Context: The Private members’ face challenges in advancing legislation in the Parliament, including limited parliamentary timeallocated for such bills and prioritisation of public bills.
As per the latest data, during the five-year term of the 17th Lok Sabha (that ended in 2024), mere 9.08 hours were spent on Private Members’ Bills, while the Rajya Sabha spent just 27 hours on them during the period.
Relevance of the Topic: Prelims: Key facts about private bills; Difference between private bill and public bill.
About Private Member Bill
Bills introduced in the Parliament are of two kinds: Public bills and Private bills.
Public Bill is the bill that is introduced by a Minister.
Private Bill is a legislative proposal that is initiated by an individual Member of the Parliament, who is not a Minister.
Though both bills are governed by the same general procedure and pass through the same stages in the House, they differ in various respects.
Public Bill
Private Bill
It is introduced in the Parliament by a minister.
It is introduced by any member of Parliament other than a minister.
It reflects the policies of the government (ruling party).
It reflects the stand of the opposition party on public matters.
It has a greater chance of being approved by the Parliament.
It has a lesser chance to be approved by the Parliament. E.g., As of 2024, only 14 Private bills have been successfully enacted into law, since independence.
Its rejection by the House amounts to the expression of want of parliamentary confidence in the government and may lead to its resignation.
Its rejection by the House has no implication on the parliamentary confidence in the government or its resignation.
Its introduction in the House requires seven days’ notice.
Its introduction in the House requires one month’s notice.
It is drafted by the concerned department in consultation with the law department.
Its drafting is the responsibility of the member concerned.
draw attention to issues not represented in Government Bills.
highlight gaps in the existing legal framework requiring legislative intervention.
The bills are the only instruments available for MPs’ individual expressionwithout being bound by their party’s diktat.
Key Facts:
A private member can bring bills on Constitutional Amendments. A private member cannot initiate a Money Bill.
Muslim Wakf Bill, 1952 was the first private member bill to be passed in Parliament.
No Private Members’ Bill has been passed by Parliament since 1970.
Way Forward
Dedicated hours for PMBs to enable meaningful debate and potential adoption of the PMB. Amendments can be made to the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business to explicitly protect this time from being overridden, except in cases of a national emergency.
Institution of Review Committee specifically for PMBs which is responsible for screening Bills for quality, relevance, and constitutionality.
Fast-track mechanism can be introduced for high-impact or broadly supported Bills to reach the floor in a time-bound manner.
Adopting global practices on PMBs: Ten-Minute Rule of the U.K. Parliament — any MP can make a short speech of up to 10 minutes in support of a PMB along with its introduction, after which another MP may oppose it for an equal length of time. This allows Bills to be introduced, heard, and recorded without long time slots.
Private member bills can create a channel for a greater number of legislative ideas to enter the public domain. Hence, emphasis should be laid on the role of private members' business in deepening democracy.
Context: Prolonged vacancy of the Deputy Speaker’s office during the 17th and 18th Lok Sabha represents a serious constitutional anomaly. It poses a threat to the resilience and procedural integrity of India's legislative democracy.
Relevance of the topic:
Prelims: Key facts related to the office of Deputy Speaker.
Mains: Relevance of Deputy Speaker in parliamentary democracy.
Office of the Deputy Speaker
Article 93 of Indian Constitution provides for the office of Speaker & Deputy Speaker in the Lok Sabha.
The Deputy Speaker’s role is not optional. The Constitution places this office on an equal footing with the Speaker in terms of its necessity to the parliamentary structure.
The Office of Deputy Speaker is not merely a ceremonial seat. It is a constitutional imperative designed to ensure the continuity, stability, and procedural integrity of the Lok Sabha.
However, the prolonged vacancy of this office during the 17th Lok Sabha (2019–2024) and continuing into the 18th Lok Sabha represents a serious constitutional anomaly, undermining the spirit of parliamentary democracy.
Historical Evolution of the Office of Deputy Speaker:
The institutions of Speaker and Deputy Speaker originated in India in 1921 under the provisions of the Government of India Act of 1919 (Montague-Chelmsford Reforms).
At that time, the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker were called the President and Deputy President respectively. Sachidanand Sinha was appointed as the first Deputy President in 1921.
By the time India achieved independence in 1947, the Deputy Speaker had already become an institutional fixture in legislative governance. During the sessions of the Constituent Assembly (Legislative), a conscious decision was made to continue the office, recognising its importance even before the formal adoption of the Constitution.
M.A. Ayyangarbecame the first elected Deputy Speaker of the First Lok Sabha post-independence. Following the death of Speaker G.V. Mavalankar in 1956, M.A. Ayyangar served as the Acting Speaker, demonstrating the Deputy Speaker’s critical role as a constitutional safeguard for leadership continuity.
Relevance of Deputy Speaker in Parliament
Ensuring Procedural Continuity: As articulated by constitutional expert S.C. Kashyap, the Speaker cannot preside over all sittings continuously. The Deputy Speaker, therefore, acts as a vital constitutional functionary, stepping in to ensure the uninterrupted conduct of parliamentary proceedings.
Beyond Procedural Backup: The Deputy Speaker’s role is not limited to substituting the Speaker; they are empowered to chair significant sessions, preside over select parliamentary committees, and oversee sensitive debates requiring procedural neutrality.
Symbol of Bipartisan Norms: A well-established parliamentary convention — though non-binding — is to offer the Deputy Speakership to the Opposition, reinforcing institutional balance and cross-party cooperation.
Strengthening Non-partisan Ethos: The tradition of an Opposition Deputy Speaker reinforces the non-partisan character of the Speaker's office. This promotes consensus-based functioning and upholds the neutral character of the presiding authority.
Institutional Safeguard Against Centralisation of Power: A functional Deputy Speaker acts as a procedural counterweight within the House, ensuring that presiding authority does not get overly centralised in the Speaker alone, thereby maintaining democratic checks within the legislature.
Growing Constitutional Vacuum:
Despite its clear constitutional basis and historic continuity, the vacancy of Deputy Speaker’s post marks a clear constitutional lapse, not just a procedural delay. Never before in India’s parliamentary history has the office remained vacant for such extended periods of time.
Article 93clearly states: “The House of the People shall, as soon as may be, choose two members of the House to be respectively Speaker and Deputy Speaker....” The phrasing “as soon as may be” implies urgency, and not discretion.
The delay raises fundamental questions about adherence to constitutional mandates and respect for parliamentary norms.
Impact of Vacant Deputy Speaker's Post
Erosion of institutional safeguards: Article 94 provides that the Deputy Speaker holds office until resignation, removal, or disqualification as a Member of Parliament, underscoring the constitutional mandate for an uninterrupted second-in-command to uphold continuity, stability, and institutional balance in Lok Sabha. The delay undermines institutional safeguards established by the Constitution.
Centralise procedural powers: It centralises procedural power solely within the Speaker and the ruling party, eliminating a vital counterbalance.
Risk of leadership vacuum in Emergencies: In cases like the Speaker’s resignation, death, or removal, the lack of a Deputy Speaker could lead to confusion or a temporary leadership vacuum in the House.
Disregard for Parliamentary Conventions: The ongoing delay also signals a broader disregard for parliamentary conventions, particularly the unwritten rule of offering the post to the Opposition, which historically promoted inclusivity and moderation.
Sidelining consensus politics: The vacancy reflects an active sidelining of consensus politics, limiting the role of the Opposition and undermining deliberative democracy.
Contradiction of democratic ethos: The argument that there is “no urgency” to appoint a Deputy Speaker runs counter to the entire ethos of constitutional democracy.
Restoring balance: Reviving the practice of appointing a Deputy Speaker from the Opposition is essential to rebuild institutional credibility and inject balance into legislative proceedings in an era of increasing political polarisation.
Need for Legislative Reforms:
Time-Bound Election: Set a mandatory time frame for electing the Deputy Speaker. A specific deadline, for instance, within 60 days of the first sitting of the new Lok Sabha could close this loophole of delay and warrant compliance
Statutory Empowerment for Executive Action: Introduce legislation enabling the President to initiate the election process upon the advice of the Prime Minister or the Speaker, ensuring institutional accountability for delays.
It is time for Parliament to reaffirm its respect for constitutional norms and institutional integrity. Electing a Deputy Speaker is not just a formality, it is a test of the House’s commitment to rule-based governance. India’s Parliament must not fail this test any longer.
Context: Supreme Court in the Sita Soren vs Union of India judgement has overruled its 1998 judgement in P V Narsimha Rao Vs State (CBI/SPE) which granted immunity to the legislators in context of votes made in parliament and legislative assemblies.
Background of the Issue (P V Narsimha vs State (CBI/SPE) Case)
Article 105(2) of the Constitution of India grants immunity to Members of Parliament (‘MPs’) against prosecution in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee. Article 194(2) of the Constitution grants similar immunity to the members of Legislative Assembly.
PV Narsimha Rao case, Constitution Bench of 5 judges upheld the above immunity to the MPs as per Article 105(2) which included the speech or vote made in furtherance of receiving illegal gratification or bribe.
Privileges provided by the Constitution of India:
In context of Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament and its Members, Article 105(2) reads:
No member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of either House of Parliament of any report, paper, votes, or proceedings.
In context of Powers, Privileges and Immunities of State Legislatures and their Members, Article 194(2) reads:
No member of the Legislature of a State shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in the Legislature or any committee thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of a House of such a Legislature of any report, paper, votes, or proceedings.
Observations in Sita Soren vs Union of India
Nature of Privileges in India:
Privileges not absolute: Unlike the House of Commons in the UK, India does not have ‘ancient and undoubted’ privileges which were vested after a struggle between Parliament and the King. Privileges in pre-independence India were governed by statute in the face of a reluctant colonial government. The statutory privilege transitioned to a constitutional privilege after the commencement of the Constitution.
Individual Member's Claim of Privilege: An individual member of the legislature cannot claim privilege to seek immunity from prosecution under Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution for charges of bribery related to their votes or speeches in the legislature.
Such claim of immunity fails to meet the twofold test which involves examining whether such action is (1) connected to the collective functioning of the legislative house and (2) the action has a functional relationship "to the discharge of the essential duties of a legislator."
Purpose of Articles 105 and 194: Articles 105 and 194 aim to create an environment conducive to debate and deliberation within the legislature.
This purpose gets undermined when a member is influenced to vote or speak in a particular manner due to bribery.
Interpretation of Expressions: The expressions "anything" and "any" in Articles 105(2) and 194(2) must be interpreted in the context of the accompanying expressions.
The phrase "in respect of" means 'arising out of' or 'bearing a clear relation to' and cannot be construed to include anything remotely connected to the speech or vote given by a legislator.
Bribe as a crime:
Bribery and Immunity under Articles 105(2) and 194: Bribery is not immune under Article 105(2) and its corresponding provision in Article 194 because it constitutes a crime that is not essential to the casting of a vote or the ability to decide how a vote should be cast.
The same principle applies to bribery in connection with a speech in the House or a Committee.
Corruption and bribery by members of the legislatures undermine probity in public life.
Misuse and Immunity:
The potential for misuse against individual members of the legislature is neither increased nor decreased by recognizing the court's jurisdiction to prosecute a legislator alleged to have engaged in bribery.
Completion of Bribery Offense: The offense of bribery is completed at the moment when the legislator accepts the bribe, regardless of whether the agreed action is performed or not.
The majority interpretation in the PV Narasimha Rao case created a paradox. While accepting a bribe and voting as promised granted immunity, whereas voting independently or contrary led to prosecution. This situation has been corrected by the present case.
Conclusion:
By committing an act of bribery, the immunity of speech or action without fear or favour is taken away when a member votes in a certain way not because of their belief or position on an issue but because of a bribe taken by the member.
Corruption and bribery of members of the legislature erode the foundation of Indian Parliamentary democracy. It is destructive of the aspirational and deliberative ideals of the Constitution and creates a polity which deprives citizens of a responsible, responsive, and representative democracy.
Context:SC stays Lok Sabha privileges panel proceedings on West Bengal BJP MP’s ‘injury complaint’.
Parliamentary privileges
Each House of Parliament and its Committees collectively and members of each House individually enjoy certain rights, privileges and immunities without which they cannot perform their functions efficiently and effectively.
The object of parliamentary privilege is to safeguard the freedom, the authority and the dignity of Parliament.
They are enjoyed by individual members, because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its members and by each House collectively for the protection of its members and the vindication of its own authority and dignity.
The Constitution has also extended the parliamentary privileges to those persons who are entitled to speak and take part in the proceedings of the house i.e. attorney general of India and Union Ministers.
Collective Privileges
Individual privileges
Enjoyed by each house of the parliament collectively
Enjoyed by the members of each house individually
Right to publish its reports, debates and proceedings
MPs cannot be arrested during the session of Parliament and 40 days before the beginning and 40 days after the end of a session.
Exclude strangers from its proceeding for secret sittings
Freedom of speech in parliament (article 105) and freedom of speech in state assembly (article 194).
Make rules to regulate its own procedure and conduct of business
Exempted from jury service, can refuse to give evidence, and appear as a witness in a case pending in a court when parliament is in session
Punish members as well as outsiders for breach of its privileges or its contempt
Right to receive immediate information of the arrest, detention, conviction, imprisonment, and release of a member
Institute inquiries and order the attendance of witnesses
Courts are prohibited to inquire into the proceedings of a house or its committees
No legal process can be served within the precincts of the House without the permission of the presiding officer
Committee of Privileges
Examines the cases of breach of privileges of the house and its members and recommend appropriate action.
Members: 15 members in Lok Sabha and 10 members in Rajya Sabha respectively.
The speaker refers the issue of disqualification under the anti-defection rules to this committee for enquiry.
can summon relevant individuals for examination and study pertinent documents.
After reviewing the incidents or cases brought before it, the Parliament Privileges Committee makes recommendations "as it may deem fit”.
The privilege committee of the Rajya Sabha is chaired by the Deputy Chairperson but in Lok Sabha, there is no such rule.
Context: A 5-judge Constitution Bench, presided by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, has referred the matter of Sita Soren Case to a larger 7-judge Bench that will assess the interpretation of Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Indian Constitution.
Sita Soren Case
She was accused of accepting a bribe to vote for an independent candidate in the 2012 Rajya Sabha elections.
Sita Soren, an MLA, allegedly took bribe to vote for one candidate but voted for another.
A case was subsequently filed against Sita and the Jharkhand High Court in 2014 ruled that she is not immune from prosecution.
She challenged the case in the Supreme Court and the matter came before a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court.
In 2019, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court referred the matter to a five-judge bench.
Now, in 2023, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has referred the case to a larger bench that would finally re-examine whether lawmakers are immune from prosecution if they take bribe to cast a vote.
P V Narasimha Rao v. State (1998)
Historical Context
The 10th Lok Sabha election, which was held in the year 1991, the congress party formed the government with P.V. Narasimha Rao as Prime Minister.
In July 1993 a ‘No Confidence Motion’ was moved against the existing government of P.V. Narasimha Rao.
The party somehow managed to defeat the motion with 251 members voting in favor of the motion and 265 voting against the motion.
After the motion got defeated the party once again came into power.
But a person filed a complaint with the CBI wherein it was alleged that some members of parliament were bribed during the no-confidence motion in Lok Sabha.
The CBI, based on information received, registered a complaint under Section 13(2), Section 13(1) (d) (iii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) against some members.
A criminal prosecution was launched against the bribe-taking and bribes giving members of the Parliament under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
Issues raised in P V Narasimha Rao Case
Whether by virtue of Article 105 of the Constitution, a Member of Parliament can claim immunity from prosecution on a charge of bribery in a criminal court.
Whether a Member of Parliament is a "public servant" falling within the purview of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1986.
Judgement of Supreme Court in P V Narasimha Rao v. State (1998)
The majority of the Supreme Court held that MPs have immunity under Article 105(2), protecting them from criminal prosecution for actions taken within the parliamentary context.
The Court held that the members are immune from any kind of proceedings against them in respect of any vote in the parliament.
The Court would have no jurisdiction to put any criminal liability on the accused persons as whatever allegedly happened was in respect of votes given by some of them in the Lok Sabha touched the privileges of the House within the meaning of clauses (2) and (3) of Article 195 of the Constitution.
Members of Lok Sabha hold no office and as such are not public servants within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the PCA and for that reason the PCA would not apply to the alleged acts of omission and commission of the accused persons.
Even if it be taken that Members of Lok Sabha do fall within Section 2(c) of PCA and are thus taken to be public servants, yet the Act would not apply for the simple reason that in the case of Lok Sabha Members there is no authority competent to remove them from their office within the meaning of Section 19(1)(c) of PCA.
Context: Women's Reservation Bill was introduced in the Parliament for providing 33% reservation of women in Lok Sabha and State Assemblies.
What is Women Reservation Bill ?
The Women’s Reservation Bill proposes to reserve 33% of seats in the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies for women.
Features:
The allocation of reserved seats shall be determined by such authority as prescribed by Parliament.
One third of the total number of seats reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes shall be reserved for women of those groups in the Lok Sabha and the legislative assemblies.
Reserved seats may be allotted by rotation to different constituencies in the state or union territory.
Time line
For the first time in 1996 ,it was introduced in the Lok Sabha as the 81st Amendment Bill by the then Deve Gowda led United front government . Bill failed to get approval in the house and was referred to a joint parliamentary committee. JPC submitted its report, however bill lapsed with the dissolution of the Lok Sabha.
In 1998 , the bill was again introduced by the Atal Bihari Vajpayee led NDA government, but in absence of required support it again lapsed.
The Bill was subsequently reintroduced in 1999, 2002 and 2003, but failed to pass due to lack of majority.
In 2008, bill was again introduced as 108th constitution Amendment Bill. It was passed in Rajya Sabha but eventually lapsed after dissolution of the 15th Lok sabha.
Despite the promises made in election manifesto of 2014 as well as 2019 , there is no development in this regard as such.
How many women are in Parliament?
About 14% of the members in Indian Parliament are women, the highest so far. According to the Inter Parliamentary Union, India has a fewer percentage of women in the lower House than its neighbours such as Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh — a dismal record.
Arguments in favour of the Bill
Affirmative action is imperative to better the condition of women since our society in general and political parties in particular are inherently patriarchal.
Despite the belief of the constituent assembly that every section would be represented proportionally, women are still under represented in Parliament.
Reservation to women would ensure a strong lobby arguing for issues that are being conveniently ignored.
Reservation at panchayat level have shown positive results, despite being termed as rubber stamp (*in some cases) , women’s are more likely to invest in goods which are crucial for women and children.
The prevalent social tribulations like crime against women, skewed sex ratio, low LFPR and poor health indices require more women in the roles of policy and decision making.
Arguments against the Bill
Opponents argue that it would perpetuate the unequal status of women since they would not be perceived to be competing on merit.
They also contend that this policy diverts attention from the larger issues of electoral reform such as criminalisation of politics and inner party democracy.
Reservation of seats in Parliament restricts choice of voters to women candidates.
Rotation of reserved constituencies in every election may reduce the incentive for an MP to work for his constituency as he may be ineligible to seek re-election from that constituency.
Women’s interests cannot be isolated from other social, economic and political strata.
To Conclude
To start with, some proponent suggest that reservation should be provided for women in political parties.
Some has also suggested to have dual member constituencies (where constituencies will have two MPs, one of them being a woman).
Until and unless women are not a part of the policy making process, they cannot raise their voice for fellow women. This would result in a vicious cycle with this debate continuing for centuries. So, this is high time to finish this visible and unsaid inequality. Democracy cannot live a long life in an unequal society.
Context: Speaker of Lok Sabha Om Birla writes about the Function of Parliament, Responsibilities of Member of Parliament and increasing Role of Technology in a democracy.
Parliament of India
India's democratic legacy can be traced back to ancient times, with references to institutions that facilitated deliberation and debate. This deep-rooted democratic ethos has persisted through history. Which reflection can be seen in Parliament.
Indian Parliament is the supreme legislative body of India.
It comprises of the President and the two Houses - Rajya Sabha (Council of States) and Lok Sabha (House of the People).
The President has the power to summon and prorogue either House of Parliament or to dissolve Lok Sabha.
Functions of Parliament
Legislative Function: The primary function of Parliament is to make laws for the effective governance of the country.
It can enact laws on subjects listed in the Union List and Concurrent List.
Additionally, it can legislate on State List subjects under specific circumstances, as outlined in the Constitution.
Executive Function: Parliament exercises oversight over the executive branch of the government through mechanisms like question hour, zero hours, and various committees.
It can also express a lack of confidence in the government through specific parliamentary procedures e.g., non-confidence motion, refusing motion of thanks.
Financial Function: It reviews and approves the budget, ensuring that government funds are allocated for approved purposes.
No fund can be taken out of the consolidated fund of India without its approval.
Constitutional Amendment: Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, subject to basic structure doctrine.
Constitutional amendments can be made through different procedures under Article 368 of the Constitution.
Judicial Function: The Parliament has a role in the judicial process, including the power to impeach the President, remove the Vice-President, and recommend the removal of judges, Chief Election Commissioner, and Comptroller and Auditor General for violations of constitutional norms.
Electoral Function: Parliament participates in the election of the President and Vice President of India. The Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha also elect their respective speakers and deputy speakers.
Emergency Powers: The Parliament approves all three types of emergencies (National Emergency, State Emergency, and Financial Emergency) declared by the President of India.
Administrative Function: Parliament has authority over various administrative matters, such as creating or dissolving state legislative councils, altering state boundaries, and regulating the jurisdiction and organization of the High Courts and Supreme Court.
Information Gathering: Parliament serves as a reliable source of information about the government's performance and actions. Ministers are obligated to provide information when requested by members.
Promoting Diversity and Inclusion: Parliament respects and promotes diversity in all its dimensions and is committed to reaching out to weaker sections of society. It strives to make society more inclusive and fairer through legislation and debates.
Parliamentary Committees:Parliamentary committees complement the work of Parliament by scrutinizing bills, budgetary proposals, and government ministries in detail. They play a crucial role in oversight and ensuring the efficiency of government operations.
Role of Member of Parliament (MP)
Legal Obligation: MPs in India seek endorsement every 5 years for their plans and programs from their constituents through free, fair, and open elections. This underscores the democratic principle that MPs derive their authority from the people theyrepresent.
Constitutional and Moral Authority: MPs are bestowed with both constitutional and moral authority. They have the authority to enact laws, set political goals, allocate resources, and hold the executive accountable for its actions.
Voice of the Common Citizens: MPs serve as the voice of the common citizens, bridging the gap between the government and the people.
They are responsible for bringing the concerns, issues, and difficulties of their constituents to the attention of the government and the nation.
Executive Accountability: MPs play a crucial role in securing accountability of the executive branch of government.
They have instruments at their disposal, such as the Constitution, Rules of Procedure, and precedents, to hold the government accountable for its acts and decisions.
Parliamentary Privileges: The Constitution grants MPs certain rights, privileges, and immunities to enable them to discharge their responsibilities efficiently and effectively.
These privileges protect the autonomy, authority, and dignity of Parliament from interference by other branches of the state.
Responsibility to Uphold Dignity: MPs are morally bound to speak responsibly in Parliament and adhere to the highest parliamentary norms. Their dignified and decorous behavior is expected as they are looked upon as role models.
Respect for Democratic Values: MPs collectively contribute to creating a vibrant and living embodiment of the will of the people.
They respect and uphold constitutional values, the unity of the nation, and the common good while accommodating all shades of opinion.
Issues in the Functioning of Indian Parliament
Disruptions and Unruly Behavior: The disruptions have become increasingly common and have resulted in lower productivity of the House which hinders meaningful deliberation and debate on national issues.
Decline in Parliamentary Norms: Members are morally bound to speak responsibly, but there have been instances of frivolous, baseless, and defamatory allegations resulting in a decline in parliamentary norms.
Lack of Informed Debate: Disruptions have led to the passing of important legislation without detailed debates.
This means that critical issues may not receive the thorough discussion they deserve, which is essential for well-informed decision-making.
Obstructionism: While the right to question and dissent is integral to democracy, obstructionism has become a problem. Some members use disruption to express disapproval rather than engaging in informed debate, wit, and humor.
Use of technology in Parliament
Digital Sansad App: The Digital Sansad app has been developed and continuously improved to enhance communication and engagement between members of Parliament, legislative bodies, and citizens.
This app provides access to parliamentary proceedings, documents, and updates.
Social Media Presence: The Parliament of India has upgraded its social media coverage to effectively engage with the youth and the public. This includes sharing information, resources, and updates on social media platforms.
Green Building Norms: The new Parliament building incorporates top-rated green building norms and modern technology to reduce its carbon footprint and improve energy efficiency. This reflects a commitment to sustainability and environmental consciousness.
Efficiency Enhancement: The integration of technology is aimed at enhancing the efficiency of parliamentary processes, including document management, communication, and access to information.
Connectivity: The use of technology helps connect members of Parliament, legislative bodies, and citizens more effectively, enabling better communication, transparency, and awareness of parliamentary activities.
Remote Participation: Technology may enable remote participation in parliamentary sessions and committee meetings, allowing members to engage in their duties even when not physically present in Parliament.
Transparency and Accountability: The use of technology can enhance transparency in parliamentary proceedings, making it easier for citizens to monitor the actions and decisions of their representatives.
Constitutional and Legal Compliance: The integration of technology likely adheres to constitutional and legal requirements to ensure the proper functioning of the Parliament.
Way Forward
Restoring Pre-eminence of Parliament: MPs should not miss the opportunities to demand answers from the government and to raise important constituency-related issues rather than causing disruption.
Need for Technological Integration: The 21st century demands that Parliament embrace technology to enhance efficiency, transparency, and accessibility. While efforts have been made to introduce information technology, there is still room for improvement in fully harnessing technology's potential.
E-Sansad: The Parliament of India should move towards becoming a "e-Sansad," signifying its commitment to utilising technology for more effective governance and communication.
Despite the challenges, the Indian Parliament is described as a vibrant and living embodiment of the will of the people. It has successfully navigated various discordant notes and upheld constitutional values, national interest, unity, and the common good.
Context: Rajya Sabha Chairman referred complaints related to the privilege of the House to the privileges committee.
“Privilege and Immunity” Under Constitution
In part V of the Constitution under the title “Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament and its Members” constitution define the following:
Article 105: Powers, privileges, etc., of the Houses of Parliament and of the members and committees thereof:
Subject to the provisions of this Constitution and to the rules and standing orders regulating the procedure of Parliament, there shall be freedom of speech in Parliament.
No member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of either House of Parliament of any report, paper, votes or proceedings.
In other respects, the powers, privileges and immunities of each House of Parliament, and of the members and the committees of each House, shall be such as may from time to time be defined by Parliament by law, and, until so defined, shall be those of that House and of its members and committees immediately before the coming into force of section 15 of the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978.
The provisions of clauses (1), (2) and (3) shall apply in relation to persons who by virtue of this Constitution have the right to speak in, and otherwise to take part in the proceedings of, a House of Parliament or any committee thereof as they apply in relation to members of Parliament.
In part VI of the Constitution under the title “Powers, Privileges and Immunities of State Legislatures and its Members” constitution define the following:
Art 194: Powers, privileges, etc., of the Houses of Legislatures and of the members and committees thereof:
Subject to the provisions of this Constitution and to the rules and standing orders regulating the procedure of the Legislature, there shall be freedom of speech in the Legislature of every State.
No member of the Legislature of a State shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in the Legislature or any committee thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of a House of such a Legislature of any report, paper, votes or proceedings.
In other respects, the powers, privileges and immunities of a House of the Legislature of a State, and of the members and the committees of a House of such Legislature, shall be such as may from time to time be defined by the Legislature by law, and, until so defined, shall be those of that House and of its members and committees immediately before the coming into force of section 26 of the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978.
The provisions of clauses (1), (2) and (3) shall apply in relation to persons who by virtue of this Constitution have the right to speak in, and otherwise to take part in the proceedings of, a House of the Legislature of a State or any committee thereof as they apply in relation to members of that Legislature.
Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha
Under the above rules in Chapter XX named “Privileges” Lok Sabha deals with the “Questions of Privileges”
Rule 222: Consent of the speaker
A member may, with the consent of the Speaker, raise a question involving a breach of privilege either of a member or of the House or of a committee thereof.
Rule 223: Notice of question of privileges
A member wishing to raise a question of privilege shall give notice in writingto the Secretary-General on the day the question is proposed to be raised. If the question raised is based on a document, the notice shall be accompanied by the document.
Rule 224: Admissibility of questions of Privileges
The right to raise a question of privilege shall be governed by the following conditions, namely
Not more than one question shall be raised at the same sitting.
The question shall be restricted to a specific matter of recent occurrence.
The matter requires the intervention of the House.
Rule 225: Mode of raising questions of privilege
The Speaker, if gives consent under rule 222 and holds that the matter proposed to be discussed is in order, shall call the member concerned, who shall rise in one’s own place and, while asking for leave to raise the question of privilege, make a short statement relevant thereto.
Where the Speaker has refused to give consent under rule 222 or is of opinion that the matter proposed to be discussed is not in order,the Speaker, if thinks necessary, may read the notice of question of privilege and state that the consent is refused or the notice of question of privilege is not in order: Provided further that the Speaker may, on being satisfied about the urgency of the matter, allow a question of privilege to be raised at any time during the course of a sitting after the disposal of questions.
If objection to leave being granted is taken, the Speaker shall request those members who are in favour of leave being granted to rise in their places, and if not less than twenty-five members rise accordingly, the Speaker shall declare that leave is granted. If less than twenty-five members rise, the Speaker shall inform the member that such member has not the leave of the House.
Rule 226: Questions of privilege to be considered by House or Committee.
If leave under rule 225 is granted, the House may consider the question and come to a decision or refer it to a Committee of Privileges on a motion made either by the member who has raised the question of privilege or by any other member.
Rule 227: Reference of questions of privilege to Committee by Speaker
Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the Speaker may refer any question of privilege to the Committee of Privileges for examination, investigation or report.
Rule 228: Power of Speaker to give directions
The Speaker may issue such directions as may be necessary for regulating the procedure in connection with all matters connected with the consideration of the question of privilege either in the Committee of Privileges or in the House.
Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Rajya Sabha
Under these rules in Chapter XVI Rajya Sabha deals with the “Questions of Privileges”
Rule 187: Question of Privileges
Subject to the provisions of these rules, a member may, with the consent of the Chairman, raise a question involving a breach of privilege either of a member or of the Council or of a committee thereof.
Rule 188: Notice
A member wishing to raise a question of privilege shall give notice in writing to the Secretary-General, before the commencement of the sitting on the day the question is proposed to be raised. If the question proposed to be raised is based on a document, the notice shall be accompanied by the document.
Rule 189: Conditions of admissibility
The e shall be governed by the following conditions, namely:
The question shall be restricted to a specific matter of recent occurrence.
The matter requires the intervention of the Council.
Rule 190: Mode of raising a question on privileges
The Chairman, if he gives consent under rule 187 and holds that the matter proposed to be discussed is in order, shall, after the questions and before the list of business is entered upon, call the member concerned, who shall rise in his place and while asking for leave to raise the question of privilege make a short statement relevant thereto.
Where the Chairman has refused his consent under rule 187 or is of opinion that the matter proposed to be discussed is not in order, he may, if he thinks it necessary, read the notice of question of privilege and state that he refuses consent or holds that the notice of question of privilege is not in order: Provided further that the Chairman may, if he is satisfied about the urgency of the matter, allow a question of privilege to be raised at any time during the course of a sitting after the disposal of questions.
If objection to leave being granted is taken, the Chairman shall request those members, who are in favour of leave being granted to rise in their places and if not less than twenty-five members rise accordingly, the Chairman shall intimate that leave is granted. If less than twenty-five members rise the Chairman shall inform the member that he has not the leave of the Council.
Rule 191: Reference to committee of privileges
If leave under rule 190 is granted, the Council may consider the question and come to a decision or refer it to the Committee of Privileges on a motion made either by the member who has raised the question of privilege or by any other member.
Rule 192: constitution of committee of privileges
The Chairman shall, from time to time, nominate a Committee of Privileges consisting of ten members.
The Committee nominated under sub-rule (1) shall hold office until a new Committee is nominated.
Casual vacancies in the Committee shall be filled by the Chairman.
Rule 193: Chairman of Committee
The Chairman of the Committee shall be appointed by the Chairman from amongst the members of the Committee.
If the Chairman of the Committee is for any reason unable to act, the Chairman may similarly appoint another Chairman of the Committee in his place.
If the Chairman of the Committee is absent from any meeting, the Committee shall choose another member to act as Chairman of the Committee for that meeting.
Rule 194: Quorum
The quorum of the Committee shall be five.
Rule 195: Examination of the question
The Committee shall examine every question referred to it and determine with reference to the facts of each case whether a breach of privilege is involved and, if so, the nature of the breach, the circumstances leading to it and make such recommendations as it may deem fit.
Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (1) of this rule, the report may also state the procedure to be followed by the Council in giving effect to the recommendations made by the Committee.
Rule 196: Power to take evidence or call for papers, records or documents
The Committee of Privileges shall have power to require the attendance of persons or the production of papers or records, if such a course is considered necessary for the discharge of its duties:
Provided that if any question arises whether the evidence of a person or the production of a document is relevant for the purposes of the Committee, the question shall be referred to the Chairman, whose decision shall be final:
Provided further that Government may decline to produce a document on the ground that its disclosure would be prejudicial to the safety or interest of the State.
Subject to the provisions of this rule, a witness may be summoned by an order signed by the Secretary-General, and shall produce such documents as are required for the use of the Committee.
It shall be in the discretion of the Committee to treat any evidence tendered before it as secret or confidential.
Rule 197: Sitting of the Committee
As soon as may be, after a question of privilege has been referred to the Committee of Privileges, the Committee shall meet from time to time and shall make a report within the time fixed by the Council:
Provided that where the Council has not fixed any time for the presentation of the report, the report shall be presented within one month of the date on which reference to the Committee was made:
Provided further that the Council may at any time, on a motion being made, direct that the time for the presentation of the report by the Committee be extended, to a date specified in the motion.
Reports may be either preliminary or final.
The report shall be signed by the Chairman of the Committee on behalf of the Committee:
Provided that in case the Chairman of the Committee is absent or is not readily available, the Committee shall choose any other member to sign the report on behalf of the Committee.
Rule 198: Presentation of report
The report of the Committee of Privileges shall be presented to the Council by the Chairman of the Committee or in his absence by any member of the Committee.
Rule 199: Motion of consideration of report
As soon as may be, after the report has been presented, a motion in the name of the Chairman of the Committee or any member of the Committee may be put down that the report be taken into consideration.
Rule 200: Amendments to motion for consideration of report
Any member may give notice of amendment to the motion for consideration of the report referred to in rule 199 in such form as may be considered appropriate by the Chairman: Provided that an amendment may be moved that the question be re-committed to the Committee either without limitation or with reference to any particular matter.
Rule 201: Motion after consideration of report
After the motion for consideration of the report has been carried, the Chairman or any member of the Committee or any other member, as the case may be, may move that the Council agrees, or disagrees, or agrees with amendments, with the recommendations contained in the report.
Rule 202: Regulation of procedure
The Chairman may issue such directions as he may consider necessary for regulating the procedure in connection with all matters connected with the consideration of the question of privilege either in the Committee or in the Council.
Rule 203: Power of Chairman to refer a question of privilege to Committee
Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the Chairman may refer any question of privilege to the Committee of Privileges for examination, investigation and report.
Context: Rajya Sabha suspended some of its Member of Parliament (MP) under Rule 256.
Suspension of the Member from the Houses
Provisions for Suspension of a Member
Rule of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha
Rule 373: Withdrawal of a Member
Under this rule the Speaker, if is of the opinion that the conduct of any member is grossly disorderly, may direct such member to withdraw immediately from the House, and any member so ordered to withdraw shall do so forth with and shall remain absent during the remainder of the day’s sitting.
Rule 374: Suspension of the Member
The Speaker, may, if deems it necessary, name a member who disregards the authority of the Chair or abuses the rules of the Houseby persistently and wilfully obstructing the business thereof.
If a member is so named by the Speaker, the Speaker shall, on a motion being made forthwith put the question that the member (naming such member) be suspended from the service of the House for a period not exceeding the remainder of the session: Provided that the House may, at any time, on a motion being made, resolve that such suspension be terminated.
A member suspended under this rule shall forthwith withdraw from the precincts of the House.
Rule 374A: Automatic Suspension of a Member
This rule talks about the automatic suspension of a member:
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in rules 373 and 374, in the event of grave disorder occasioned by a member coming into the well of the House or abusing the Rules of the House persistently and wilfully obstructing its business by shouting slogans or otherwise, such member shall, on being named by the Speaker, stand automatically suspended from the service of the House for five consecutive sittings or the remainder of the session, whichever is less:
Provided that the House may, at any time, on a motion being made, resolve that such suspension be terminated.
(2) On the Speaker announcing the suspension under this rule, the member shall forthwith withdraw from the precincts of the House.
Suspension of Members in Rajya Sabha
Rule of Procedures and Conduct of Business in the Council of State (Rajya Sabha) provides for the suspension of the Rajya Sabha member under the following rules:
Rule of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Lok Sabha
Rule 256: Suspension of the Member
The Chairman may, if he deems it necessary, name a member who disregards the authority of the Chair or abuses the rules of the Council by persistently and willfully obstructing the business thereof.
If a member is so named by the Chairman he shall forthwith put the question on a motion being made, no amendment, adjournment or debate being allowed, that the member (naming him) be suspended from the service of the Council for a period not exceeding the remainder of the Session: Provided that the Council may, at any time, on a motion being made, resolve that such suspension be terminated.
A member suspended under this rule shall forthwith quit the precincts of the Council.
Rule 266: Residuary Powers
All matters not specifically provided for in these rules and all questions relating to the detailed working of these rules shall be regulated in such manner as the Chairman may, from time to time direct.
Overview of the Rules
They are meant to clear obstruction in the House so that business can be conducted without obstruction
They have an element of punishment in them, on suspension, the member is required to immediately leave the House, or he will be forcefully removed.
The right to punish a member is vested in the House only, and not in the Chair. So, if the motion is not passed by the House, the member is not suspended.
The maximum period of suspension is until the end of that session.
The rules provide for the termination of suspension at any time.
The member is temporarily disqualified in as much as he is not allowed to attend the meetings of the House or any meeting of the committees of which he may be a member, during his suspension.
The member won’t be allowed to give any notice of questions, motions or resolutions, he is compelled to remain a non-member during the period of such suspension.
Ambit of the Rules
Power of Presiding officer
It refers to a blatant and shocking defiance of the Chair persistently by the member.
Under the rules, disregarding the authority of the Chair does not mean that the Chair can name a member for lack of cooperation.
The rules apply when there is a very aggravated form of defiance and obstruction that leaves the Chair with no option other than suspension of the member.
Period of Suspension
The nature of suspension is a temporary punishment that can be revoked anytime.
Even when a member is suspended for the remainder of the session it can be revoked within a day or two.
The basic principle is that the House needs the uninterrupted services of all its members, who are the representative of the people, suspension is to be a last resort.
Case of Pending Investigation
Suspension pending investigation is done only in the case of government employees because the rules permit it, but in the case of members of parliament, there is no such rule.
Constitutional Mandate of Rulemaking Powers of Houses
Article 118: Rules of Procedure
Each House of Parliament may make rules for regulating, subject to the provisions of this Constitution, its procedure and the conduct of its business.
Until rules are made under clause (1), the rules of procedure and standing orders in force immediately before the commencement of this Constitution with respect to the Legislature of the Dominion of India shall have effect in relation to Parliament subject to such modifications and adaptations as may be made therein by the Chairman of the Council of States or the Speaker of the House of the People, as the case may be.
The President, after consultation with the Chairman of the Council of States and the Speaker of the House of the People, may make rules as to the procedure with respect to joint sittings of, and communications between, the two Houses.
At a joint sitting of the two Houses the Speaker of the House of the People, or in his absence such person as may be determined by rules of procedure made under clause (3), shall preside.
Overview of Constitutional Mandate
The rules of the Houses of Parliament are framed under Article 118 of the Constitution, and these should operate only subject to the provisions of the Constitution.
The Houses are required to regulate their activities only in accordance with these rules, suspension of a member can, therefore, be done only in accordance with the rules (374 and 256).
Residuary powers (Rule 266 of the Rajya Sabha) can be invoked only when the House is dealing with matters that are not explicitly provided in the rules.
Court Cases
Ashish Shelar vs Maharashtra Legislative Assembly (2022)
The Supreme Court held that if the resolution passed by the House was to provide for suspension beyond the period prescribed under the said rule, it would be substantially illegal, irrational and unconstitutional.
Context: Manipur discussion not allowed in Rajya Sabha under Rule 267
The adjournment motion is a form of censure of the government which has its origin in the House of Commons in the United Kingdom.
In India under the rules of the pre-independent bicameral legislature established under the Government of India Act of 1919 provide for the adjournment.
The central assembly and legislative council members could move the adjournment motion in their Houses.
Presiding officers of these Houses allowed adjournment motions because members did not have other procedural devices for raising urgent matters.
The British administration was not under the legislature’s control, it was one of the few procedural measures for members to express their concerns over a particular serious matter.
After the passage of the Indian Constitution, two changes came about to it:
In 1952, the adjournment motion was placed in the Lok Sabha Rule Book. Therefore, it was left out of Rajya Sabha.
The Speaker to decide whether to allow the Member of Parliament to move the motion.
Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Lok Sabha
Rule 56 states that
“Subject to the provisions of these rules, a motion for an adjournment of the business of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance may be made with the consent of the Speaker”
Restriction on adjournment motion (Rule 58)
Not more than one such motion shall be made at the same sitting
Not more than one matter shall be discussed on the same motion
The motion shall not raise a question of privilege;
The motion shall not revive discussion on a matter which has been discussed in the same session
The motion shall not anticipate a matter which has been previously appointed for consideration.
the motion shall not deal with any matter which is under adjudication by a court of law having jurisdiction in any part of India;
The motion shall not raise any question which under the Constitution or these rules can only be raised on a distinct motion by a notice given in writing to the Secretary-General.
Very exceptional device
Rajya Sabha cannot use it.
Availability of other devices like question hours, zero hours, calling attention motion etc.
Rarely granted by the speaker as it put normal legislative business at halt.
As an urgent public matter is the prerequisite for acceptance of the motion.
Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Rajya Sabha
Rule 267 titled as the suspension of rules states that
“Any member, may, with the consent of the Chairman, move that any rule may be suspended in its application to a motion related to the business listed before the Council of that day and if the motion is carried, the rule in question shall be suspended for the time being: Provided further that this rule shall not apply where specific provision already exists for suspension of a rule under a particular chapter of the Rules.”
It should be noted that Rule 267 only suspends a Rule, only to take up matters that are already on the list of business.
Context:The recent announcement made by the Prime Minister of India during the inauguration of the new Parliament building highlighted a plan to expand the representation in Lok Sabha by increasing the number of seats and Members of Parliament (MPs).
What is Delimitation?
Delimitation refers to the process of redrawing the boundaries of constituencies or electoral areas. This process is carried out periodically to ensure that each constituency has a roughly equal number of voters, based on the principle of "one vote, one value."
After each census, a readjustment is to made in (a) allocation of seats in the Lok Sabha to the States, and (b) division of each state into territorial constituencies.
Parliament is empowered to determine the authority and the manner in which it is to be made.
Delimitation is necessary because population distribution changes over time, with some areas experiencing significant growth while others may decline. This can result in a situation where certain constituencies have a much larger or smaller number of voters compared to others, leading to an imbalance in representation.
About Delimitation Commission:
Delimitation Commission is appointed by the President of India.
Composition: Chief Election Commissioner, Retired Judge of Supreme Court and Election Commissioner of the concerned State.
Orders of Delimitation Commission cannot be called in question before any court of law.
The copies of its orders are laid before the House of People and State Legislative Assembly concerned, but no modifications are permissible therein by them.
Impact of Delimitation:
Balancing the Political Power: Delimitation can alter the distribution of political power among different regions and communities. The Redrawal of the constituencies can impact the electoral prospects of political parties and candidates, potentially impacting the political dynamics and power balance within a particular region or state. E.g., During 2008 delimitation exercise, Jharkhand witnessed a significant realignment of political power when the boundaries of constituencies were redrawn.
Addressing Demographic Shifts: In 2002, constituencies in states like Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu were redefined to address the substantial population growth in urban areas. It paved the way for better reflection of population changes and ensured that urban centers had adequate representation in the legislative bodies.
Minority Representation: Delimitation exercises have been instrumental in ensuring better representation for minority communities. In the 2008 delimitation exercise, constituencies in regions with a significant concentration of minority communities, such as Malappuram in Kerala, were adjusted to ensure their political interests were adequately represented.
Enhanced Gender Representation: Delimitation exercises have also contributed to improving gender representation in politics. E.g., during the 2008 delimitation exercise, the constituencies in certain states were redrawn to facilitate reservation of seats for women in local bodies, thereby promoting greater participation of women in the political process.
Fair Representation: Delimitation aims to ensure fair representation by readjusting the boundaries of constituencies based on population changes. It helps in balancing the number of voters per representative, ensuring that each vote holds relatively equal weight and upholding the democratic principle of "one person, one vote."
Issues associated with Delimitation:
The delimitation exercise, aimed at rearranging and standardizing the number of people per constituency, may result in decreased representation for States that have achieved population stabilization. E.g., Kerala, Tamil Nadu. It may lead to increased representation for States that are still experiencing population growth and have not yet achieved stability.
Delimitation exercises often face challenges in implementation due to logistical and administrative issues. For instance, the delimitation exercise planned for the state of Jammu and Kashmir faced delays and obstacles due to the unique circumstances and complexities of the region.
Roadmap for Future
The Commission can choose to implement freezing of seats, until all States have achieved population stabilization.
Alternatively, Commission can develop a customized mathematical model inspired by the 'Cambridge Compromise'. This model would aim to provide a mathematically equitable formula for the allocation of seats, similar to the apportionment of seats in the European Parliament. #Best Practice
It is essential to ensure that the delimitation process is carried out fairly, transparently, and with adequate consideration for the interests of all communities and regions.
Context: There is a consistent effort by the opposition parties in India to build unity but has failed in past two general elections.
The topic of the role of opposition in Indian democracy holds significant relevance for the UPSC CSE (Civil Services Examination) preparation as it is directly connected to the syllabus of GS Paper II (Parliament: Issues and Challenges). Understanding the functions and challenges faced by the opposition in a democratic system is essential for aspirants to have a comprehensive understanding of the functioning of the Indian polity.
The main parts of this article will delve into the crucial role played by the opposition in a democracy, the factors that hinder the growth of a robust opposition in India. Furthermore, the article will discuss the issue of formally recognizing opposition parties and the Leader of the Opposition (LoP) in the Lok Sabha under the Salary and Allowances of Leaders of Opposition in Parliament Act, 1977, and the implications of not recognizing the leader of the largest opposition party in the 16th Lok Sabha. The article will highlight the need to revisit this matter in the context of the 17th Lok Sabha, which witnessed a fiercely fought election and a decisive victory for the ruling alliance.
The crucial role played by the opposition in a democracy
In the context of Indian democracy, the opposition plays a crucial role as a check and balance on the ruling party or coalition. According to the principles of political science, the opposition serves as an important component of the democratic system, providing a counterforce to the government and serving as the voice of dissent and alternative policy proposals.
The opposition acts as a "loyal opposition" by holding the government accountable for its actions, policies, and decisions. This involves engaging in constructive criticism, raising questions, and demanding transparency and accountability from the ruling party. The opposition plays a vital role in scrutinizing the government's actions and policies to ensure that they are in the best interest of the people and in line with democratic norms and principles.
The opposition serves as a "watchdog" by monitoring and critiquing the performance of the government. Through parliamentary debates, discussions, and other forums, the opposition brings attention to any shortcomings, failures, or irregularities in the government's actions, policies, and implementation. This helps in maintaining transparency, integrity, and effectiveness in governance.
The opposition acts as a "representative of diverse voices" by providing a platform for marginalized or underrepresented groups to voice their concerns and opinions. The opposition often represents different ideologies, interests, and perspectives, providing a forum for deliberation and debate on various issues affecting society. This helps in promoting inclusivity, diversity, and representation in the decision-making process.
The opposition also plays a crucial role in "ensuring a competitive political environment" by offering an alternative vision and policy proposals to the ruling party. It acts as a catalyst for healthy competition, which is essential for a vibrant and dynamic democracy. The opposition also serves as a "potential alternative government" by presenting itself as a credible option to the ruling party, providing choices to the electorate during elections.
Hence we can see that the role of the opposition in Indian democracy, as per political science principles, includes holding the government accountable, acting as a watchdog, representing diverse voices, promoting competition, and offering alternative policy proposals. It serves as a crucial check and balance on the ruling party, contributing to the functioning and health of the democratic system.
Currently, we have a weak and divided opposition. Even Supreme Court Chief Justice NV Ramana recently lamented, “There used to be mutual respect between the government and Opposition. Unfortunately, the space for Opposition is now diminishing.” Some feel that the secret weapon
Factors that Hinder Growth of Robust Opposition
India is unable to produce robust Opposition parties or leaders due to several features of its system of government. At least six fundamental problems come to mind:
First, by not giving Opposition parties any power whatsoever, our system ensures that they don’t last.
By design, and in the name of efficiency, the parliamentary system keeps the Opposition toothless. It can make speeches, ask questions in Parliament, or walk out.
But it cannot pass legislation, affect government programmes, or influence executive officials. This makes the members of the Opposition useless to their constituents. Within a short while, they begin to lose support.
Second, our system grants power to parties, not to individual MPs. This causes fragmentation of the Opposition. Ambitious Opposition leaders must form their own outfits to bargain with the ruling party and come to power. Small local and regional parties proliferate.
Third, India’s system impairs the Opposition by driving them to vote banks and extremism. To stay relevant and avoid breakups, parties begin to represent one special interest, caste, or religion. They inflame the feelings of their constituents, make outrageous promises, and breed hatred of other groups. Since in the parliamentary system, there are no nationwide elections, parties don’t have to come together on a centrist programme.
Fourth, our system also doesn’t help Opposition parties acquire good leaders or become strong organisations. Most parties stay small due to the reasons cited above, and thus remain one-man shows.
Fifth, our system doesn’t provide Opposition parties with institutions to hone their skills. Unlike the UK, India’s Opposition is not offered a shadow Cabinet, or opportunities to pass private member bills. So the Opposition always lacks an agenda, and its members become party hacks adept only at bluster.
And last but perhaps worst, India’s system allows the ruling party to scare the Opposition into submission. The use of the CBI, tax, and other government agencies against Opposition leaders is commonplace. This harms their reputation and scares good people away from politics.
Lok Sabha under the Salary and Allowances of Leaders of Opposition in Parliament Act, 1977
After the election of the Lok Sabha Speaker, the question of a formally recognised Opposition party and Leader of the Opposition (LoP) of the Lok Sabha under the Salary and Allowances of Leaders of Opposition in Parliament Act, 1977, will arise.
The Act extends to LoPs in the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha the same official status, allowances and perks that are admissible to Cabinet Ministers. In the case of the Lok Sabha, however, this is subject to recognition of the leader by the Speaker. In the 16th Lok Sabha, the largest party in the Opposition, the Congress, had 44 seats. After careful consideration, it was decided not to recognize the party’s leader as LoP. Now, the matter needs to be revisited in the context of the 17th Lok Sabha.
The election to the 17th Lok Sabha was the most fiercely and bitterly fought one in the history of the Republic. The decisive victory of the ruling alliance and its leadership has been widely welcomed as being in the best interests of the polity and the people. Above everything, the nation needs a stable government and a strong leader capable of taking firm decisions to ensure security, development and good governance within the rule of law.
However, for the success and survival of democracy, an effective Opposition is also a categorical imperative. It is said that if no Opposition exists, one may have to be created. Also, if there is no Opposition outside, there is every danger that it may grow within.
Leaders of Opposition over time
The 1977 Act defines LoP as that member of the House who is the “Leader in that House of the party in opposition to the Government having the greatest numerical strength and recognised as such by the Chairman of the Council of States or the Speaker of the House of the People, as the case may be.”
The Speaker’s decisions in this regard have so far been determined by Direction 121(c) which laid down one of the conditions for recognition of party or group as having “at least a strength equal to the quorum fixed to constitute a sitting of the House, that is one-tenth of the total number of members of the House”.
The Leaders and Chief Whips of Recognised Parties and Groups in Parliament (Facilities) Act, 1998 also refers to a recognised party in the Lok Sabha as a party that has not less than 55 members.
In the recently concluded election to the Lok Sabha, the Opposition was decimated, but thankfully not obliterated. In fact, the largest party in Opposition, the Congress, has improved its position from 44 in 2014 to 52 now. It is short of only three members to reach the magical number of 55. Given the level at which ground-level politics has been operating in recent decades, it should not be difficult for the Congress leadership to augment its party strength by three members. At the same time, the ruling dispensation is expected to show magnanimity at this hour of its splendid victory, and the new occupant of the office of Speaker, realising the importance of an effective and respected Opposition in a democracy, may reconsider the content of Direction 121(c) suitably.
The Speaker’s discretion
Since there is no constitutional provision, the 1977 law does not provide for the requirement of 55 members as an essential pre-requisite. As it all depends on the Speaker’s directions and discretion, it may be hoped that rightful action will be taken. The simple way out is to substitute ‘pre-poll alliance’ for ‘party’ or say ‘party or pre-poll alliance’. In any case, pre-poll alliances are a fact of our political life and are already being extended credibility and legitimacy in the matter of the President and Governors deciding on who to call first for forming the government in cases where no party secures a clear majority support in the House.
Incidentally, what is decided in the matter of recognition of the LoP, and in treating pre-poll alliances at par with parties, may hold tremendous potential for the growth of a sound two- or three-party (or alliance) system. It could end the present system, a preposterous one, of more than 2,000 parties being registered with the Election Commission. If and when the much-awaited law for political parties is enacted, it may provide for candidates of an alliance contesting on a common symbol and an agreed common minimum programme with only national alliances or parties contesting for the Lok Sabha. These aspects, however, call for separate in-depth analysis, consideration and debate.
In conclusion, the role of the opposition in Indian democracy is of paramount importance in ensuring a healthy and functioning democratic system. The opposition acts as a check and balance on the ruling party, holding the government accountable, acting as a watchdog, representing diverse voices, promoting competition, and offering alternative policy proposals. However, there are several factors that hinder the growth of a robust opposition in India, including the lack of power, fragmentation, reliance on vote banks, absence of strong leaders and institutions, and the use of government agencies against the opposition.
The issue of formally recognizing opposition parties and the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha under the Salary and Allowances of Leaders of Opposition in Parliament Act, 1977 is a matter of significance. The absence of a recognized leader of the opposition can weaken the functioning of the parliamentary system and diminish the space for dissent and accountability. In light of the challenges faced by the opposition in India, there is a need to revisit this matter in the context of the 17th Lok Sabha, which has witnessed a fiercely fought election and a decisive victory for the ruling alliance.
