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

Parliamentary Privileges

Parliamentary privileges are special rights and immunities granted to members of Parliament, enabling them to perform their duties effectively. These privileges extend to individuals participating in parliamentary proceedings, such as the Attorney General and Ministers. Breaches of these privileges are punishable under parliamentary law, as outlined in Article 105 for Parliament and Article 194 for State Legislatures.

Types of Parliamentary Privileges

1. Collective Privileges:
   • Exclude non-members from proceedings and conduct secret sessions.
   • Prohibit press reporting on secret sittings.
   • Only Parliament can regulate its own proceedings, and courts cannot question parliamentary procedures.
2. Individual Privileges:
   • Protection from arrest in civil cases during sessions and a 40-day period before and after.
   • Immunity from legal proceedings for statements made within Parliament.
   • Exemption from court appearances while Parliament is in session.

Need for Codification

Codifying parliamentary privileges is essential to address their ambiguity and potential misuse. Article 105(3) implies the need for a clear legal framework, as the privileges are often interpreted based on outdated House of Commons practices. Other democracies, like Australia and Canada, have codified similar privileges to enhance accountability.

Misuse of these privileges, such as in the 1998 Supreme Court case of P.V. Narasimha Rao vs. CBI, highlights the risk of evading accountability and undermining democratic values. Therefore, establishing clear guidelines can help protect citizens’ rights while ensuring lawmakers are held to ethical standards.

In conclusion, the codification of parliamentary privileges is vital for clarity and accountability, ensuring they serve their intended purpose without infringing on democratic principles.

Model Answer

Introduction: Bias and Partisanship Among Speakers

The Speakers of State Legislative Assemblies in India have often been accused of acting in a biased manner. For example, the Maharashtra Assembly Speaker was criticized for delaying disqualification decisions, while the Rajasthan Assembly Speaker faced backlash for issuing disqualification notices to certain MLAs. These concerns highlight the need to review the current role of Speakers in matters related to the Anti-Defection Law.

Provisions Under the Anti-Defection Law

The Anti-Defection Law under the Tenth Schedule grants significant powers to the Speaker. Their decision on disqualification is final, with no time limit for making a ruling. Moreover, the courts cannot intervene until the Speaker has made a decision. This setup has raised concerns about potential bias and delay in decisions, especially when the Speaker is from the ruling party.

Arguments for Curtailing the Powers of the Speaker

Conflict of Interest: The Speaker, often from the ruling party, may have an inherent conflict of interest. During the 2019 Karnataka Assembly crisis, the Speaker was accused of favoring the ruling party in disqualification matters.

Delay in Decisions: Speakers have been criticized for delaying decisions on disqualification, allowing defected legislators to continue as members. For example, a disqualification petition in Manipur remained pending for almost three years before the Supreme Court intervened.

Dinesh Goswami Committee Recommendation: The committee recommended that the power to disqualify members under the Tenth Schedule be vested in the Governor, who would act on the advice of the Election Commission.

Arguments Against Transferring Power to Other Bodies

Independent Panel: Suggestions for an independent panel of retired judges could lead to judicial interference in political matters, disrupting the separation of powers.

Politicization of the Election Commission: Giving the Election Commission greater role in disqualification could politicize the body, as the executive plays a significant role in its appointments.

Suitability of the Speaker: The Speaker, being an integral part of the legislature, is best suited to decide on disqualification matters, as shown by unbiased decisions like those taken by the Andhra Pradesh Speaker, who disqualified eight MLAs in 2023 for shifting their loyalties.

Conclusion: Promoting Neutrality

To address the concerns of bias and partisanship, the best approach would be to promote neutrality within the Speaker’s role. Drawing from practices in developed democracies like the UK and Ireland, reforms should aim at ensuring the Speaker acts impartially and in the best interests of the legislative process.