P L RAJ IAS & IPS ACADEMY - AN INSTITUTION FOR IAS, IPS AND TNPSC EXAMINATION

PARLIAMENTARY & LEGISLATIVE DISRUPTION IN INDIA: POLITY

NEWS: Deliberate disruptions of Parliament proceedings against the spirit of democracy: Om Birla

WHAT’S IN THE NEWS?

Parliamentary and legislative disruptions in India, fueled by political strategies and contentious issues, have led to reduced productivity and legislative paralysis. These disruptions undermine democratic processes, erode public trust, and incur significant economic costs.

Parliamentary & Legislative Disruptions in India

1. Introduction to Disruptions

• Disruptions in the Indian Parliament and State Assemblies have been an ongoing concern since the country gained independence. While such disruptions have been a part of the legislative process from the early years, their frequency and intensity have notably increased in recent decades.

• During the 1970s and 1980s, disruptions were relatively infrequent and typically occurred over major national issues, such as the imposition of the Emergency (1975-77) and economic policies. These disruptions were often strategic and tied to significant political events.

• However, the 1990s saw a dramatic increase in the frequency of disruptions due to the rise of coalition politics. The coalition governments often faced instability, leading to strategic obstructionism. Parties resorted to disruptions to assert their power or protest against specific issues, which weakened the overall functioning of legislative bodies.

2. Recent Trends in Disruptions

• State Assemblies in states like West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, and Karnataka have faced severe disruptions, with protests escalating to physical altercations between members of the legislative bodies. These disruptions often involve walkouts, shouting, and raising slogans.

• The trend of deliberate disruptions has raised concerns about the health of India’s democratic processes. What was once seen as an occasional issue has now become a regular occurrence, damaging the ability of legislative bodies to function effectively.

Data on Legislative Productivity

1. Reduced Sitting Days

• Over the years, the number of sitting days of the Lok Sabha (lower house) and Rajya Sabha (upper house) has declined. For instance, the 16th Lok Sabha (2014-2019) had only 331 sitting days, the lowest for any full-term Lok Sabha in history. This reduction in sitting days severely limits the opportunities for debate, discussion, and legislation.

• A prime example of this decline was the Monsoon Session of 2021, where the Lok Sabha functioned for only 21% of its scheduled time, while the Rajya Sabha was in session for just 28%. This poor productivity can be attributed to frequent disruptions and protests from opposition parties.

2. Decreased Working Hours

• The working hours of Parliament have been significantly reduced due to disruptions. For example, during the Winter Session of 2024, the Lok Sabha operated only for 52% of its scheduled time, and the Rajya Sabha functioned at just 39% efficiency.

• These figures highlight how disruptions are directly reducing the number of hours Parliament spends on discussing and passing critical legislation. For the functioning of a healthy democracy, it is essential that lawmakers use their time to deliberate on the national issues.

3. Impact on Question Hour

• The Question Hour is a critical time for members of Parliament to question the government on various issues. However, during the Winter Session of 2024, the Rajya Sabha’s Question Hour was rendered non-functional for 15 out of 19 days, and the Lok Sabha did not function properly for more than 10 minutes on 12 out of 20 days.

• These disruptions prevent effective scrutiny of the government's actions and undermine the core democratic principle of holding the executive accountable for its decisions. The Question Hour, in particular, is meant to foster transparency, and its frequent disruptions have a detrimental impact on democratic oversight.

4. Legislative Backlog

• Legislative productivity has seen a steep decline, with fewer bills being passed each year. In the Winter Session of 2024, only one bill—the Bharatiya Vayuyan Vidheyak, 2024—was passed. This was the lowest number of bills passed in the last six Lok Sabha terms, which illustrates how disruptions contribute to a legislative backlog.

• The inability of Parliament to function effectively results in delayed or postponed legislation, impacting the implementation of key laws and reforms.

Causes of Disruptions

1. Political Strategies and Protest Culture

• Disruptions are often employed by political parties as a strategic tool to either gain media attention or protest against issues they deem controversial. Members may resort to walkouts, slogan-shouting, or other forms of disruption to garner support from their constituents or create a public spectacle.

• Disruptions also serve as a form of protest against the ruling party's policies or legislative agenda. In some cases, parties prefer to engage in protest rather than engage in productive debates or negotiations.

2. Contentious Issues and Lack of Consensus

• Issues such as economic reforms, minority rights, constitutional amendments, and sensitive political issues often trigger disruptions. Disagreements on policies like the Farm Bills (2020), Citizenship Amendment Act (2019), and GST rollout (2017) led to protests, walkouts, and disruptions in Parliament.

• The lack of a willingness to engage in dialogue and compromise between parties exacerbates the issue, as the absence of consensus leads to heightened tensions and disruptions.

3. Weak Enforcement of Rules

• While the rules of procedure for both Parliament and State Assemblies provide mechanisms for controlling disruptions, the enforcement of these rules remains weak. The presiding officers (Speakers and Chairpersons) have limited authority to penalize members for their disruptive behavior, making it difficult to maintain order during legislative sessions.

• The lack of strong enforcement of rules allows disruptive behavior to persist, which erodes the effectiveness of parliamentary proceedings.

4. Media Attention and Public Perception

• Disruptions are often amplified by media coverage, which tends to focus on the theatrics of protests and walkouts rather than the substantive issues at hand. Members of Parliament may resort to disruptive tactics to gain visibility in the media and enhance their political standing.

• Media often sensationalizes the conflict, which may fuel public support for the disruptive actions of lawmakers. This can create a vicious cycle where disruptions are rewarded with media attention, encouraging more disorderly conduct.

5. Decline in Constructive Debate

• Over time, there has been a noticeable decline in the quality of debates in Parliament. Instead of engaging in constructive discussions about important issues, members often resort to disruptions.

• Parliamentary procedures like the Zero Hour and Question Hour, which are meant for deliberation, are frequently disrupted, hindering the ability of legislators to perform their constitutional duties effectively.

6. Ethnic and Regional Issues

• Disruptions are also caused by ethnic and regional issues, such as debates over caste-based policies, federal conflicts, and regional demands. For example, demands for greater autonomy or the recognition of minority rights often lead to heated protests and walkouts.

• These issues add another layer of complexity to the problem, as they are deeply ingrained in the socio-political fabric of the country, making it difficult to resolve conflicts through dialogue alone.

7. Suspension of MPs

• When members engage in disruptive behavior, they may be suspended for a period of time. However, these suspensions often lead to increased political standoffs between the ruling and opposition parties, further intensifying the deadlock.

• The suspension of MPs is sometimes seen as a political tool rather than a mechanism to maintain order, leading to more confrontational politics and further escalating the disruptions.

Impact of Disruptions

1. Legislative Paralysis

• The frequent disruptions in Parliament and State Assemblies result in legislative paralysis, where critical bills and policies are delayed or not passed at all.

• Important discussions on national security, budgetary allocations, and social welfare policies get postponed, which impacts the overall governance and administrative machinery of the country.

2. Erosion of Public Trust

• Disruptions lead to the erosion of public trust in legislative institutions. When citizens witness lawmakers engaging in disorderly conduct, they lose confidence in the ability of Parliament and State Assemblies to address their concerns.

• The perception of lawmakers as being more interested in creating spectacles rather than solving issues contributes to voter disillusionment and can lead to apathy in democratic participation.

3. Economic and Administrative Costs

• The unproductive nature of disrupted parliamentary sessions results in the wastage of taxpayers’ money. Unfinished debates and stalled legislative processes mean that resources invested in organizing sessions and conducting legislative work go to waste.

• Furthermore, delayed passage of important laws leads to administrative delays in implementing policies, which negatively impacts the economy and governance at large.

Key Reforms to Minimize Disruptions in Parliament & State Assemblies

1. Stricter Enforcement of Rules

• A stricter implementation of disciplinary rules, such as Rule 374A (Lok Sabha) and Rule 255 (Rajya Sabha), should be enacted to penalize members engaging in disruptive conduct.

• Clearer guidelines should be established to prevent adjournments due to disruptions, ensuring that legislative sessions are more productive and focused on substantive discussions.

2. Code of Conduct for Legislators

• A mandatory code of conduct should be put in place to penalize repeated disruptions and ensure a higher standard of behavior for legislators.

• A Parliamentary Conduct Committee could be formed to review instances of disruption and recommend actions for accountability, providing a formal mechanism for addressing disorderly conduct.

3. Increased Use of Technology

• Technological tools, such as live tracking and documentation of disruptions, should be employed to increase accountability.

• Digital screens could be used to display the names of those causing disruptions, making them publicly accountable for their actions.