The Truth about Rajya Sabha majority and Ram Mandir Legislation

Many Ram Bhakts are asking BJP to pass law for building a grand RamMandir at Ayodhya. At same time multitude of BJP and Modi fans are inventing reasons why Narendra Modi and his party is not attempting to legislate on Ram Mandir.

Ram Lalla at Ayodhya Ram Mandir
After coming to victory in 2014 and later in Uttar Pradesh poll by securing Hindu votes, almost all RSS, BJP leaders including Subramanian Swamy has been telling Hindu electorate that they cannot pass an Act to build Ram Mandir at Ayodhya as they don’t have the numbers to pass the legislation in the Rajya Sabha. But what they don’t tell you is that majority in Rajya Sabha is not required to pass legislation to build Ram Mandir at Ayodhya. Constitution of India as per Article 108 provides for a joint session of Parliament in case when legislation gets defeated in Rajya Sabha. This provision has been included in our Constitution to avoid situation where the government in power is not able to pass laws due to it being a minority in the Rajya Sabha.
 
Article 108 in The Constitution Of India:

108. Joint sitting of both Houses in certain cases

(1) If after a Bill has been passed by one House and transmitted to the other House

(a) the Bill is rejected by the other House; or

(b) the Houses have finally disagreed as to the amendments to be made in the Bill; or

(c) more than six months elapse from the date of the reception of the Bill by the other House without the Bill being passed by it the President may, unless the Bill has lapsed by reason of a dissolution of the House of the People, notify to the Houses by message if they are sitting or by public notification if they are not sitting, his intention to summon them to meet in a joint sitting for the purpose of deliberating and voting on the Bill: Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply to a Money Bill

(2) In reckoning any such period of six months as is referred to in clause ( 1 ), no account shall be taken of any period during which the House referred to in sub clause (c) of that clause is prorogued or adjourned for more than four consecutive days

(3) Where the President has under clause ( 1 ) notified his intention of summoning the Houses to meet in a joint sitting, neither House shall proceed further with the Bill, but the President may at any time after the date of his notification summon the Houses to meet in a joint sitting for the purpose specified in the notification and, if he does so, the Houses shall meet accordingly

(4) If at the joint sitting of the two Houses the Bill, with such amendments, if any, as are agreed to in joint siting, is passed by a majority of the total number of members of both Houses present and voting, it shall be deemed for the purposes of this Constitution to have been passed by both Houses: Provided that a joint sitting

(a) if the Bill, having been passed by one House, has not been passed by the other House with amendments and returned to the House in which it originated, no amendment shall be proposed to the Bill other than such amendments (if any) as are made necessary by the delay in the passage of the Bill;

(b) if the Bill has been so passed and returned, only such amendments as aforesaid shall be proposed to the Bill and such other amendments as are relevant to the matters with respect to which the Houses have not agreed; and the decision of the person presiding as to the amendments which are admissible under this clause shall be final

(5) A joint sitting may be held under this article and a Bill passed thereat, notwithstanding that a dissolution of the House of the People has intervened since the President notified his intention to summon the Houses to meet therein

Very clearly from the above, majority in Rajya Sabha is not required to pass a legislation to pave way for construction of Ram mandir at Ayodhya. And if we can also find instances when the government in power resorted to Join Session of both Houses to pass important legislation. A finest example is Prevention of Terrorism Act passed by previous NDA government.

As of now Modi government has total of 422 out of 790 MPs in Parliament which is well beyond the majority required to pass legislation to build Ram Mandir by convening joint session of the Parliament.

So the question is whether NDA government considers Ram Mandir issue important enough to convene a joint session. Or does it consider Ram Mandir issue as a milch cow from which they have been getting rich dividends since 1989 and would like to keep the scenario intact. The least that the pseudo Hindu nationalists and self appointed saviors of Hindu Dharma can do is, not to mislead ordinary Hindus by citing flimsy excuses like lack of majority in Rajya Sabha.

Not many may be knowing the nuances of the Indian Constitution, but the BJP, Sangh and its political strategists should not take the Hindu electorate for granted to fulfill the political greed for more votes and power in State legislatures.

For Hindus Ram Mandir is an emotional sentimental issue and thousands have laid their lives for protecting Ram Mandir since the earliest of Islamic attempts to destroy it. Betrayal of Hindu sentiments and aspirations will have serious implications, and our leaders should make amends before its too late.

Article was written by @ReclaimTemples. The author tweets @ReclaimTemples.

  • guest

    Things to think about!