Chief Minister Neiphiu Rio while moving a resolution for exemption of Nagaland from the Delimitation Act 2002 in the just concluded Assembly Session had also, on behalf of the House, urged upon the Centre to enact a law in Parliament at the earliest for creation of a Legislative Council in Nagaland under Article 169 of the Constitution. The demand for a second chamber by the present State Assembly has largely gone unnoticed in the local media and not much deliberation in the form of debate and discussion has taken place. The issue of having of a bi-cameral legislature (two Houses) can hardly be ignored and this calls for a public debate on the pros and cons of having two chambers for the State Legislature.
While it is true that under Article 169 there is provision for the creation of such a chamber by an Act of Parliament, the Constitution makes a distinction between the bigger and the smaller States. The reason seems obvious as some of the States who have poor resources can ill afford to have the extravagance of two chambers. However the provision under Article 169 does enable each State a choice to either have a Second Chamber or not, according to its own wishes. The latest demand by the State Legislature should therefore be seen in this context.
It is interesting to note that Andhra Pradesh, in 1957, created a Legislative Council and through the same process, it has been abolished in 1985. In 1990 Parliament passed an Act for establishing second chambers in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. On the other hand, West Bengal and Punjab have abolished their second chambers. The all India trend is that except for Jammu & Kashmir, by virtue of having its own constitution, it is only a few of the bigger States like Bihar and UP who have two chambers while in the remaining majority of States, the Legislature is unicameral, that is, consisting of the Legislative assembly only.
The relative positions of the two Houses of a State Legislature and its working would clearly suggest that the position of the second chamber is inferior to that of the Assembly so much so that it may well be considered as a surplusage.
Firstly, the very composition of the Legislative Council renders its position weak, being partly elected and partly nominated. Further, its very existence depends upon the will of the Legislative Assembly, because the latter has the power to pass a resolution for its abolition. With regard to ordinary legislation, the position of the second chamber is subordinate to that of the Assembly. Even in the case of a bill originating in the Council, the present Assembly would have the power of rejecting and putting an end to the bill forthwith.
One of the great advocates of a unicameral legislature, Benjamin Franklin, compared a bicameral legislature to a cart with a horse hitched to each end, both pulling in opposite directions. In defense of the present single chamber legislature, it can be said that it will secure unity of purpose. Where there are two chambers, discord and division will be inevitable and the institution of the legislature will itself become paralyzed. More importantly, a single House would also mean less expenditure on the State exchequer.
It can be therefore rightly said that the existence of the second chamber in Nagaland would only make an additional burden on the public exchequer. It would also lead to the tendency of bitter rivalry between the two chambers. Besides, the actual working has proved that the second chamber acts not as a revising but as a delaying chamber and above all, it will be like an ornamental institution of state structure.
