Delhi High Court Upholds President’s Power to Nominate Politicians to Rajya Sabha

The Delhi High Court has ruled that politicians are not barred from being nominated to the Rajya Sabha by the President of India under Article 80(3) of the Constitution. The Court held that a political background alone does not disqualify a person from being nominated, provided the individual possesses special knowledge or practical experience in fields recognised under the Constitution.

The ruling came while the Court dismissed a public interest litigation challenging the nomination of BJP leader C. Sadanandan Master to the Rajya Sabha. The petition argued that he did not fulfil the constitutional requirement of having special knowledge or practical experience in literature, science, art, or social service, as contemplated under Article 80(3).

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia observed that Article 80 grants broad discretion to the President in selecting nominated members. The Court noted that the Constitution does not prescribe a specific process for identifying nominees and does not narrowly define the categories mentioned in Article 80(3).

According to the Bench, the categories listed in Article 80(3) are broad and capable of including individuals who have expertise or experience in related fields. The Court said the constitutional provision was intentionally drafted to provide flexibility while ensuring that nominees possess knowledge or practical experience connected to the specified areas.

The judges further clarified that a person’s participation in politics or previous electoral contests cannot automatically make them ineligible for nomination. The Court stated that individuals with political backgrounds may still qualify if they have meaningful experience or contributions in areas such as social service or other relevant fields.

Rejecting the challenge against Sadanandan Master’s nomination, the High Court emphasised that the categories mentioned in Article 80(3) are illustrative rather than exhaustive. It concluded that there was no constitutional basis to interfere with the President’s decision in the present cas