Raksha Mantri speaks from last row; Speaker stays away from Lok Sabha; move against Vice President in Rajya Sabha. Parliamentary system hits a nadir.
Granting relief to Rahul Gandhi the Supreme Court said his expulsion from Lok Sabha affected the right of the electorate who sent him to Parliament. The last has not been heard about this case, as the appeal against his conviction is pending before the sessions court in Surat. Supreme Court has questioned the quantum of the sentence, which necessitated his expulsion, and stayed its operation till appeal is exhausted. Ironically the expulsion had been triggered due to an interpretation of law by Supreme Court in 2013 in the Lily Thomas case, which mandated that any MP convicted for two or more years has to lose his seat. The Manmohan Singh government wanted to limit the damage through an Ordinance, which Rahul Gandhi, in his angry young man avatar, had torn to smithereens at the Press Club of India. His expulsion in 2023 was thus a tragicomedy of his own creation.
That apart, the apex court’s justified observation that Rahul’s expulsion deprived the electorate of Wayanad its voice in Parliament axiomatically suggests that if MPs are unable to discharge their duties—raise issues of public interest and question and scrutinise the government on its policies—the “voice” of their constituents is muffled. Session after session both Houses of Parliament see more disruptions and resultant adjournment of proceedings than meaningful discussions. Prior to each session in the past years, some contentious issue becomes the trigger of blocking peaceful proceedings of the apex legislature of the world’s largest, and perhaps the oldest democracy.
Parliamentary democracy’s fulcrum is cooperation. Not confrontation. Spirit of accommodation, displayed by both Treasury and Opposition benches, is the leitmotif. As the adage goes, “Opposition must have its say; the government must have its way.” My way or the highway is not the spirit of parliamentary discourse. Disruption from Opposition benches is nothing new. Of late, retaliatory disruption and sloganeering and jeering from Treasury benches accentuates bedlam.
Three incidents of the past week show India’s parliamentary democracy in a dim light. On Friday, while he was speaking in the Lok Sabha on an important legislation on the Armed forces—the Inter-Services Organisations (Command Control & Discipline) Bill, 2023—which will determine the future security of our borders—Raksha Mantri Raj Nath Singh was disrupted by Opposition members who trooped into the Well of the House shouting slogans on Manipur. The elder statesman did not out-shout the Opposition, as is the unfortunate practice of some of his colleagues. When his plea for order failed, he sought the chair’s permission and moved from his assigned seat on the front bench to the last row of the House and completed his duty as Minister. The legislation was passed amidst bedlam, as has become the norm.
Rajnath Singh is a member of the Cabinet Committee on Security. The hierarchy of India’s democracy has the President as Head of State, the Prime Minister as Head of Government and four ministers in the apex club, all of whom are allotted offices on the Raisina Hill along with President and PM—Home Minister, Finance Minister (located in North Block); Defence Minister and External Affairs Minister (who share South Block with the PM). Thus 5 August, ten days prior to 75th Independence Day, saw a member of the apex “Durbar” take a back seat to discharge his democratic duties—unprecedented in the annals of Parliamentary democracies across the globe.
Apart from this, Lok Sabha saw Speaker Om Birla staying away from the proceedings to display his protest against the Opposition’s disruption. This is the second time that Om Birla chose to thus display his angst—he had done so a few years back as well. The 17th Lok Sabha has not elected a Deputy Speaker since its formation in 2019. In the absence of the Speaker the proceedings are run (albeit effectively) by MPs nominated in the panel of chairpersons by the Speaker.
Howsoever we may emphasise on upholding Indian traditions, our Parliament is run on the Westminster pattern of Britain—Speaker staying away from the House is unprecedented in the annals of parliamentary functioning.
Twenty-five years ago, during the tenure of Purno Agitok Sangma as Speaker, when differences between the ruling United Front and its supporting party, Congress, held up Lok Sabha for three days, chagrined Sangma used his powers and adjourned the House sine die (dismissed the House for an unspecified period). The sparring parties rushed to the Speaker’s chamber. Sangma reconvened the House only when he was satisfied that he will be in a position to maintain order and House will function as per rules. Such powerful precedents apparently do not guide the discourse today.
The third aberration of the past week was the sparring between the Leader of the Opposition in Rajya Sabha, Mallikarjun Kharge and the Vice President of India, Jagdeep Dhankhar, who is Chairman of the House of the States (Rajya Sabha—there is no “upper house” in our Parliament, the epithet “house of elders” is perhaps discordant as since 1980s even 35-year-olds have been elected). Kharge wanted Dhankhar to request the PM to address the House; the chair felt that it cannot dictate agenda to the Head of the Government. A section of Opposition MPs are said to have mooted a move for a resolution of no-confidence against the House Chairman. This too is without precedent. The Vice President is first in line of succession to the Head of State in an unfortunate eventuality. Expression of lack of confidence in such authority is unfortunate, to say the least.
(In the eventuality of President being unable to discharge his/her duties, the Vice President is sworn in as ad hoc. In case there be no Vice President, Speaker of Lok Sabha is the next in line, followed by the Chief Justice of India. In 1969, thus Chief Justice M. Hidayatullah was the President of India who received visiting President of the US, Richard Malhous Nixon. Hidayatullah in later years was also elected Vice President.)
While new precedents are being generated year after year, expenditure of lakhs of crores of rupees are being approved by voice vote as parliamentary discussion is disrupted. Important legislation, like the crucial one on the Armed Forces, are being passed by voice vote, sans division, which would have recorded which MP stood where on the issue. In effect, will of “We the People” is not reflected effectively as the Parliament passes from one disruption to another. Scrutiny is done in the ministry-wise parliamentary committees, all of which function smoothly. However, as a committee has a few, not all MPs as members, lack of discussion in the Houses of Parliament robs the voice of “We the People”.
A new paradigm in past few years has been restricting the access of the media to the proceedings of Parliament. Entry of seasoned journalists who were accorded the privilege of a pass to enter the Central Hall, where they informally interacted with MPs, was stopped due to Covid. The ban persists. Past two years the institution of Press Gallery advisory committees in both Houses has been discontinued. A committee of senior scribes covering the Central Legislative Assembly was set up by Vitthalbhai Patel (elder brother of Sardar Vallabbhai Patel) in 1929. The practice continued post Independence. Since 2020 this body has not been reconstituted. This writer had the privilege, during his active years as a beat journalist, to be accorded Central Hall pass by both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha and also serving on the Press Gallery Advisory Committee of Lok Sabha. There were occasions when the Speaker would invite the panel member to the Speaker’s House, 20 Akbar Road, for breakfast on a day when House was in session. He used to seek feedback on the contentious and not so contentious issues facing the House. On one occasion, when a party split, on the advice of a member of the Press Panel, the then Speaker went on to allot seats to the warring factions away from each other to ensure they did not spar sitting next to each other, while he took his time to decide on the issue as per anti-defection law.
An important corollary of the Rahul Gandhi case is that a non-functioning MP deprives his constituents of their voice in Parliament. Disruption robs the voice of “We the People”. Not a happy augury on the Amritkaal of India.