Has the Parliament become merely an ornamental institution?

What makes the Parliament appear as merely an Ornamental Institutions?

Our Parliament is a non-sovereign law-making body like the legislature of other countries excluding Britain. While the Constitution has accepted the principle of separation of powers and placed the Parliament in a position of its own, its powers have been circumscribed by the written provisions of the Constitution, the norms of a federal polity and above all, by the system of judicial review. The Supreme Court and the High courts have the power to declare any law of Parliament void, in part or full, if it is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution. Not only this, the Courts have also invented some other grounds to strike down a law of a Parliament as the doctrines of ‘competence’ and of ‘basic structure of the Constitution’. We know that in a parliamentary system the executive usurps the inherent functions of the Parliament. All official bills are carried through and a bill moved by a private member has hardly any chance of adoption unless it receives the blessings of the Ministers. The Parliament discusses matters included in the agenda prepared by the Business Advisory Committee in which the Prime Minister, the Minister for Parliamentary Affairs and the Speaker of the Lok Sabha play the decisive role. The voice of the Leader of the Opposition is given some weight of course, but it is the leaders of the party in power who dominate all the proceedings.
Consequently, what the Parliament discusses or may discuss is determined by the policy of the executive. The Cabinet decides about the duration of the sessions of Parliament. Above all, the Prime Minister, may advise the president to dissolve the Lok Sabha at any time. As such, the Parliament looks like a tool in the hands of the Ministers.

Does it mean that Parliament of India is in fact Ornamental?

Although it might seem that way based on the arguments mentioned, however, it does not mean that in our political set up, the Parliament has become virtually redundant. It is true that the members of both the Houses have lost their autonomy in the name of the discipline in the ranks of the party and they have to vote in the House according to the whip issued by the party leader so as to avoid the penalty of defection amounting to the loss of their membership of House, it should not be lost sight of the fact that the deliberations of the Parliament have their own impact on the administration of the country. The criticism of the ministry compels the administration to stick to the right side or to face a situation of exit.
In case no party commands clear majority in the Lok Sabha, the ministry has to behave in a very responsible way so as to survive in the struggle for existence. The events of the last few years testify to this fact. Some Prime Ministers (like Pt. Nehru, Shastri Ji, Smt Indira Gandh and Rajiv Gandhi) could behave like powerful rulers of the country just on account of the overwhelming strength of their party in both Houses of Parliament. But other Prime Ministers (like Shri Morarji Desai, Chaudhry Charan Singh, V.P. Singh and Chandra Shekhar and Shri Vajpayee) could not complete their term for want of support in the Lok Sabha.

Thus, the recent developments indicate that our Parliament “is becoming more representative of the people of India, of the level of their political awareness, or their lack of sophistication and of their problems, hopes and aspirations.” Only worry is the continuous stalemate and din accompanied by frequent adjournments on the part of the presiding officers. Let the Parliament prove true to its institutional character as the microcosm of the world by developing some healthy practices or conventions.

By: Pritam Sharma