GS Notes

Polity Notes 20

13 min read

Functions of the Indian Parliament

The Parliament of India, as the supreme legislative body, is entrusted with a multitude of functions that are central to the sustenance of a representative parliamentary democracy. These functions are derived from the principle of separation of powers, albeit with the overlaps inherent in a parliamentary system.

  • Legislative Function: The primary and most conspicuous function of the Parliament is law-making. As outlined in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, it legislates on subjects in the Union List and the Concurrent List. This power extends to residuary subjects as well. The legislative process involves the introduction of a Bill, followed by rigorous stages of discussion, debate, scrutiny by parliamentary committees, and finally, voting. The executive’s role is to implement these laws, establishing a clear demarcation of responsibilities. For instance, the passage of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act, 2017, involved extensive debate and consensus-building, demonstrating this core function.
  • Ensuring Executive Accountability: A cornerstone of parliamentary democracy and the doctrine of constitutionalism is the principle of limited government. The Parliament ensures that the executive (the Council of Ministers) remains accountable to the people’s representatives. It employs several instruments to achieve this:
    • Question Hour and Zero Hour: Members can ask questions to ministers regarding their ministries’ functioning. The famous Mundhra Scandal (1957), exposed by Feroze Gandhi in Parliament, led to the resignation of the then Finance Minister T.T. Krishnamachari, exemplifying the power of parliamentary questioning.
    • Motions: Instruments like adjournment motions, calling attention motions, and no-confidence motions are used to draw attention to urgent public matters and test the government’s majority on the floor of the House.
    • Parliamentary Committees: Committees like the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) and the Estimates Committee conduct detailed scrutiny of government expenditure and policy implementation, acting as a “watchdog”.
  • Forum for Deliberation and Debate: Parliament serves as the highest forum for national deliberation. It is where diverse viewpoints are articulated, and national issues are debated. Since direct democracy is impractical in a country of India’s size, elected representatives voice the concerns and aspirations of their constituents. The Constituent Assembly Debates themselves stand as a testament to the power of deliberation in shaping the nation’s foundational document. Political scientist W.H. Morris-Jones in his work “Parliament in India” (1957), described the Indian Parliament as a grand national forum for debate and discussion.
  • Electoral Functions: The Parliament participates in the election of the President of India (Article 54) and the Vice-President of India (Article 66).
  • Constituent Functions: Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution as per the procedure laid down in Article 368, enabling the foundational law to evolve with changing times.
  • Exemplary Conduct: Members of Parliament are expected to embody the highest standards of integrity and probity. Their conduct, both inside and outside the House, sets a precedent for society. This role is crucial in shaping public morality and political culture.

Functioning of the Indian Parliament: A Phased Analysis

Phase I: The Golden Age (1947-1967)

This period is often romanticized as the zenith of Indian parliamentary democracy, characterized by high standards of debate and decorum.

  • Quality of Members: The first Lok Sabha was populated by “first-generation politicians” who were veterans of the national freedom movement. Figures like Jawaharlal Nehru, B.R. Ambedkar, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, and Shyama Prasad Mukherjee brought a spirit of selfless service and intellectual rigour to the proceedings. Their primary motivation was nation-building, not personal gain.
  • Nehru’s Democratic Temperament: Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, a staunch democrat, played a pivotal role. He deeply respected parliamentary traditions, attended sessions diligently, and was receptive to criticism from the opposition, even though it was numerically insignificant. Granville Austin, in “The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation” (1966), highlights how Nehru nurtured parliamentary institutions in their nascent stage.
  • Robust Deliberations: Despite the Congress party’s overwhelming majority, bills were subjected to thorough discussion. The first budget of independent India was debated for over two months. The average number of sitting days for the Parliament was around 150 days a year. The use of ‘Guillotine’ (passing budgetary demands without discussion) was unheard of.
  • Impartial Speaker: The office of the Speaker, held by figures like G.V. Mavalankar, largely maintained its impartiality, ensuring that rules were applied fairly to both treasury and opposition benches.
  • Effective Opposition: Though small, the opposition, comprising members from parties like the Swatantra Party, Bharatiya Jana Sangh, and Socialist parties, was intellectually powerful and effective. Their interventions were substantive and contributed significantly to the quality of legislation.

Phase II: Decline and Criminalisation (1967-1990)

This phase marked a significant deterioration in parliamentary standards, driven by profound changes in India’s political economy.

  • Changing Profile of Politicians: The generation of freedom fighters was replaced by second-generation politicians whose motivations were often rooted in power and patronage. The entry of erstwhile Zamindars and businessmen, seeking to protect their interests within the “License-Permit-Quota Raj,” changed the character of the legislature. This system, often described as Crony-Socialism, fostered a nexus between politics and business.
  • The 1967 Election Watershed: The fourth general election in 1967 was a turning point. The Congress party’s dominance was challenged, its majority in the Lok Sabha dwindled, and it lost power in several states. This ended the “Congress System” as described by scholar Rajni Kothari. The increased political competition led to the use of money and muscle power in elections.
  • Criminalisation of Politics: As electoral contests became more intense and expensive, political parties began to covertly use anti-social elements and local strongmen to capture booths, intimidate voters, and fund campaigns. In return, these criminals received political patronage and protection from the law. This phenomenon is termed the ‘Criminalisation of Politics’. The Vohra Committee Report (1993) later officially documented this politician-bureaucrat-criminal nexus.
  • Personality-based Politics: The post-1969 period, especially under Indira Gandhi, saw a shift from ideology-centric politics to personality-cult politics. The slogan “Gareebi Hatao” was pitted against the opposition’s “Indira Hatao,” centralizing power in one individual. This concentration of power weakened institutional checks and balances, including Parliament.
  • Erosion of Parliamentary Procedures: This era witnessed a sharp decline in decorum. Walkouts, disruptions, and frequent adjournments became common. The executive resorted to the ‘Ordinance Raj’—promulgating and re-promulgating ordinances to bypass legislative scrutiny, a practice famously critiqued by the Supreme Court in D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (1987). Budgets began to be guillotined, and the Speaker’s office became increasingly politicized.
  • The Anti-Defection Law (1985): Introduced via the 52nd Amendment by the Rajiv Gandhi government, the Tenth Schedule was intended to curb political defections. However, it had the unintended consequence of stifling dissent within parties. By making MPs subservient to the party whip on virtually all matters, it took away their freedom to vote according to their conscience, effectively making the legislature an extension of the party leadership and, by extension, the executive.

Phase III: Politicisation of Crime and Executive Dominance (1990 onwards)

This period saw the trends of the previous phase deepen, alongside new challenges posed by coalition politics and the subsequent return to single-party dominance.

  • Politicisation of Crime: The nexus evolved from criminals supporting politicians to criminals becoming politicians themselves. They realized that direct entry into the legislature provided them with immunity and greater control over the state machinery. Political parties, guided solely by the ‘winnability’ criterion, began giving tickets to candidates with serious criminal backgrounds. This transformation from the indirect influence of criminals to their direct participation is known as the ‘Politicisation of Crime’. Data from the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) consistently shows a rising number of MPs and MLAs with declared criminal cases. The present Lok Sabha has a significant percentage of members facing criminal charges.
  • Era of Coalitions (1989-2014): The implementation of the Mandal Commission recommendations and the rise of identity politics led to the fragmentation of the national party system and the emergence of numerous regional and caste-based parties. This resulted in an era of ‘Hung Parliaments’ and coalition governments. While this period saw a temporary revival of parliamentary relevance, as individual MPs and smaller parties could decide the fate of governments (e.g., the Vajpayee government’s fall by one vote in 1999), it also led to political instability and horse-trading. The JMM Bribery Case (1993), where MPs were allegedly bribed to save the P.V. Narasimha Rao government, exposed the dark underbelly of coalition politics.
  • Return of Single-Party Dominance (2014 onwards): Since 2014, and more emphatically since 2019, the return of a single party with a strong majority in the Lok Sabha (and later in the Rajya Sabha) has led to a renewed phase of executive dominance.
    • Decline in Sitting Days: The number of annual sitting days has plummeted from an average of 150 in the 1950s to less than 60 in recent years.
    • Bypassing Scrutiny: Bills are often passed with minimal or no debate. The average time taken by the Lok Sabha to pass a bill has drastically reduced. For example, the controversial three Farm Bills were passed in the Rajya Sabha within minutes amid chaos and the suspension of opposition members.
    • Reduced Committee Reference: The practice of referring bills to Parliamentary Standing Committees for detailed examination has declined significantly.
    • Guillotine as Norm: The 2023-24 Union Budget, amounting to ₹45 lakh crore, was passed by the Lok Sabha in less than 15 minutes, with demands for grants for most ministries being guillotined.
    • Controversial Speaker’s Role: The Speaker’s role in applying anti-defection laws and certifying bills as ‘Money Bills’ has frequently been contentious, further weakening the legislature’s position.

Proposed Solutions to Parliamentary Decline

  • Increasing the Number of Sitting Days: The decline from over 150 days to less than 60 is a primary concern. A law or a formal resolution could mandate a minimum number of sitting days, for instance, 120 days a year, as is the practice in countries like the UK. A ‘lost hours’ provision could be introduced, whereby if a day is lost to disruptions, the House must sit for an extra day to compensate.

Prelims Pointers

  • The primary function of the legislature under the doctrine of separation of powers is law-making.
  • Constitutionalism implies the principle of a limited government with checks and balances.
  • A political party needs at least 1/10th of the total seats in the Lok Sabha to be recognized as the official opposition party.
  • India got its first recognised Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha in 1969.
  • Guillotine: A parliamentary procedure to pass the Demands for Grants of the budget without discussion to save time.
  • License-Permit-Quota Raj: Refers to the economic system in India from the 1950s to the 1980s, characterized by extensive government control and regulation.
  • The 1967 General Elections are considered a watershed moment as they marked the end of the one-party dominance of the Congress.
  • Criminalisation of Politics: The use of criminals and muscle power by political parties to win elections, with criminals offering indirect support.
  • Politicisation of Crime: The direct entry of criminals into politics by contesting elections and becoming lawmakers.
  • Ordinance Raj: A term used to describe the frequent promulgation and re-promulgation of ordinances by the executive to bypass the legislature.
  • The Tenth Schedule, also known as the Anti-Defection Law, was added to the Constitution by the 52nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1985.
  • Article 105 of the Indian Constitution deals with the powers, privileges, etc., of the Houses of Parliament and of the members and committees thereof.
  • Hung Parliament: A situation where no single political party or pre-existing coalition wins an absolute majority of seats in the legislature.
  • The Vohra Committee Report (1993) examined the nexus between criminals, politicians, and bureaucrats in India.

Mains Insights

  1. The Paradox of the Anti-Defection Law (GS Paper II):

    • Intended Purpose: The Tenth Schedule was enacted to curb the “Aya Ram, Gaya Ram” politics of the 1970s and 80s, thereby promoting political stability.
    • Unintended Consequence: It has been criticized for stifling intra-party democracy. It forces MPs/MLAs to toe the party line dictated by the high command, failing which they risk disqualification. This undermines their role as representatives of their constituents and transforms them into mere delegates of the party.
    • Impact on Deliberation: It effectively gags the individual legislator, reducing Parliament from a deliberative body to a mere forum for counting numbers. A legislator cannot vote on a bill based on their conscience or the interests of their constituency if it contradicts the party whip.
    • Debate for Reform: Experts like the Dinesh Goswami Committee (1990) and the 170th Law Commission Report (1999) have suggested reforms, such as restricting the whip’s application only to motions that threaten the government’s stability (e.g., no-confidence motions, money bills).

  2. Criminalisation of Politics: A Threat to Democracy and Governance (GS Paper II & IV):

    • Cause-Effect Relationship: The escalating cost of elections creates a demand for illicit funds, which criminals can provide. In return, they receive political protection. This nexus erodes the rule of law. When lawmakers are lawbreakers, it leads to a complete breakdown of the citizen’s faith in the political system.
    • From Criminalisation to Politicisation: The shift to ‘Politicisation of Crime’ is more dangerous. A criminal outside the system can be checked by the law, but a criminal inside the system can manipulate the law itself. This impacts policy-making, as laws may be framed to benefit vested interests rather than the public good.
    • Ethical Dimension (GS-IV): This phenomenon represents a deep-seated crisis of probity in governance. It normalizes corruption, destroys public trust, and deters honest individuals from entering politics, creating a vicious cycle.

  3. Executive Ascendancy and Legislative Decline (GS Paper II):

    • Structural Factors: The parliamentary system, by its nature, fuses the executive and legislature. However, a brute majority, coupled with the anti-defection law, transforms this fusion into a subordination of the legislature to the executive.
    • Consequences: This leads to a ‘tyranny of the majority’ where legislative scrutiny is minimized. Bypassing parliamentary committees, rushing through legislation without debate, and excessive use of the ordinance route are all symptoms of this malaise. It weakens accountability and can lead to poorly drafted, ineffective, or even draconian laws.
    • Coalition vs. Majority: While coalition governments are often criticized for instability, they can paradoxically strengthen parliamentary oversight because the executive is constantly under pressure from its allies and the opposition. Conversely, a strong single-party government can render Parliament almost redundant.

  4. The Role of the Speaker: Umpire or Player? (GS Paper II):

    • The Issue of Impartiality: The Speaker of the Lok Sabha is expected to be a neutral arbiter of parliamentary proceedings. However, since the Speaker is elected from the ruling party and does not formally resign from it upon election, their impartiality is often questioned.
    • Areas of Controversy:
      • Anti-Defection Law: The Speaker has the final say in disqualification proceedings, and their decisions are often accused of being politically motivated to favour the ruling party.
      • Certifying Money Bills: The Speaker’s decision to certify a bill as a ‘Money Bill’ is final and cannot be challenged in court. This power has allegedly been misused to bypass the Rajya Sabha, where the government may lack a majority.
    • Suggested Reform: A key reform suggested is that the Speaker, upon election, must resign from their political party to ensure true impartiality, following the convention in the United Kingdom (“Once a Speaker, always a Speaker”).

Graph View