But then, India is not a federal State in the traditional sense of the term. There can be no doubt as to the fact, and this is of utmost significance for purposes at hand, that in the context of India, the principle of federalism is not territory related.
It cannot be said that residential requirement for membership to the Upper House is an essential basic feature of all Federal Constitutions. Hence, if the Indian Parliament, in its wisdom has chosen not to require residential qualification, it would definitely not violate the basic feature of Federalism. Our Constitution does not cease to be a federal constitution simply because a Rajya Sabha Member does not "ordinarily reside" in the State from which he is elected.

Whether Basic structure doctrine available to determine validity of a statute The question arises as to whether the ground of violation of the basic feature of the Constitution can be a ground to challenge the validity of an Act of Parliament just as it can be a ground to challenge the constitutional validity of a constitutional amendment. It has been submitted on behalf of Union of India that basic structure doctrine is inapplicable to Statutes.
Mr. Sachar was, however, at pains to submit arguments in support of affirmative plea in this regard. He referred to Dr. D.C. Wadhwa & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. [1987 (1) SCC 378] as an earlier case wherein the Bihar Intermediate Education Council Ordinance, 1985 was struck down as unconstitutional and void on the basis that it was repugnant to the constitutional scheme.
It is well settled that legislation can be declared invalid or unconstitutional only on two grounds namely, (i) lack of legislative competence and (ii) violation of any fundamental rights or any provision of the Constitution As stated above, 'residence' is not the constitutional requirement and, therefore, the question of