Congress’s revised council picks still miss the constitutional mark

 

The Congress high command has replaced two of the earlier choices and settled on four names for nomination to the Karnataka Legislative Council: Ramesh Babu (KPCC communications chief), Dr Arathi Krishna (Karnataka NRI Forum), K Shivakumar (senior journalist), and F H Jakkappanavar (Dalit leader/educationist). This list has been forwarded to the Governor for assent.

On the face of it, the reshuffle looks like course-correction. The controversial earlier picks—Dinesh Amin Mattu and D G Sagar—have been dropped, answering criticism that the Council’s “nominated” route was being used purely for partisan rehabilitation. But the deeper question remains untouched: are these seats honouring the Constitution’s intent, or are they still rewards for proximity to power? Article 171(5) is unambiguous: nominees should be persons with “special knowledge or practical experience” in fields like literature, science, art, the co-operative movement or social service.  

To be fair, a practising journalist (K Shivakumar) and a social sector voice (F H Jakkappanavar) bring profiles that can enrich debate beyond party lines. Yet half the list—Ramesh Babu and Arathi Krishna—remains squarely within the party’s organisational ecosystem. The signal, therefore, is mixed: some recognition of breadth, but still an instinct to keep nominations within a familiar circle.

This matters because the Council’s nominated berths serve a distinct democratic purpose: to diversify the Legislature with achievers whose standing rests outside electoral politics. When these seats become an extension of the party apparatus, the Upper House loses both legitimacy and utility; it turns into a holding bay rather than a chamber of perspective. The state loses the chance to induct a scientist shaping public health, a writer illuminating social change, or a co-operative pioneer who understands grassroots economies.  

The Congress had promised to strengthen institutions it accused its rivals of weakening. That promise is best kept not by swapping names under pressure but by adopting a transparent, criteria-based process for nominations—one that starts with the constitutional yardstick and invites civil-society endorsements. Karnataka has no shortage of figures who meet that bar; the shortage is of political will to look beyond party comfort zones.

There is still time for a higher standard. Approving nominees who clearly embody Article 171(5) would not just fill four chairs; it would restore faith that institutions mean more than patronage. If the government wants to be remembered for elevating Karnataka’s best minds, the nominations must look unmistakably like that.