Parliamentary Disruptions: A Threat to India's Democratic Functioning
Persistent disruptions in Parliament are hindering legislative work and eroding democratic values.
Photo by N A V
Editorial Analysis
The author argues that parliamentary disruptions are a serious threat to India's democracy, undermining its core functions of debate, legislation, and accountability. The piece suggests that both the government and the opposition share responsibility for this decline.
Main Arguments:
- Disruptions are a deliberate tactic by the opposition to stall government business and by the ruling party to avoid scrutiny, leading to a breakdown of parliamentary decorum. This prevents constructive dialogue and the passage of well-debated legislation.
- The decline in parliamentary debate and the increasing use of ordinances or hasty legislation outside proper scrutiny weaken the democratic process. This means laws are passed without adequate public or expert input, potentially leading to less effective governance.
- The Speaker's role in managing disruptions is crucial but often challenged, leading to a perception of bias or ineffectiveness. This further erodes public trust in parliamentary institutions.
Counter Arguments:
- Some might argue that disruptions are a legitimate tool for the opposition to express dissent and force the government to address critical issues, especially when other avenues for debate are curtailed.
- Others might contend that the government's majority often steamrolls opposition voices, making disruption a necessary last resort to draw attention to grievances.
Conclusion
Policy Implications
This editorial highlights a critical issue in India's parliamentary democracy: the increasing frequency and intensity of disruptions. It points out that both the ruling party and the opposition contribute to this problem, leading to a significant loss of legislative time and a decline in meaningful debate.
Essentially, when Parliament is constantly disrupted, it can't effectively discuss important laws, hold the government accountable, or represent the people's voices. This trend, the article argues, is weakening the very foundations of India's democratic process.
Key Facts
Parliamentary disruptions have become a recurring feature
Both ruling and opposition parties are seen contributing to disruptions
Disruptions lead to loss of legislative time and quality of debate
UPSC Exam Angles
Constitutional provisions related to Parliament and its functioning (Articles 79-122).
Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, including powers of Presiding Officers (Speaker/Chairman) to maintain order.
Role of opposition in a parliamentary democracy and its evolution.
Mechanisms of parliamentary accountability (Question Hour, Zero Hour, various motions).
Impact of disruptions on legislative output, quality of laws, and public trust.
Recommendations by various committees (e.g., National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution) on parliamentary decorum and efficiency.
Visual Insights
More Information
Background
Latest Developments
Practice Questions (MCQs)
1. Consider the following statements regarding the powers of the Presiding Officers in the Indian Parliament to manage disruptions: 1. The Speaker of the Lok Sabha can suspend a member for 'grossly disorderly conduct' for a period not exceeding the remainder of the session. 2. The Chairman of the Rajya Sabha has the power to adjourn the House sine die, even if the session has not concluded. 3. Both the Speaker and the Chairman can direct a member to withdraw from the House for the remainder of the day if their conduct is deemed disorderly. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- A.1 and 2 only
- B.3 only
- C.1 and 3 only
- D.1, 2 and 3
Show Answer
Answer: C
Statement 1 is correct. Under Rule 374A of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha, the Speaker can suspend a member for 'grossly disorderly conduct' for a period not exceeding five consecutive sittings or the remainder of the session, whichever is less. The question states 'not exceeding the remainder of the session', which is broadly correct as it covers the 'whichever is less' part. Statement 2 is incorrect. Adjournment sine die means adjourning the House without fixing any date for its next meeting. While the Presiding Officer can adjourn the House, the power to adjourn 'sine die' for a session that has not concluded typically rests with the President (for prorogation) or is done by the Presiding Officer at the end of a session, not arbitrarily in the middle of it. The power to prorogue a session lies with the President, not the Chairman. Statement 3 is correct. Both the Speaker (Rule 373, Lok Sabha) and the Chairman (Rule 255, Rajya Sabha) have the power to direct a member to withdraw from the House for the remainder of the day if their conduct is disorderly. Therefore, 1 and 3 are correct.
2. In the context of parliamentary disruptions and their impact on legislative accountability, which of the following statements is/are correct? 1. Frequent disruptions often lead to the curtailment of Question Hour, thereby reducing the government's direct accountability to the Parliament. 2. The 'Zero Hour' is a constitutionally mandated period for members to raise matters of urgent public importance without prior notice. 3. A 'No-Confidence Motion' can be moved against an individual minister for their policy failures, even if the Council of Ministers enjoys the confidence of the Lok Sabha. Select the correct answer using the code given below:
- A.1 only
- B.1 and 2 only
- C.2 and 3 only
- D.1, 2 and 3
Show Answer
Answer: A
Statement 1 is correct. Question Hour is the first hour of a sitting and is a crucial mechanism for holding the government accountable. Frequent disruptions often lead to its washout or curtailment, directly impacting accountability. Statement 2 is incorrect. Zero Hour is an Indian parliamentary innovation and is not mentioned in the Rules of Procedure or the Constitution. It is an informal device available to members to raise matters without prior notice. Statement 3 is incorrect. A No-Confidence Motion can only be moved against the entire Council of Ministers, not an individual minister. If passed, the entire Council of Ministers must resign. A Censure Motion, however, can be moved against an individual minister or a group of ministers for specific policies or actions.
3. Which of the following is NOT a direct consequence of persistent parliamentary disruptions as argued by critics?
- A.Erosion of public trust in democratic institutions.
- B.Decline in the quality and scrutiny of legislation.
- C.Increased instances of ordinances being promulgated by the Executive.
- D.Enhanced scope for judicial review of parliamentary proceedings.
Show Answer
Answer: D
Options A, B, and C are direct consequences. Persistent disruptions lead to a perception of inefficiency and lack of seriousness, eroding public trust (A). Less time for debate and discussion means bills are passed without adequate scrutiny, affecting legislative quality (B). When Parliament cannot function, the Executive might resort to ordinances to pass urgent legislation (C). Option D is NOT a direct consequence. While judicial review exists, parliamentary proceedings are generally protected from judicial interference under Article 122 (Courts not to inquire into proceedings of Parliament). Disruptions themselves do not inherently enhance the scope for judicial review of the *proceedings* (though laws passed hastily might be subject to review on other grounds). The principle of parliamentary privilege and non-interference by courts in internal proceedings is strong.