Arguments for its necessity: The Rajya Sabha is crucial for upholding the federal principle by giving states representation at the Centre. As scholar M.V. Pylee argues in “An Introduction to the Constitution of India,” its special powers under Articles 249 and 312 are vital for a flexible federal structure. It also acts as a check against the “tyranny of the majority” of the Lok Sabha, ensuring legislation is not passed in haste or driven by purely populist motives.
Arguments against its effectiveness (as a procedural clog): Critics argue that the Rajya Sabha often becomes a platform for political obstructionism, especially when the ruling party lacks a majority there. This can stall important legislative agendas and reforms. The use of the Money Bill route to bypass the Rajya Sabha (as alleged in the Aadhaar case) highlights the tensions in this bicameral relationship.
The Instrument of Joint Sitting: A Subversion of Bicameralism?
Cause-Effect: The provision for a joint sitting was introduced to prevent legislative deadlock. However, its effect is to dilute the power of the Rajya Sabha significantly. Given the Lok Sabha’s numerical strength, a joint sitting invariably favors the will of the government of the day, which commands a majority in the lower house. This undermines the very purpose of a second chamber as a revisory body. It effectively reduces bicameralism to unicameralism in moments of disagreement.
The Speaker’s Discretion on Money Bills: A Point of Contention
Constitutional Mandate vs. Political Misuse: Article 110(3) makes the Speaker’s decision final. The original intent was to prevent judicial interference in parliamentary proceedings and ensure smooth financial legislation.
Historiographical Debate & Judicial Scrutiny: Initially, this “finality” was considered beyond judicial review. However, the certification of bills like the Aadhaar Bill (2016) as Money Bills led to debates on whether this power was being misused to bypass the Rajya Sabha. The Supreme Court, in the Rojer Mathew vs. South Indian Bank Ltd case (2019), held that the Speaker’s decision under Article 110(3) is subject to judicial review, marking a significant shift in interpretation and providing a check on potential executive overreach through the Speaker’s office.
Declining Standards of Parliamentary Democracy
Causes for Decline:
Reduced Deliberation: Frequent disruptions, walkouts, and passing of bills without adequate debate. The average time spent discussing a bill has decreased significantly.
Weakening of Committees: Important bills are often not referred to Parliamentary Committees for detailed scrutiny.
Ordinance Raj: Frequent use of the ordinance-making power (Article 123) by the executive bypasses parliamentary scrutiny, a trend criticized by the Supreme Court in the D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (1987) case.
Guillotining Demands for Grants: A large portion of the budget is often passed without discussion due to lack of time, undermining financial accountability.
Politicisation of Presiding Officers’ roles: The office of the Speaker is often seen as not being entirely impartial.
Suggested Solutions:
Strengthening the Committee System: Mandatory referral of all bills to committees and making their recommendations more influential.
Adherence to Parliamentary Calendar: Fixing a calendar for sittings and legislative business to ensure predictability and adequate time for debate.
Code of Conduct for MPs: Enforcing discipline and penalizing disruptive behaviour more strictly.
Increasing Sitting Days: The number of days Parliament meets per year has declined. Increasing it would allow more time for legislative and deliberative functions.
Empowering Opposition: Providing the opposition with more institutional tools and time to hold the government accountable, such as the concept of a ‘Shadow Cabinet’.