Ensuring Parliament's Functionality: Ruling Party's Role in Fostering Debate
An editorial argues that the ruling party has a primary responsibility to ensure Parliament functions effectively, fostering debate and dissent.
Photo by Kunal Saha
त्वरित संशोधन
Parliamentary disruptions are increasing
Quality of debate is declining
Ruling party has a greater responsibility due to its majority
Dissent and debate are vital for democracy
महत्वपूर्ण तिथियां
दृश्य सामग्री
Trends in Indian Parliament's Functioning & Scrutiny (2014-2024)
This timeline illustrates key developments and concerns regarding the effectiveness of parliamentary sessions, legislative scrutiny, and debate quality over the past decade, reflecting the issues highlighted in the news editorial about the ruling party's role.
The effectiveness of parliamentary functioning has been a recurring concern in India's democratic journey. While disruptions are not new, recent trends indicate a decline in legislative scrutiny and debate quality, prompting calls for greater responsibility from the ruling dispensation to uphold democratic norms.
- 2014Start of 16th Lok Sabha: Initial focus on legislative agenda, but early signs of disruptions.
- 2015-2018Increasing concerns over parliamentary disruptions, reduced time for debate, and decline in bills referred to standing committees.
- 2019Start of 17th Lok Sabha: Continued trend of fewer bills being sent for detailed scrutiny by parliamentary committees.
- 2020COVID-19 pandemic leads to curtailed sessions; increased reliance on ordinances raises questions about legislative bypassing.
- 2021-2022Frequent disruptions by both ruling and opposition parties lead to significant loss of productive parliamentary time, impacting Question Hour and debates.
- 2023Inauguration of the new Parliament building (Sansad Bhavan); ongoing debates on the need for improved parliamentary conduct and meaningful deliberation.
- 2024Editorial highlights the ruling party's primary responsibility in fostering debate and ensuring Parliament's effective functionality for a thriving democracy.
संपादकीय विश्लेषण
The author believes that the ruling party, by virtue of holding power and a majority, bears the primary responsibility for ensuring the smooth and effective functioning of Parliament. They advocate for a parliamentary environment that encourages robust debate, dissent, and deliberation, rather than one dominated by disruptions or majoritarianism.
मुख्य तर्क:
- The ruling party has a greater onus to ensure Parliament functions, as it controls the legislative agenda and has the numbers to facilitate debate. This is crucial for upholding democratic principles and public trust.
- A functioning Parliament is essential for democratic legitimacy, as it allows for the articulation of diverse viewpoints, scrutiny of government policies, and the passage of well-considered legislation.
- The decline in parliamentary debate and the rise in disruptions erode the foundational values of democracy, turning legislative bodies into mere rubber stamps or arenas for political confrontation.
निष्कर्ष
नीतिगत निहितार्थ
परीक्षा के दृष्टिकोण
Constitutional provisions related to Parliament's functioning and powers.
Role of the Speaker/Chairperson in maintaining order and facilitating debate.
Parliamentary procedures and instruments for accountability (e.g., Question Hour, Zero Hour, motions).
Role of political parties, ruling party, and opposition in a parliamentary democracy.
Concept of 'constitutional morality' and its application to parliamentary conduct.
Challenges to parliamentary democracy in India (e.g., disruptions, declining sittings, ordinance usage, anti-defection law implications).
विस्तृत सारांश देखें
सारांश
This editorial argues that for India's democracy to thrive, Parliament must function effectively, and the primary responsibility for this lies with the ruling party. It highlights a concerning trend where Parliament sessions are often disrupted, leading to a decline in meaningful debate and legislative scrutiny. The author emphasizes that while the opposition has a role in raising concerns, the government, with its majority, must create an environment conducive to discussion, dissent, and deliberation.
This includes allowing space for the opposition to voice its views and engaging constructively rather than resorting to brute majority. The piece suggests that a well-functioning Parliament, where laws are thoroughly debated and the government is held accountable, is crucial for maintaining public trust in democratic institutions and upholding constitutional morality.
पृष्ठभूमि
नवीनतम घटनाक्रम
बहुविकल्पीय प्रश्न (MCQ)
1. Consider the following statements regarding the functioning of the Indian Parliament: 1. The Speaker of the Lok Sabha has the power to suspend a member for obstructing proceedings, but such suspension cannot exceed the remainder of the session. 2. The Business Advisory Committee (BAC) of the Lok Sabha allocates time for the discussion of government legislative and other business, and its recommendations are generally binding. 3. A 'No-Confidence Motion' can only be moved against the entire Council of Ministers, not against an individual minister. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- A.1 and 2 only
- B.2 and 3 only
- C.1 and 3 only
- D.1, 2 and 3
उत्तर देखें
सही उत्तर: D
Statement 1 is correct. As per the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha, the Speaker can suspend a member for gross disorder, and the suspension cannot exceed the remainder of the session. Statement 2 is correct. The BAC allocates time for various businesses, and its recommendations are usually adopted by the House. Statement 3 is correct. A No-Confidence Motion, as per Article 75(3) of the Constitution, expresses a lack of confidence in the entire Council of Ministers, reflecting collective responsibility. It cannot be moved against an individual minister.
2. In the context of ensuring parliamentary functionality and fostering debate, which of the following statements about 'Constitutional Morality' is most appropriate?
- A.It refers to the strict adherence to the letter of the Constitution, irrespective of its spirit.
- B.It implies a commitment to the values and principles underlying the Constitution, even when not explicitly codified.
- C.It is a concept primarily invoked by the judiciary to interpret constitutional provisions.
- D.It mandates that the ruling party must always yield to the opposition's demands in Parliament.
उत्तर देखें
सही उत्तर: B
Constitutional morality, as expounded by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and later by the Supreme Court, refers to the adherence to the core values and principles embedded in the Constitution, such as democracy, rule of law, equality, and liberty, even if not explicitly written in every clause. It emphasizes the spirit over just the letter. Option A is incorrect as it ignores the spirit. Option C is partially true as the judiciary uses it, but it's not *primarily* for judicial interpretation; it's a broader concept for all organs of the state and citizens. Option D is an oversimplification and incorrect; constitutional morality calls for constructive engagement, not absolute yielding.
3. Which of the following parliamentary devices is NOT primarily intended to hold the government accountable for its policies or actions?
- A.Censure Motion
- B.Adjournment Motion
- C.Calling Attention Motion
- D.Resolution for Removal of Speaker
उत्तर देखें
सही उत्तर: D
A) Censure Motion: Expresses strong disapproval of the policy or action of the government or an individual minister, thus holding them accountable. B) Adjournment Motion: Allows for discussion of a definite matter of urgent public importance, often to draw attention to a government failure or inaction, thereby holding it accountable. C) Calling Attention Motion: Draws the attention of a minister to a matter of urgent public importance, and the minister makes a statement, allowing for questions and accountability. D) Resolution for Removal of Speaker: This motion is aimed at removing the Speaker from their office, which is a procedural and constitutional matter related to the presiding officer of the House, not primarily to hold the *government* accountable for its policies or actions. While the Speaker's conduct might be debated, the motion itself is not a direct tool for executive accountability.