Ministers increasingly enter Parliament through the Rajya Sabha from states other than their own. Examine the implications for the federal character of the Council of States.

Under Article 80(4), State Assemblies elect the Rajya Sabha, the "Council of States", so that states have a voice in the Union [2]. In October 2026, Minister of State L. Murugan resigned from the ministry and from his Rajya Sabha seat. He is from Tamil Nadu but had been elected from Madhya Pradesh [1]. Cases like his show the House being used as a route into the ministry. This weakens its federal character, though it does not erase it.

Why the trend has grown

• Domicile rule removed: The RP (Amendment) Act, 2003 changed the eligibility wording from "in that State" to "in India" [2].
• Judicial approval: In Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India (2006), the Supreme Court upheld the change. It held that residence was required only by ordinary law and was never a constitutional requirement [2].
• Safe seats: A party with a majority in a state Assembly can place a minister from any state in a vacated seat [1].

Implications for federal character

• Weaker territorial link: A member with no roots in a state is less likely to press its concerns on river waters, fiscal transfers or GST.
• Party over state: The same 2003 Act brought in an open ballot for Rajya Sabha polls, and the Court upheld it. This tightens party high-command control over who gets elected [2].
• Tenure follows the seat cycle: MoS George Kurian and Ravneet Singh Bittu left the ministry when their Rajya Sabha terms ended [1]. Their exits had nothing to do with how they performed or what their states needed.
• Declining weight of the House: PRS notes that delimitation would raise the Lok Sabha-to-Rajya Sabha ratio from about 2.2:1 to 3.3:1, which reduces the Rajya Sabha's relative influence [3].

Counter-view

• Wider talent pool: Technocrats and leaders without a Lok Sabha base can join the government.
• Constitutionally valid: The Court held that domicile is not essential to the federal character of the House. Members still answer to the Assembly that elects them [2].
• Revising chamber: Members from outside a state can bring a national view to legislative scrutiny.

Conclusion

The federal role of the Council of States depends less on where its members live than on whether they actually speak for the states that elect them. Parties could adopt conventions that favour candidates rooted in the state. Parliament could also use the delimitation debate to protect the House's standing [3]. Together, these steps would keep the Rajya Sabha true to the cooperative federalism built into Article 80.