The creation and abolition of State Legislative Councils has been driven by political expediency rather than principle. Discuss, and suggest the need for a national policy on bicameralism in States.

Under Article 169, a State can create or abolish its Legislative Council in two steps. The Assembly passes a resolution by special majority, and Parliament then passes an ordinary law, which does not count as a constitutional amendment [1]. Because this route is easy, whether a State has a Council has depended more on the ruling party's convenience than on settled principle.

Political expediency behind creation and abolition

• Reversals when governments change: Tamil Nadu's Council was abolished from 1 November 1986 [5]. The Assembly resolved to revive it in 2010 [6], but by 2013 moves to abolish it again were under way [3].
• West Bengal abolished its Council in 1969, and a later government approved bringing it back [2].
• Parliament can block by not acting: the Rajasthan Legislative Council Bill was introduced in August 2013 [4] and has still not become law [2]. The Assembly had backed it by 152 votes to 4 [3].
• People giving evidence to the Rajya Sabha committee called Article 169 "highly politicized" and cited Tamil Nadu [3].
• Uneven map: only 6 of 28 States have Councils [2].

Where principle does operate

• The Constituent Assembly was divided on the issue, so Article 169 was kept as an experimental provision that leaves the choice to each State [3].
• The special majority in the Assembly and the need for a law of Parliament together act as a double check [1].
• Cost (about ₹100 crore for Rajasthan) and the Council's weak powers (it can delay an ordinary Bill by at most four months) are real policy reasons to weigh [3].

Need for a national policy

• The Rajya Sabha Standing Committee (63rd Report) urged a national policy, so that a second chamber is not temporary and "depending on the mood of the Government of the day" [3].
• Reform the composition: review the graduate and teacher seats, which have no obvious justification today [6]. Add representatives of Panchayati Raj bodies and ward committees (Art. 243S) [3].
• Objective criteria for which States qualify, and a minimum period before a new Council can be abolished.
• A deadline for Parliament to decide on Article 169 resolutions, so that its silence can no longer work as a hidden veto.

Councils have been abolished, revived and left in limbo, which shows they have served party calculation more than the quality of law-making. A national framework with clear criteria, reformed composition and time-bound decisions would let States choose a second chamber on merit. This would strengthen the deliberative democracy and cooperative federalism that the Constitution envisions.