Question and answer: on Parliament, parliamentary norms

Context & The Gist

The article addresses a recent and unusual event in the Lok Sabha: the Prime Minister’s decision to not reply to the debate on the Motion of Thanks to the President’s address. This departure from established parliamentary convention has sparked concerns about the erosion of democratic accountability and the functioning of India’s parliamentary system. The core issue revolves around the justification provided by the Lok Sabha Speaker – a perceived threat to the Prime Minister’s safety – and the broader implications of denying both the Leader of the Opposition a platform to speak and the executive an opportunity to respond to scrutiny.

Key Arguments & Nuances

• Departure from Norms: The Prime Minister’s absence is a significant deviation from established parliamentary practice, where the executive traditionally responds to debates on the Motion of Thanks.
• Speaker’s Justification: The Speaker’s explanation, citing potential disruption and threat to the Prime Minister’s safety, is viewed with skepticism, with the article suggesting more plausible reasons lie in the preceding events in the House.
• Restriction of Opposition Voice: The disallowing of the Leader of the Opposition, Rahul Gandhi, from citing excerpts from a book concerning national security further compounds the issue, limiting debate and scrutiny.
• Accountability Mechanism: The debate and reply mechanism is crucial for holding the executive accountable to Parliament. Skipping the reply effectively shields the executive from scrutiny.
• Evading Accountability: The article suggests the Prime Minister’s absence reinforces criticisms that the political executive tends to avoid critical decision-making and subsequent accountability.

UPSC Syllabus Relevance

• Polity: Parliamentary Procedures, Functions of Parliament, Role of the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition.
• Governance: Issues of Accountability and Transparency in Governance, Ethical Conduct of Political Executives.
• Current Affairs: Recent developments in parliamentary proceedings and their implications for Indian democracy.

Prelims Data Bank

• Article 87 (Constitution of India): Deals with the special address by the President at the commencement of each session of Parliament.
• Article 176 (Constitution of India): Deals with the right of the Governor to address the Legislative Assembly.
• Motion of Thanks: A formal expression of gratitude by Parliament to the President for their address. It is traditionally followed by a debate and a reply from the Prime Minister.
• Lok Sabha Speaker: The presiding officer of the Lok Sabha, responsible for maintaining order and conducting proceedings.

Mains Critical Analysis

The incident highlights a concerning trend of eroding parliamentary norms and a potential weakening of accountability mechanisms. Using a PESTLE framework:

• Political: The incident reflects a growing polarization and adversarial relationship between the ruling party and the opposition, leading to disruptions and a reluctance to engage in constructive debate.
• Economic: While not directly economic, a dysfunctional Parliament can hinder the passage of crucial economic reforms and impact investor confidence.
• Social: Erosion of trust in democratic institutions and a decline in civic engagement are potential social consequences.
• Technological: The use of technology (e.g., social media) to circumvent parliamentary debate and disseminate information outside the House raises concerns about the quality of public discourse.
• Legal: The Speaker’s justification raises questions about the interpretation of parliamentary rules and the balance between security concerns and the right to free speech within the House.
• Environmental: Not applicable in this context.

The core issue is the prioritization of perceived security threats over established democratic norms. While security is paramount, it cannot be used as a pretext to stifle debate and avoid accountability. The implications are far-reaching, potentially setting a dangerous precedent for future parliamentary proceedings. A critical gap lies in the lack of a clear mechanism to address situations where the executive refuses to engage with Parliament, leaving the institution vulnerable to manipulation and undermining its legitimacy.

Value Addition

• R. Venkataraman’s Suggestion: Former President R. Venkataraman advocated for abolishing the Governor’s address to the legislature, deeming it a ‘British anachronism.’ This highlights a broader debate about the relevance of certain parliamentary traditions.
• SR Bommai Case (1994): This landmark SC judgment emphasized the importance of constitutional morality and the need for Governors to act independently of the central government. While not directly related, it underscores the importance of upholding constitutional principles in parliamentary proceedings.

Context & Linkages

This past article directly relates to the current situation by highlighting a pattern of the government attempting to silence the Leader of the Opposition. Both articles demonstrate a reluctance to allow scrutiny and debate, raising concerns about the health of India’s parliamentary democracy. The previous article focused on specific instances of obstruction, while the current one reveals a more systemic issue of avoiding accountability.

This article provides context by illustrating a recent parliamentary session characterized by political maneuvering and a lack of substantive debate. It demonstrates a trend of prioritizing political point-scoring over addressing critical issues, mirroring the situation described in the current editorial. Both articles point to a decline in the quality of parliamentary discourse and a weakening of the institution’s ability to hold the executive accountable.

The Way Forward

• Strengthen Parliamentary Rules: Develop clear guidelines for situations where the executive refuses to engage with Parliament, ensuring accountability and preventing the abuse of security concerns.
• Promote Constructive Dialogue: Encourage a more collaborative and respectful environment within Parliament, fostering constructive debate and reducing polarization.
• Uphold Speaker’s Impartiality: The Speaker must maintain strict impartiality and ensure that all members are given a fair opportunity to participate in proceedings.
• Enhance Transparency: Increase transparency in parliamentary proceedings, making information more accessible to the public and promoting greater accountability.
• Review Motion of Thanks Procedure: Consider reforms to the Motion of Thanks procedure to ensure that the executive is always held accountable to Parliament.