Ambedkar’s proposal, Durgabai’s amendment: How Constituent Assembly set age criteria for legislators

Articles 84 and 174 of the Constitution set the minimum age for members of the Lok Sabha and state Assemblies at 25, and for members of the Rajya Sabha and state legislative councils at 30 years. In the USA, too, members of the House of Representatives must be at least 25 years old but in the UK, Canada, and Australia the minimum age for the Lower House is 18.

The Election Commission (EC), however, opposed the change. In its inputs for the report, the poll body said: “The Commission has already considered the issue of aligning the minimum age for voting and contesting elections to Parliament, state legislatures, and local bodies and has found that it is unrealistic to expect 18-year-olds to possess the necessary experience and maturity for these responsibilities.”

It added that unless there were “compelling reasons” to alter the Constitution, the provision should remain unchanged.

However, debates in the Constituent Assembly, which drew up the Constitution, suggest several of India’s early leaders were in favour of lower age requirements for MPs.

Article 84, which sets the eligibility criteria for parliamentarians, was introduced as an amendment to the Draft Constitution in the Constituent Assembly by B R Ambedkar on May 19, 1949. In his provisions, Ambedkar recommended 25 years as the minimum age for the Lower House but set the bar at 35 for the Rajya Sabha. He also proposed that Parliament could add further minimum qualifications in the future if deemed necessary.

Ambedkar argued that merely being a voter — the eligibility criteria was 21 years until 1988 — was not enough to serve in Parliament. “I think the House will agree that it is desirable that a candidate who actually wishes to serve in the legislature should have some higher qualifications than merely being a voter. The functions that he is required to discharge in the House require experience, a certain amount of knowledge and practical experience … and I think if these additional qualifications are accepted, we shall be able to secure the proper sort of candidates who would be able to serve the House better than a mere ordinary voter might do,” Ambedkar told the Constituent Assembly.

Though the minimum age for the Lok Sabha was accepted, several members of the Constituent Assembly said 35 years was too high for the Rajya Sabha.

G Durgabai, a freedom fighter, feminist and social worker, proposed that the limit be lowered to 30. “Wisdom does not depend on age. It was held that the upper House consisted of elders who should be of a higher age as it was a revising chamber, which would act as a check on hasty legislation. But that is an old story and the old order has been replaced by the new. Our boys and girls are now more precocious and the educational curriculum is now so broad-based that it will educate them very well in respect of their civic rights and duties. I therefore think we should give a chance to these younger people to be trained in the affairs of state,” Durgabai said.

H V Kamath, who went on to become a three-time Lok Sabha MP from Madhya Pradesh, agreed with her and even argued that the minimum age for both Houses should be lower.

“I have no hesitation in supporting Shrimati Durgabai’s amendment lowering the age limit for membership of the (upper House). I would have gone further and made the age limit the same for both houses and reduced it to 21. It was said that William Pitt became … the prime minister (of the UK) at 24. These are of course exceptions and we cannot legislate on the basis of exceptions. But on the whole I think it is wise to lower it from 35 to 30,” Kamath said.

Shibban Lal Saxena, an educator and freedom fighter, citing examples of Shankaracharya becoming a scholar at 22 and Alexander the Great’s conquests before turning 25, said, “Our country of 300 million may produce precocious young men fit to occupy the highest positions at an age younger than 25 and they should not be deprived of the opportunity.”

Tajamul Hussain, who went on to serve two terms in the Rajya Sabha, disagreed with Ambedkar’s suggestions that merely being a voter was not enough to join the legislature. “I am of the opinion that the qualification of a person to fill a seat in Parliament is that he should be a voter on the list. The moment a man’s name is on the voters’ list, you cannot prevent him from either standing for election or voting,” he said.

In response, Ambedkar argued that reducing the minimum age for the Upper House would be inconsistent with the provision that set the minimum age for the vice-president, who would preside over the Rajya Sabha, at 35. However, he ultimately agreed to Durgabai’s amendment and, shortly after, it was adopted by the Constituent Assembly. The same conditions of 25 and 30 were later applied to state legislatures as well.

Notably, in July 1947, during a discussion on the eligibility for election as president, Jawaharlal Nehru said 35 was an appropriate age.

“It has been believed that a person who has not achieved much by the age of 35 is not going to do much later. Nevertheless, normally speaking in India … men up to 35 sometimes do not even get a chance to achieve much. In any case, the age 35 is not a high limit. I think it is a fair limit. It means that a person who is chosen shall have at least a dozen years or so of experience,” Nehru said. The provision was adopted and still stands today.