send mail to support@abhimanu.com mentioning your email id and mobileno registered with us! if details not recieved
Resend Opt after 60 Sec.
By Loging in you agree to Terms of Services and Privacy Policy
Please specify
Please verify your mobile number
Login not allowed, Please logout from existing browser
Please update your name
Subscribe to Notifications
Stay updated with the latest Current affairs and other important updates regarding video Lectures, Test Schedules, live sessions etc..
Your Free user account at abhipedia has been created.
Remember, success is a journey, not a destination. Stay motivated and keep moving forward!
Refer & Earn
Enquire Now
My Abhipedia Earning
Kindly Login to view your earning
Support
In recent years, the proceedings in the Indian Parliament have come to be largely characterised as unproductive, in view of ceaseless disruptions by various members of Parliament(more recently washout of the winter sessions 2016). While the expression of dissent within the confines of parliamentary etiquette is a legitimate form of protest, the manner in which it currently manifests itself in Parliament, is far from acceptable. The natural consequence of such behaviour is twofold - first, taxpayers’ money gets wasted over a non-functioning Parliament; second, the legislative paralysis stultifies the overall governance in the country. However, little attention has been paid to what the underlying causes for such disruptions are. More crucially, very little writing has focused on why MPs, envisaged as the embodiments of responsiveness to their constituents, have continued to disrupt Parliament, and been immune to popular criticism.
1. Substantive reasons for disruptions
(a) Discussion on matters of controversy and public importance By virtue of their very nature, controversial topics appear to be those matters that have an adverse effect on a region, a State, or the country as a whole and dominate the contemporaneous news cycle.There have been a number of instances where matters of public importance have been raised by members by means of incessant disruptions, rather than through permissible devices with the leave of the Speaker or the Chairman. In the name of raising matters of public importance, there have also been a number of instances where members have made allegations and accusations against the other members of the House or against members belonging to a specific political party, particularly the ruling party. These allegations/accusations led to disruptions in the House as the members making such accusations, and the members being accused, both tend to get agitated with the matter raised on the floor of the House.
(b) Grandstanding by the leaders and members of the opposition Most disruptions have been initiated by members of the opposition parties. This is because the transaction of business in the Rajya Sabha and the Lok Sabha is, in some sense, as is only to be expected, driven by the government and subject to the interplay between various political groups and their associated ideologies. It must also be noted that it is plausible that a number of members who raised unlisted matters of public importance or spoke on listed matters of public controversy disrupted proceedings of the House seemingly with the aim of garnering publicity. Since live telecast of the debates on television (on Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha TV Channels) can be viewed by any member of the public, and any significant disruption is likely to be carried in the news cycle on matters of immediate controversy or, more generally, on matters of public importance, several MPs, it appears, use parliamentary disruptions as a tool for gaining greater visibility in the public eye.
(c) Privileging Party over Member The spate of large-scale disruptions may also be attributable to the privileging of the political party over the individual parliamentarian in the democratic setup. The anti-defection law, which is codified under the Tenth Schedule of the Indian Constitution and which endeavours to prevent the breach of faith of the electorate by an MP is a key manifestation of such privileging. The reason for such behaviour may, in some sense, be the result of the suppression of the MP’s freedom to dissent from the directions of his party under the anti-defection law. Another factor may relate to the threat of expulsion of a member for engaging in ‘anti-party activities’. For instance, an MP may feel hesitant in expressing his disapproval of parliamentary disruptions - within Parliament, in the press, or during the meeting of all members of his party. This hesitation may stem from the fear on the part of the MP of being expelled from his party for participating in ‘anti-party activities’. have been expelled from their parties for anti-party activities.
(d) Disruptions may help ruling party evade responsibility The maximum number of disruptions have been found to take place in the Question Hour and the Zero Hour. While these disruptions are largely attributable to the behaviour of members of the opposition, they may also be a consequence of executive action. As the ruling government at the Centre has the prime function of allocating the time and agenda for each session of Parliament. Accordingly, ruling governments may, in some cases, schedule the transaction of business of each Session in such manner so as pave the way for greater disruptions in Parliament.
2. Structural reasons for disruptions
(a) Lack of dedicated time for unlisted discussion Disruptions also get triggered due to lack of adequate time for raising questions and objections in respect of matters that are not listed for discussion in a particular, or during a particular session, in general. In this regard, it is also pertinent to mention that the increase in the number of parties in the House has led to a proportionate reduction in the amount of time available to each party for discussion.
(b) Scarce resort to disciplinary powers Another systemic reason why disruptions are not effectively prevented relates to the scarce resort to disciplinary powers by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha. As a result, most members engaging in disorderly conduct are neither deterred nor restrained from engaging in such conduct.
a. Government taking ordinance route b. Affects the governance of executive as important legislations gets delayed c. Wastage of public money d. Ineffectiveness of representative democracy e. opportunities of holding government accountable are being lost
a. While it is clear that the discussion on controversial topics is necessary in Parliament, there is a need for formulating a better framework for discussing such topics. A strategic restructuring of the manner in which discussions on controversial topics take place in both Houses may be useful in curbing disruptions on account of such issues. Furthermore, the time allotted towards discussion on issues of public importance, which form an important part of the deliberations in Parliament, requires restructuring as well. This is necessary in order to reserve enough time for the transaction of the listed business of the House, particularly key legislative business.
b. Number of measures that hold MPs accountable in front of the public may be put in place to dissuade members from using disruptions as means to garner public support. Particularly, since disruptions are not limited to particular political parties but a consistent practice of most political parties in opposition, leaders and members of the opposition parties may also be provided with adequate opportunities to lead discussions in Parliament and express their point of view before the House without having to resort to disruptions.
c. A number of measures may be undertaken to reform the manner in which the opposition parties take part in the discussions in Parliament. Among other things, these measures may include restructuring the anti-defection law and promoting inner-party democracy preventing wanton expulsion of members, both of which compel all members of a particular party to agree on all issues, including the need to disrupt. It may also include promoting greater debate among members of the same political party, permitting opposition-led discussions in Parliament and encouraging more engagement between the ruling parties and the opposition parties through all party meetings.
d. Greater participation of the opposition groups in allocating business of the House would serve as a useful check over this, and ensure greater accountability of the ruling government before Parliament
e. To remedy these problems, the manner in which the Secretary General allocates business in each sitting of a session plays a significant role in shaping the behaviour of parties and reducing the instances of disruptions.
Note a. Other issues with parliament:- b. Poor quality of debates c. Not up to the mark Mannerism d. Absenteeism
By: Rakesh Kumar Barik ProfileResourcesReport error
Access to prime resources