No "right of secrecy of vote"

While arriving at the conclusion that dispensing with the domiciliary requirement does not offend the principle of federalism or affect the basic structure of the Constitution, the Court analysed the role of the Rajya Sabha. It observed: "Although... [it] is designed to serve as a Chamber where the States and the Union of India are represented, in practice, the Rajya Sabha does not act as a champion of local [State] interests."

This may be true. However, the pertinent question is: what is the conclusion that flows from this? Should we see this as a failure of its intended role? Or, as the Court has done, use it as a basis to justify scrapping the domicile clause? In stark contrast with the abstract, theoretical way it dealt with the residency issue, the Court took into account the existing political realities when deciding on the open ballot matter. It ruled that the amendments that introduced the open ballot system to elect Rajya Sabha members were justified on the grounds they had "been brought in to avoid cross voting and wipe out the evils of corruption... "

In ruling that "sunlight and transparency" would serve the larger objective — namely, free and fair elections — the Court rejected the contention that the right to vote invariably implies the "right of secrecy of vote." It needs to be noted that while the Court has held that the changes do not offend the basic structure of the Constitution, the wisdom behind them is debatable. The Hindu Opinion - Editorials Saturday, Aug 26, 2006