Model Answer

Decline in Parliamentary Functioning and its Impact on Lawmaking and Accountability

The effective functioning of Parliament is essential for fulfilling its role in deliberative lawmaking and holding the executive accountable. However, recent trends indicate that a decline in parliamentary operations is undermining these critical responsibilities.

Reduced Time for Discussion and Scrutiny

One of the most significant factors affecting parliamentary functioning is the decreasing number of sitting days. According to the PRS (Public Affairs Centre), the Lok Sabha’s annual sitting days have sharply fallen from 121 days between 1952-70 to just 56 days in 2022. This reduction in sitting time leaves limited opportunities for MPs to debate and scrutinize important legislation or question the executive (PRS, 2022). Furthermore, the rapid passage of bills, with the Lok Sabha passing laws in less than 10 minutes on average, bypasses the necessary scrutiny. This hasty approach diminishes the role of Parliament as a deliberative body and weakens accountability mechanisms.

Overuse of Ordinances and Reduced Committee Scrutiny

Another factor is the increasing reliance on ordinances, which limits Parliament’s ability to debate and hold the executive accountable. Between 2014-2021, 76 ordinances were issued, often circumventing parliamentary processes and reducing opportunities for opposition to question executive actions (PRS, 2021). Additionally, the sidelining of parliamentary committees, such as the Standing Committees, further weakens scrutiny. Only 27% of bills were referred to committees in the 16th Lok Sabha, compared to 71% in the 15th Lok Sabha (PRS, 2019).

Diminished Role of the Opposition and Rajya Sabha

The growing dominance of the ruling party, especially through the use of the money bill route, has further weakened the role of the Rajya Sabha, which traditionally acted as a counterbalance to the Lok Sabha. The lack of short duration discussions—only 6 since 2019—has also stifled the opposition’s ability to raise urgent national issues (PRS, 2019). Moreover, the absence of private members’ bills being passed for over fifty years highlights the diminishing space for non-government voices in lawmaking.

In conclusion, these trends point to a significant erosion of parliamentary functions, limiting its ability to act as a deliberative body and an effective check on the executive. Strengthening parliamentary norms and ensuring adequate time for debates, scrutiny, and opposition involvement are crucial for restoring its accountability role.

Model Answer

Introduction: Understanding the Anti-Defection Law

The Anti-Defection Law, introduced under the Tenth Schedule of the Indian Constitution by the 52nd Amendment Act of 1985, aims to prevent political defections by disqualifying MPs and MLAs who switch parties after elections. The law intends to promote political stability and safeguard the mandate given by voters. However, its implications for democracy have been hotly debated. Critics argue that it restricts legislators’ independence, consolidates power within party leadership, and curtails democratic decision-making.

Inhibition of Legislators’ Choice

One of the primary criticisms of the Anti-Defection Law is that it inhibits the freedom of legislators to make independent choices. MPs and MLAs are compelled to vote in line with their party’s directives, even if it conflicts with their personal convictions or their constituency’s interests. This restriction diminishes the legislator’s ability to represent their electorate effectively, as they become more beholden to the party leadership than to the people who elected them. The law effectively creates a disconnect between the representatives and their voters, undermining the core principles of democratic representation.

Weakening of Legislative Independence

By forcing legislators to follow the party line, the Anti-Defection Law diminishes their role in the legislative process. MPs and MLAs are discouraged from participating in detailed debates or offering independent opinions on issues, as their voting behavior is strictly controlled by the party leadership. This diminishes the quality of debate in legislative bodies and reduces the effectiveness of parliamentary oversight, a key feature of democratic governance.

Concentration of Power in Party Leadership

The Anti-Defection Law has also contributed to the centralization of power within political parties. Party leaders hold significant sway over individual legislators, as MPs and MLAs risk disqualification for voting against the party. This has allowed political leaders to exert disproportionate control over the decision-making process, sidelining individual legislators and concentrating power in the hands of a few. This centralization can limit diverse perspectives within the legislature, weakening the overall democratic structure.

Conclusion: Balancing Stability and Democracy

While the Anti-Defection Law has helped reduce defections motivated by personal gain and instability, it has unintended consequences that undermine democratic values. Reforms, such as transferring the authority to disqualify legislators to the President or Governor and involving the Election Commission in the decision-making process, could help address these concerns. A more balanced approach is necessary to ensure that the law serves its intended purpose without eroding democratic principles.