I have great personal respect for Harivansh, the Deputy Chairperson of the Council of States, but I beg to disagree and differ with his piece entitled ‘A Mockery of Parliament?’ (IE, July 10).
The endemic problems that plague Parliament are far more serious and deep-rooted than just the issue of disruptions that he has attempted to flag and the regrettably specious attempt to lay the blame entirely at the door of the Opposition.
The fundamental question that presiding officers and senior members of both the Houses need to address themselves to is the accelerated devaluation of our legislative institutions, including Parliament, and their intensifying irrelevance to the national discourse. Disruptions alone are not the cause of this.
The first Lok Sabha met for 135 days in a year and the Rajya Sabha in the decade of the 1950s convened for 93 days. In the next decade and a half, Parliament met for an average of 120 days in a year. This number came down to 70 days in a year from 1971 onwards. The 17th Lok Sabha (2019-2024) met for only 55 days in a year. Does this decline in the number of sitting days not warrant the attention of the respective presiding officers and other senior members of both Houses? Is it that there is less legislative business to be transacted today than when the first Lok Sabha sat, or is it that the government finds it inconvenient to have Parliament meet for four and a half months a year?
The Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, colloquially called the Anti Defection Law, has completely failed in its intended objective, that is, to stop defections. All that it has done is to transform defections from a retail activity into a wholesale business. Nothing demonstrates this more eloquently than the manner in which successive state governments have been toppled in the past decade with impunity.
At the same time, the Anti Defection Law has sucked democracy out of the legislative institutions. It is axiomatic that while MPs to the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha are elected by their respective electors it is the ubiquitous “whip” that runs their legislative lives.
No longer are parliamentarians and legislators free to exercise their voting preferences according to their conscience, constituency and common sense, as is the case in every legislative democracy of consequence in the world.
The essence of of the argument is that the elusive “golden mean” has to be discovered between the freedom of expression, that includes the right to vote freely in legislative institutions as guaranteed by Article 105(1) of the Constitution of India, and the stability of governments that are dependent on having a majority in their respective legislatures. Is this not an issue germane enough to occupy the collective mind space of the presiding officers of Parliament and various legislatures across the country, including other stakeholders in the democratic process? I had moved two Private Members’ Bills on this in the 15th & 17th Lok Sabhas, respectively, on this question.
In 1993 Parliamentary Standing Committees were instituted to aid Parliament in its legislative and financial remit. In the 16th & 17th Lok Sabhas the number of bills that were referred to the Standing Committees for examination has declined considerably. Some independent researchers put the bills referred to the Standing Committee at a figure of 45 per cent of the total bills introduced in Parliament in the past two decades. Is this diminishment in the role of Parliamentary Standing Committees not an issue that should collectively concern the presiding officers and other senior members of both the houses of Parliament?
Coming to disruptions, which was the burden of Harivansh’s article, it is undoubtedly an issue that should cause distress to every Member of Parliament and state legislator across the country. However, selective indignation is not the answer.
It would be worth recalling that the current ruling dispensation, when they were in the Opposition, did not allow Former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to speak even on the vote of confidence moved by him in the July of 2008. They waved currency notes in the Lok Sabha, plunging the dignity of the House to a new nadir. The former prime minister had to lay his speech on the table of the Lok Sabha.
The 15th Lok Sabha (2009-14) saw two whole sessions wiped out by the current ruling dispensation when they were in the Opposition, the first being the winter session of 2010 on the “illusory” CAG report on allotment of 2G telecom licenses and spectrum, and the second being the monsoon session of 2012. The Janata Dal (United) was for a substantive part of that time an alliance partner of the BJP that orchestrated and perpetuated these parliamentary disruptions.
If my memory serves me correctly, wasn’t it the Leader of Opposition in the Rajya Sabha, late Arun Jaitley, who coined and gave currency to the doctrine “Parliamentary obstructionism is a part of legitimate parliamentary tactics…” . He further went on to say “When Parliament is used to ignore issues then obstruction of Parliament is in the favour of democracy”.
His colleague, Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, late Sushma Swaraj, was even more voluble. On September 12 2012, she said: “Not allowing Parliament to function is a form of democracy like any other form…” It begs a question: What was good for the goose for 10 years is not good for the gander subsequently?
To lay the blame for disruptions in the Lok Sabha at the door of the Leader of Opposition, especially when his maiden speech was interrupted repeatedly by senior ministers of the government, given the past conduct of the ruling dispensation when they were in the Opposition, is a bit rich, to put it very mildly.
Finally, is it appropriate for presiding officers to raise polarising issues that attained quietus and closure decades ago? I leave it to their wisdom and sagacity to decide. Does it facilitate the smooth functioning of Parliament, is something they should reflect upon.
Legislative institutions do not belong to the government. The Opposition is an equal stakeholder. It has to be provided space to articulate its concerns and there are mechanisms to do so, as I had suggested to the presiding officer in an informal conversation.
Disruption of Parliament is eminently avoidable but it is the responsibility of the government to run the House efficiently by agreeing to debate issues that may be inconvenient for the government. The continuing transgression by China across the LAC for four years running and the situation in Manipur are just two current examples.
The writer is a lawyer, Congress MP & Former I&B Minister
