Model Answers

Introduction:

Parliamentary oversight in India plays a crucial role in ensuring the accountability of the Executive. Through various mechanisms such as Question Hour, Committees, and motions, Parliament holds the Executive responsible for its actions and policies. However, the effectiveness of these measures has been limited due to various challenges.

Evaluation of Effectiveness:

• Majority Party Rule: The dominance of the ruling party in Parliament often leads to the Executive’s policies being rubber-stamped, despite opposition concerns. This diminishes the impact of parliamentary oversight.
• Disruptions and Reduced Deliberations: Frequent disruptions in Parliament have resulted in lost time for meaningful discussions. For example, the 16th Lok Sabha lost 16% of its scheduled time due to disruptions, as per PRS Legislative Research. This reduces the effectiveness of oversight.
• Lack of Committee Scrutiny: Bills are often passed without adequate scrutiny by Parliamentary Committees. Only 25% of bills were referred to Committees in the 16th Lok Sabha, compared to higher percentages in earlier sessions.
• Guillotine and Delegated Legislation: The frequent use of the guillotine process to pass the Budget reduces financial control, and the increasing reliance on delegated legislation has reduced Parliament’s involvement in detailed lawmaking.

Measures to Strengthen Oversight:

• Greater Role for Opposition: Allowing opposition parties more control over the legislative agenda, similar to practices in the UK and Canada, could make oversight more effective.
• Enhanced Committee System: Strengthening the Committee system by ensuring mandatory Ministerial appearances and increasing transparency through recorded sessions would improve accountability.
• Parliamentary Independence: Allowing Parliament to convene on its own initiative, rather than relying solely on the President’s discretion, would ensure timely discussions on critical issues.

Conclusion:

While parliamentary oversight is vital for Executive accountability, its effectiveness can be significantly improved by addressing current limitations. Strengthening the Committee system, reducing disruptions, and empowering the Opposition are key steps towards better governance.

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.

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.