Strengthening our Parliamentary Institutions

Malladi Rama Rao Like Indian politics, Indian Parliament is not in the pink of health. But who will take the lead in setting the House of People of India in order? The ruling National Democratic Alliance, (NDA), particularly its mainstay, the Bharatiya Janata Party, (BJP),has a vision that has no focus on the immediate.
The Grand Old Party, as the Congress prides itself, is today a neither here nor there, with all its energies focused on putting its act together become relevant in the Modi times.
Communists and the regional parties which love to align with the Left have lost their time tested lung power to the Twitter and Facebook. The question is : what ails Indian Parliament as India is gearing up to celebratethe platinum jubilee of its independence in under three years?

It is, therefore, refreshing to hear Muppavarapu Venkaiah Naidu, the Vice-President, make a strong case for reforms to strengthen our parliamentary institutions ‘so as to enhance the trust of the people in them’. For the way forward, he has come up with a broad framework of reforms- a 15- point charter as he terms it - while delivering on 29 October, the first Arun Jaitley Memorial Lecture instituted by Delhi University. The Vice-President sees salvation from all political the ills afflicting the nation in simultaneous elections. While advising the government to be responsive to the Opposition, he wants the Opposition to be responsible and constructive while resorting to available parliamentary instruments.

Declining quality of debate on the floor of Parliament is not a new phenomenon. Renowned political thinker, W.H. Morris–Jones, has brought this issue into focusa long while ago. His seminal work was on the functioning of the first Lok Sabha. “Some MPs who recalled the days of old Central Assembly claimed that Members then worked much harder and prepared their facts and arguments more carefully than is now the case. This may well be true; many of the present Members lack the experience, education and intellectual capacity for intensive study of the kind that is desirable; and there is certainly little anxiety to achieve elegance and polish in speech,” he wrote.

Review of anti-defection law; relook at the whip system which is “stifling reasonable dissent even on nonconsequential matters”; problem of rising number of legislators with criminal background; special courts to quickly decide criminal complaints against legislators and pre and post legislative impact assessment are amongst other planks of his charter that reads like an editorial pontification.

Well, primarily, Naidu plan is a fervent call to rescue Parliament (state legislatures as well) from the pit of shouting shop into which it has fallen long before India had ushered in the coalition era. Naidu has cut his parliamentary teeth in the undivided Andhra Pradesh Assembly in the company of Puchalapalli Sundarayya, and S Jaipal Reddy.He has been a witness to the fall in the parliamentary standards, notwithstanding the reality check that it may be difficult to discount the view that he was never a part of the disorderly. Yet, Naidu deserves to be paid heed to in these days when “adjournment motions and interruptions betray political immaturity, exhibitionism, excessive fondness for the limelight and inadequate appreciation of the need to utilise the opportunity of serving the public interest.”

Declining quality of debate on the floor of Parliament is not a new phenomenon. Renowned political thinker, W.H. Morris–Jones, has brought this issue into focusa long while ago. His seminal work was on the functioning of the first Lok Sabha. “Some MPs who recalled the days of old Central Assembly claimed that Members then worked much harder and prepared their facts and arguments more carefully than is now the case. This may well be true; many of the present Members lack the experience, education and intellectual capacity for intensive study of the kind that is desirable; and there is certainly little anxiety to achieve elegance and polish in speech,” he wrote.

Over the years, Parliament has seen sartorial changes but has failed to prove Morris-Jones wrong. In fact, debate has become a hostage to disruptions, and Points of Order without a Point. The Presiding Officers have not helped matters with their tendency to adjourn the House at the slightest hint of trouble unlike the Hegdes and the Rabi Rays of yester years who used to throw the floor open on such occasions in what was a calibrated move to save the day for the treasury benches even while bringing smile to the Opposition faces.

Raj Narain Raj Narain appears to have become a role model today at least for some who are content with spirited interruptions. While the maverick socialist took pride on his feat – Walked in, Marshalled out (“I never walked out but was carried out on Marshals’ shoulders), his acolytes are saved the indignity largely because of the Presiding Officers’ reluctance to summon the marshals to lift and parcel out the noisy.
Disruptions (during 2014-2019, Rajya Sabha lost 40 per cent of its time while Lok Sabha lost 16 per cent of its time), declining number of sittings, growing number of law makers with criminal record, and high degree of absenteeism, are amongst a host of issues that have beset our legislatures.
Rising money and muscle power in elections and lack of inner democracy in functioning of the political parties are only compounding the problem, as Venkaiah Naidu rightly diagnosed the Indian Parliamentary malady.

While disruptions happen mostly because the Opposition wants to have its way, the fall in sittings is a direct result of the reluctance of the ruling party to face music on the floor of the House. We cannot single out any one party. Whether they are of the Right or Left or Left of Centre, all parties have demonstrated this trait while on the treasury benches. Victim is generally the Winter Session, which is convened mostly for a short period- End of November/first week of December to third week of December/first week of January.

During UPA- II, the winter sessions were a wash out with the BJP kicking up row after row over scams tumbling out of the ruling closet. The situation improved somewhat under Modi’s NDA; it had however set a record in 2017 with just 14 sittings - the shortest in 20-years. Vajpayee’s NDA fared a shade better by holding 15 sittings during 1999 winter session.

Constitution does not specify how many times Parliament must meet in a year; it only stipulates that the gap between sessions cannot be longer than six months. This is the reason for the practice of holding three sessions per year- Budget, Monsoon and Winter sessions. It is time to develop a healthy convention on scheduling of the sessions.

Manmohan Singh Now some number crunching. During UPA-1, the number of sittings was less than 20 in 2004, 2007 and 2008. For the UPA-II, the number of sittings during the winter session was 24 in 2009, 2010 and 2011. The year 2012 saw these numbers go down to less than 20. In terms of average, it works out to 19 during the first five years of UPA, and 23 during their second term. The Vajpayee era did not bring about much change; the number of sittings during the winter session was at least 20 in 2014, 2015 and 2016. The average for Vajpayee and Manmohan Sigh regimes works out to 21 sittings per session. The advent of the Modi era saw the average drop to 19 sittings per session.
As of now, it is the privilege of the ruling party to fix the dates. The Cabinet Committee on Parliamentary Affairs does the job with the Prime Minister in the loop. There is no obligation to consult the Opposition though, in the past, the main Opposition party used to be sounded out. For a healthy democracy, it is essential to institutionalise this consultation. Also to announce the calendar of Parliament sessions at the beginning of the year itself.

Derek O'Brien Already, the Trinamul Congress is batting for this change. “I don't know why the government is so cagey about dates. It may be a good idea to make a parliament calendar at the start of the year, so the dates become sacrosanct,” avers Derek O'Brien, the TMC floor leader in the Upper House. In Parliamentary politics, floor coordination is what matters. Neither the ruling party nor theOpposition can afford to practise the politics of untouchability.
Productivity of Parliament is directly related to the actual hours of sitting. During the 2018 winter session, for instance, the Lok Sabha worked for 46 per cent of its scheduled time, while Rajya Sabha worked for 26 per cent. All because of disruptions and protests on issues that ranged from the Rafale deal to the Cauvery dispute. Unlike during Manmohan Singh regime, these days the proportion of time spent on legislation has been increasing, which is welcome.

The current Lok Sabha has seen more Bills being introduced and passed in the same session as compared to the previous two Lok Sabhas. The flip side is what the Opposition dubs as short shrift to Parliament - bills rushed through without referring them to the subject-specialist Standing Committees.

From what is in public domain, fewer Bills are being referred to Committees these days. Attendance at the committee meetings is also disappointing. On its part, the government is not known to factor in their recommendations.Simply put, the very purpose of these committees is defeated. The subject standing committees is a Rao legacy, just like the MPLADs scheme.

P V Narasimha Rao L K Advani P V Narasimha Rao agreed to the two proposals which came from the BJP leader L K Advani who was concerned over the declining number of sittings of Parliament from over 100 per year in the 50s and 60s to 60 to 70 days per year in the 90s. These Committees meet for about 30 days in a year taking up bipartisan discussions on bills and demands for grants besides selected subjects.
Two related issues deserves great attention- one is lapsing of bills when the Lok Sabha is dissolved/ term ends; two long pendency of bills in the Rajya Sabha. One bill remained on the backburner of Upper House for more than 32 years. It was cleared this year.

A Bill introduced in the Lok Sabha will lapse at the end of its term if it is pending passage in either House, according to Art 107 of the Constitution. Likewise, a bill introduced in and passed by the Rajya Sabha will also lapse if it remains pending in the Lok Sabha at the end of its term. A bill originated and passed by the Lok Sabha but pending in the Rajya Sabha also lapses.

As many as 22 bills lapsed at the end of 16th Lok Sabha though they were approved by the House. Aadhaar and Other Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2019, Triple Talaq Bill, Trafficking of Persons (Prevention, Protection and Rehabilitation) Bill, and The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill were amongst these unlucky lot. All of them could not get the nod of the Upper House before the curtains came down. Result: the new Lok Sabha will have to take up these very bills afresh. A waste of public money and precious time of Parliament.What is the remedy? A relook at these very provisions.

As many as 22 bills lapsed at the end of 16thLok Sabha though they were approved by the House. Aadhaar and Other Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2019, Triple Talaq Bill, Trafficking of Persons (Prevention, Protection and Rehabilitation) Bill, and The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill were amongst these unlucky lot. All of them could not get the nod of the Upper House before the curtains came down. Result: the new Lok Sabha will have to take up these very bills afresh. A waste of public money and precious time of Parliament.What is the remedy? A relook at these very provisions.

Venkaiah Naidu To Venkaiah Naidu, who is also RS Chairman, goes the credit of highlighting the twin phenomenon. He did so on the first full working day of the 249th session of the Rajya Sabha on 21 June, 2019. And called for a wider debate, a rethink and consensus.
For long-pending bills in the Upper House itself, Naidu’s remedy is simple, and straight. Since the Rajya Sabha is a permanent House, Bills introduced there do not lapse, and remain pending till cleared. “Such bills should automatically lapse” if the Rajya Sabha fails to clear them within five years.
“The Upper House now has 33 bills pending. Three are pending for more than 20 years. Six are pending for 10 to 20 years. Fourteen are pending for five to 10 years and the rest are pending for up to 5 years,” he said.

“As all of you would appreciate, it takes considerable time and energy to get a Bill passed in either House of Parliament. Given the implications for the functioning of Parliament and the impact of Bills getting lapsed on the much desired transformation of our country, there is a need to rethink the provision regarding the lapsing of Bills in the Upper House of Parliament,” Venkaiah Naidu told the elders.

Undoubtedly, a new political consciousness is the need of the day to revive and reinvent Parliament as a forum for articulation of people’s concerns and aspirations, as the floor to make the executive accountable for all its omissions and commissions steeped in bravado, and as the chosen vehicle to improve the quality of politics and governance in the country.

Edmund Burke Also, to impress our national lawmakers with Edmund Burke dictum – “Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different hostile interests buta deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where not local purposes, and local prejudices ought to guide but the general good, resulting from the general reason for the whole”.