Rajya Sabha is relevant. The Union budget is laid before it, it debates fiscal policy, and no money can be withdrawn from the Consolidated Fund without an appropriation act passed by both Houses.
As the Rajya Sabha acts as a bridge between the Union and the states, its credibility rests heavily on the person in the Chair. The VP, as presiding officer, is not a member of the House. His role mandates impartiality in recognising speakers and unbiased ruling on points of order. He also needs to ensure that minorities and smaller regional parties receive a fair hearing. In a chamber where fiscal devolution, governor–state frictions, centrally sponsored schemes, and institutional appointments are routine subjects of debate, neutrality is essential. A rigorous Chair does not block the majority’s agenda but guarantees due process; adequate debate time, fair speaking slots, reasoned rulings on admissibility, and a presumption in favour of scrutiny when controversies affect state autonomy.
Recent years have given reasons for concern. First, important legislation has been passed as Money Bills, which restricts the Rajya Sabha to offering only non-binding recommendations. The Aadhaar Act was the most prominent case, and judicial opinions remain divided on whether the Money Bill route effectively nullified the Upper House’s authority. Second, committee scrutiny has sharply declined. Data shows a fall in the proportion of bills referred to committees, while laws are increasingly passed with minimal discussion. These patterns weaken the deliberative role of both Houses and curtail the Rajya Sabha’s ability to assert its federal character.
Justice Reddy’s warning on GST captured wider fears of fiscal centralisation, underscoring why the VP’s office cannot be reduced to partisanship. Though Radhakrishnan’s victory was expected, the constitutional expectation is that he would rise above party lines to serve as custodian of federal debate.
Drawing on the arguments of Nobel prize-winning economists Daron Acemoglu and James A Robinson, the new Chair’s performance must be judged against institutional yardsticks, for strong institutions are the lifeblood of democracy. Procedural even-handedness on federal questions is vital: When the Council of States debates centre–state finances, governors’ powers, or national schemes with fiscal obligations, the Chair’s rulings can determine whether scrutiny is real or token. Respect for bicameralism is equally important. While the Chair cannot control how bills are certified in the Lok Sabha, robust debate in the Rajya Sabha and referrals to select committees, where needed, can reinforce its role. Just as crucial is the enforcement of dignity and decorum. Consistent rules, fair time management, and hearing smaller regional parties preserve the chamber’s identity as a true forum for states.
Feasible reforms also could strengthen the institution without constitutional change. Codifying transparent speaking lists and time allocations would protect smaller parties from disproportionate representation. Publishing reasoned rulings on admissibility, especially on federal issues, would build precedents that future Chairs could follow, mitigating the charges of bias. Beyond the Chair’s remit, narrowing the scope of Money Bill certification and reviving cross-party agreements to send more bills to committees would further reinforce bicameralism.
The bottom line is that the vice president’s office is not merely ceremonial. It is the hinge on which the Rajya Sabha’s credibility rests. The election of Radhakrishnan does not, by itself, tilt federalism one way or another. What will matter is how he runs the House over the next five years, especially when fiscal or institutional questions affecting state autonomy come up for debate. Looking ahead, the stakes could rise further. If post-delimitation seat reallocation deepens asymmetries among states, the Council of States will be the only constitutional pathway to resolve them. Scholars have already proposed remedies such as moving toward more equal representation. India’s federal balance rests not only on Articles 249 and 312 or the amending procedure, but on the daily practice of bicameralism under an impartial Chair. That is the standard by which any VP should be judged.
Karthik K R is a postdoctoral research fellow of Indian and Indonesian politics at KITLV-Leiden, and author of the book The Dravidian Pathway
Share
