Legislative Councils in States have been described as a 'costly ornament'. Critically examine their relevance in the light of their constitutional powers and composition.

Article 169 makes the Legislative Council optional. Today only six States have one: Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh [1]. The Constituent Assembly was doubtful too: one member called an upper house a "dilatory engine" (a machine for delay) [2]. The "costly ornament" charge is largely fair, but not entirely.

Constitutional powers: a weak revising chamber

• Ordinary Bills: under Art. 197 the Council can hold a Bill for at most 3 months, then 1 month, after which the Assembly's version is deemed passed. There is no joint sitting, unlike Art. 108 for Parliament [3].
• Money Bills: under Art. 198 the Council must return them within 14 days and can only recommend changes [3].
• Existence: a Council is created or abolished by an ordinary law of Parliament, after an Assembly resolution passed by special majority (Art. 169) [3].

Composition: the case for relevance

• Expert and local voices: under Art. 171, 1/3 of members are elected by local bodies, 1/12 each by graduates and teachers, and 1/6 are nominated for expertise. This brings in voices the Assembly lacks [3].
• Continuity: under Art. 172 it is a permanent house, and one-third of members retire every two years [3].
• Scrutiny: even a short delay gives the press, the opposition and the public time to study a hastily passed Bill.

Composition and practice: the case against

• Outdated seats: graduate and teacher seats have "no obvious justification" today [4]. The Rajya Sabha Standing Committee on the Rajasthan Bill, 2013 suggested dropping them, and noted that the old J&K Constitution had already removed them [5].
• Weak mandate: members are elected indirectly or nominated, so the Council is often used as a back door for candidates who lost elections or for party loyalists.
• Politicisation: the same Committee called Art. 169 "highly politicised" [5]. West Bengal abolished its Council in 1969 and now wants it back [1]. The Rajasthan Bill has been pending since 2013 [6].
• Uneven coverage: only 6 of 28 States have a Council, so similar laws get a second look in some States and not in others [1].

Overall, the Council's weak powers fit its indirect mandate, so it delays more than it revises. The way forward is the Committee's call for a national policy that does not depend on "the mood of the government of the day" [5]. That policy should update the Council's composition and set a time limit for Parliament to decide on Article 169 resolutions. Reformed in this way, Councils can support careful law-making instead of being an ornament.