Parliamentary Matters

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZ6XT32Zo9M&ab_channel=IndiaToday

https://mpa.gov.in/about-us/organization-structure

The working culture of the Indian Parliament is shaped by its structure, procedures, and traditions. While much of its functioning is transparent, there are certain lesser-known aspects:

1. Influence of Whips:

Role of the Whip: Each political party appoints a whip whose role is to ensure party members vote according to the party’s line. While this is public, the influence whips exert on internal party discipline during debates and voting is significant and less visible. Members rarely vote against the party direction due to this mechanism.

2. Committee Work:

Behind-the-Scenes Influence: Much of the detailed work of Parliament happens in committees rather than during televised debates in the chambers. Parliamentary Standing Committees and Select Committees scrutinize bills, call for expert testimonies, and make recommendations. Their discussions are often more in-depth, cross-party, and less partisan than what is seen in the public debates.

3. Bureaucratic Support:

Role of Bureaucrats: Parliamentarians often rely heavily on bureaucratic inputs from ministries when drafting or amending bills. The staff of the Secretariat, legislative experts, and research analysts help MPs with legal, technical, and policy-related inputs that shape legislation behind the scenes.

4. Private Member’s Bills:

Limited Success: While any MP who is not a minister can introduce a Private Member's Bill (non-government bill), very few of these are passed due to the dominance of government-sponsored legislation in parliamentary time. The success rate of such bills is low, despite them often raising significant issues.

5. Unwritten Traditions and Etiquette:

Respect for Traditions: Parliament has a number of unwritten rules and customs, such as not interrupting the Leader of the House or the Leader of the Opposition during their speeches. These traditions are followed rigorously, though they might not be widely known outside parliamentary circles.

6. Internal Lobbying:

Influence of Interest Groups: Though much of the lobbying is transparent, such as through public consultations, there are instances where lobbying happens within Parliament by various interest groups, pressure groups, or party members behind closed doors, influencing decision-making and debates.

7. Role of Parliamentary Research:

PRS and Think Tanks: Members of Parliament (MPs) often rely on external research organizations like PRS (Parliamentary Research Service) for data and analysis to inform their positions on issues. This research shapes their participation in debates and their voting choices, though this process is not highly publicized.

These hidden aspects of the Indian Parliament’s working culture illustrate the complexity of its internal functioning, where much of the real work happens behind formal proceedings and in collaboration with various stakeholders.

The working culture of the Indian Parliament is structured, but like any institution, there are certain aspects that may not be widely known or discussed openly. Here are some lesser-known or "hidden" facts about the working culture of the Indian Parliament:

1. Behind-the-Scenes Power of Parliamentary Committees:

While the public focus is often on debates in Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, parliamentary committees play a crucial role in law-making and policy oversight. These committees scrutinize bills, policies, and government actions in detail, often behind closed doors. They are less visible but wield significant influence on shaping the final form of legislation.

The discussions in these committees are typically more focused, less partisan, and less dramatic than public parliamentary debates, making them a core aspect of actual governance work.

2. Limited Attendance of MPs:

The attendance of Members of Parliament (MPs) in both houses is sometimes low during non-key debates or discussions, despite public expectations of constant engagement. In some sessions, critical debates may take place with fewer than 100 MPs present out of 543 in Lok Sabha.

MPs may prioritize constituency work or party responsibilities over day-to-day attendance in Parliament, relying on party whips to attend crucial votes and sessions.

3. Role of Whips and Party Discipline:

Political parties exert considerable control over their MPs through whips, who direct members on how to vote during key decisions. This ensures party cohesion, but it can also limit individual MPs' ability to express personal or constituency-driven opinions on certain matters.

Party discipline is strictly enforced, and voting against the party line can lead to expulsion from the party or serious political consequences.

4. Last-Minute Legislative Approvals:

Many bills and amendments are often passed in a hurried manner, especially toward the end of parliamentary sessions. Bills are sometimes introduced and passed within the same session without thorough debate due to time constraints or political strategy.

This practice, sometimes called "voice voting" or "guillotining," can mean that crucial legislation is pushed through without the level of scrutiny or public debate one might expect.

5. Unseen Bureaucratic Influence:

While elected MPs and Ministers take credit for most legislative and policy decisions, the actual drafting of laws, research, and policy recommendations are heavily influenced by civil servants and parliamentary research staff. This bureaucratic machinery works behind the scenes, shaping proposals before they reach the floor of Parliament.

Many senior civil servants act as the backbone for MPs who may not have the necessary expertise in specific areas, giving them significant influence in policy-making.

6. Use of "Adjournments" as a Political Tactic:

Opposition parties often use adjournments (the suspension of parliamentary proceedings) as a political strategy to delay debates, particularly when they seek to highlight an issue or block legislation they oppose.

Frequent disruptions, walkouts, and adjournments can significantly reduce the time available for legislative business, leading to a backlog of bills and reduced effectiveness of Parliament in passing laws.

7. Personal Relationships Among Politicians:

Despite fierce debates and political rivalries in public, many MPs across party lines maintain cordial personal relationships. Senior leaders often engage in friendly interactions off the floor, where political differences are set aside. These informal relationships can sometimes influence political decisions or negotiations.

Many MPs, especially from regional or smaller parties, collaborate behind the scenes to form alliances or work toward mutual goals despite ideological differences.

8. The Influence of Lobbyists and Interest Groups:

Lobbyists and interest groups, representing industries, NGOs, and business interests, often work quietly to influence legislation and policy decisions. While lobbying is not as institutionalized in India as in some other countries, it still plays a role in shaping the parliamentary agenda.

Interest groups may meet MPs privately, offer policy suggestions, or even draft specific clauses for legislation that benefits their sectors, all while staying out of the public eye.

9. MPs' Dependency on Parliamentary Research Service (PRS):

Given the wide range of topics covered in Parliament, many MPs depend on the Parliamentary Research Service (PRS) and personal research teams to understand the complexities of certain bills and policy issues. These research notes help MPs participate in debates more effectively and make informed decisions.

This reliance highlights the fact that not all MPs are experts in the vast array of subjects they discuss or vote on, but they are supported by specialized staff.

10. Language Barriers and Translation Challenges:

Although Hindi and English are the official languages of Parliament, not all MPs are comfortable speaking in these languages. Parliamentary proceedings are translated into multiple regional languages, and MPs often rely on translators to understand and participate in debates.

This system is not always perfect, leading to occasional miscommunication or delays in response during debates. Some MPs prefer to speak in their native languages for comfort and clarity.

11. Workload and Constituency Pressure:

Many MPs face a heavy workload balancing parliamentary duties, constituency responsibilities, and party work. MPs are often more focused on their local constituencies, where they spend considerable time handling local grievances, developmental projects, and election preparation.

The public often does not see the pressure MPs face from their constituents, and balancing this with national duties can affect their focus on parliamentary business.

12. Perks and Privileges:

MPs in India enjoy certain privileges, including generous housing, travel allowances, and other perks. However, what is less known is that many of these privileges extend even after their term ends, including pensions and access to medical facilities. These benefits are sometimes debated but remain part of the parliamentary culture.

These hidden aspects provide insight into the complexities and nuances of how the Indian Parliament functions beyond what is publicly visible.

The Ministries in India work closely with the Indian Parliament through a structured process of governance, lawmaking, accountability, and policy implementation. Ministries, headed by Ministers (usually Members of Parliament), are responsible for formulating policies, implementing laws, and managing administrative functions. The interaction between ministries and Parliament can be broken down as follows:

1. Policy Formulation and Legislation:

Drafting Bills: Ministries prepare draft legislation based on government policies, expert consultations, and administrative needs. The drafts are reviewed internally and then sent to Parliament for approval.

Introduction of Bills: The relevant minister presents the bill to either the Lok Sabha (House of the People) or the Rajya Sabha (Council of States), explaining its objectives and provisions.

Discussion and Debate: Once introduced, the bill is debated in Parliament. MPs from various parties review, discuss, and often critique the bill, suggesting amendments.

Example: The Ministry of Finance drafts the Union Budget and presents it in Parliament, where it's debated, revised (if necessary), and eventually approved.

2. Parliamentary Committees:

Standing Committees: Ministries regularly engage with parliamentary standing committees, which scrutinize their functioning, budgets, and legislative proposals. These committees can call ministers and ministry officials to explain the rationale behind policies and laws.

For instance, the Standing Committee on Finance regularly interacts with the Ministry of Finance to review financial legislation and the Union Budget.

Select and Joint Committees: Specific bills may be referred to these committees for detailed examination. Ministries collaborate with these committees, providing technical and expert input.

Example: The Select Committee on the Personal Data Protection Bill sought inputs from the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology.

3. Question Hour and Parliamentary Accountability:

Question Hour: Ministries are accountable to Parliament for their actions and policies. During the Question Hour, MPs ask questions, and ministers are required to provide answers and clarifications. This ensures transparency and allows MPs to scrutinize the work of ministries.

Ministries prepare detailed responses in consultation with bureaucrats and experts to address MPs' queries on governance, policy implementation, and spending.

Zero Hour: MPs can raise urgent matters of public importance without prior notice during Zero Hour, prompting ministries to provide swift explanations.

Example: During Question Hour, the Ministry of Health might be asked to explain its policies related to COVID-19 vaccination distribution or public health schemes.

4. Budget and Financial Oversight:

Union Budget: Ministries submit their annual budget proposals to the Ministry of Finance, which consolidates them into the Union Budget. The Minister of Finance presents the budget in Parliament, outlining government spending, revenues, and allocations for ministries.

Demands for Grants: Each ministry presents its budget in the form of demands for grants, which are discussed and approved by Parliament. The ministry's financial accountability to Parliament is ensured through this process.

Public Accounts Committee (PAC): After the budget is passed, ministries are subject to financial oversight by the PAC, which examines whether funds have been used effectively and efficiently.

Example: The Ministry of Railways presents its demands for grants separately, and its expenditures are closely scrutinized by parliamentary committees.

5. Ministry-Led Government Programs and Policy Implementation:

Parliamentary Approval: Large government programs and initiatives, such as Swachh Bharat Mission or Make in India, require parliamentary approval and funding.

Reporting Progress: Ministries must periodically report the progress of these initiatives to Parliament, either through formal reports or in response to specific questions from MPs.

Example: The Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs reports to Parliament on the progress of the Swachh Bharat Mission and provides updates on sanitation and cleanliness targets.

6. Amendments and Modifications:

Ministerial Response to Amendments: When Parliament suggests amendments to proposed laws or policies, the concerned ministry must either incorporate them or justify their rejection. Ministries often engage in consultations with opposition MPs and other parties to reach consensus.

Ordinances: Ministries may also propose ordinances, which are temporary laws issued by the President when Parliament is not in session. These ordinances need to be ratified by Parliament once it reconvenes.

Example: The Ministry of Home Affairs has issued ordinances related to security matters, which were later debated and passed as laws in Parliament.

7. Role of Bureaucracy:

Civil Servants and Technocrats: Senior bureaucrats, including secretaries of ministries, play a critical role in preparing materials for Parliament, drafting responses to questions, and coordinating with parliamentary committees.

Advisory Role: Ministries have subject matter experts who provide technical inputs during parliamentary debates and discussions on policy or legislative matters.

8. Consultations and Stakeholder Engagement:

Public Consultations: Ministries often seek the input of MPs, civil society, and stakeholders before finalizing major bills or policies. This feedback is crucial in shaping legislation.

Inter-Ministry Coordination: Ministries coordinate with one another on policies that require multi-sectoral engagement, like environmental laws (Environment Ministry, Health Ministry, and Commerce Ministry).

In summary, the interaction between ministries and Parliament involves legislation drafting, policy scrutiny, financial oversight, accountability measures, and collaborative decision-making, all ensuring that the executive remains accountable to the legislature.

Agenda and Order of Business: The order of business is typically laid out in an agenda. An agenda can be altered by a vote of the members, but having a consistent format helps in maintaining order.

Motions and Amendments: Officers should understand the various types of motions (main, incidental, privileged, subsidiary) and the importance of proper sequencing.

Quorum Requirements: Ensure officers know the rules around quorum (the minimum number of members required for a meeting to conduct business). The absence of a quorum can delay decision-making.

Main Motion: This is the primary proposal for discussion. Officers should remember that a main motion can be amended, but only after the motion is properly seconded and stated by the chair.

Subsidiary Motions: These modify how a main motion is handled (e.g., motion to amend, to table, to limit debate). A lesser-known but important subsidiary motion is the "motion to reconsider," which can be made after a decision has been made if the decision is reconsidered to be incorrect.

Privileged Motions: These are urgent motions that take precedence over regular business, such as motions to adjourn or recess.

Incidental Motions: These are motions that arise out of other motions or business and deal with points of order, parliamentary inquiries, etc. A particularly useful incidental motion is "point of order," used when someone believes the rules are being violated.

Neutrality is Key: The chair must remain neutral, ensuring fairness and impartiality in discussions. This is often harder than it sounds, especially in contentious meetings.

Rule of 2/3 (for suspension of rules): The chair may need to explain how certain actions, like suspending the rules or extending debate, require a two-thirds majority vote.

"Denying the Floor": If a speaker is being disruptive or repetitive, the chair has the authority to deny the floor, which can sometimes be a little-known yet essential tool to maintain order.

Voice Vote vs. Show of Hands vs. Roll Call: Officers should know that while a voice vote is the most common, a roll call vote (where each member votes individually) is required when it comes to elections or any matter that requires a more formal record of how members vote.

Dividing the Question: When a motion involves multiple parts, an officer can move to divide the question, essentially asking for a vote on each part separately. This is not always commonly known or used but is a powerful tool in complex issues.

Unanimous Consent (General Consent): This is used when it is assumed that no one objects to the proposal. It allows things to move forward without a formal vote, and can be particularly useful in routine matters. "Hearing no objection" is a phrase that simplifies this process.

Limitations on Debate: Officers should be aware that the body can limit debate (through motions like "previous question") to keep things moving, which can be useful when debates are becoming repetitive.

Friendly vs. Unfriendly Amendments: A "friendly" amendment is one that is accepted by the proposer, while an "unfriendly" amendment requires a vote. Knowing how to handle both types can save time and foster cooperation.

Germane (Relevant) Amendments: Amendments must be germane to the original motion. A motion that is not germane may be ruled out of order by the chair.

Conflict Resolution: Parliamentary procedure isn't just about rules; it’s also about managing conflict. Officers should be trained on the importance of decorum (appropriate behavior) and the role of the chair in moderating discussion and diffusing tension.

"Appeal the Decision of the Chair": If a member disagrees with a ruling made by the chair, they can appeal the decision. This often gets overlooked but is an important tool in ensuring that the rules are followed.

Misunderstanding the "Second": Many newcomers misunderstand the need for a second to motions. A second does not indicate agreement with the motion, only that the motion is worthy of discussion.

Inappropriate Motions: Officers sometimes propose motions that are not in order, such as moving to adjourn while a motion is still on the floor. Knowing what motions take precedence and which need to be postponed can avoid confusion.

Abstaining in Voting: Abstaining is not the same as voting "no." Officers should clarify that abstentions do not count in the final tally, but they are often seen as "not supporting" a motion.

Empowering Members: Effective parliamentary procedure empowers all members to participate. Teaching officers how to encourage equal participation (like recognizing speakers in a fair manner) can build trust in the process.

Time Management: Parliamentary procedure encourages time management, which helps ensure that meetings don’t run unnecessarily long. Officers should practice keeping track of time allocated for each agenda item and using motions to limit debate or extend it as needed.

Regular Practice: Understanding parliamentary procedure requires practice. Holding mock meetings or practice sessions for officers allows them to experience the flow of motions, debate, and voting in real-time.

Adapting to Specific Needs: Parliamentary procedure can be tailored. While Robert’s Rules of Order is the most widely known, other systems (like Democratic Rules or The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure) may be better suited to certain organizations. Officers should be familiar with these variations if applicable.

The conflict between the Supreme Court of India and the Parliament often arises due to their roles in the Indian constitutional framework. The judiciary ensures laws comply with the Constitution, while the Parliament represents the people's will and enacts laws. Below are key court cases that have historically shaped and highlighted this conflict, along with what both institutions can do in such scenarios.

Major Court Cases of Conflict

1. Shankari Prasad Case (1951)

   • Issue: Whether the Parliament can amend fundamental rights under Article 368.

   • Verdict: The Supreme Court ruled that Parliament has the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights.

   • Impact: Strengthened Parliament's amendment powers.

2. Golaknath Case (1967)

   • Issue: Whether fundamental rights can be amended by Parliament.

   • Verdict: The Supreme Court held that fundamental rights cannot be amended as they are part of the "basic structure" of the Constitution.

   • Impact: Restricted Parliament’s powers to amend fundamental rights.

3. Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973)

   • Issue: Whether Parliament can amend the Constitution without limits.

   • Verdict: The Supreme Court introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, stating Parliament can amend the Constitution but cannot alter its basic structure.

   • Impact: Limited Parliament's amendment powers while recognizing their authority.

4. Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)

   • Issue: The legality of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's election and subsequent amendments to validate it.

   • Verdict: The Supreme Court struck down certain amendments (e.g., the 39th Amendment) as they violated the basic structure.

   • Impact: Established judicial supremacy in protecting constitutional values.

5. Minerva Mills Case (1980)

   • Issue: Whether Parliament's amendment (42nd Amendment) to curtail judicial review is valid.

   • Verdict: The Supreme Court ruled that judicial review is part of the basic structure and struck down provisions of the 42nd Amendment.

   • Impact: Asserted that Parliament cannot eliminate judicial review.

6. NJAC Case (2015)

   • Issue: The National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, which sought to give Parliament more power in judicial appointments.

   • Verdict: The Supreme Court struck down the NJAC, stating it violated judicial independence.

   • Impact: Reinforced judicial independence over parliamentary intervention.

What the Judiciary Can Do

1. Judicial Review: The Supreme Court and High Courts can review and strike down parliamentary laws or amendments that violate the Constitution or the basic structure doctrine.

2. Interpretation: Judiciary interprets the Constitution to ensure the principles of justice, liberty, and equality are upheld.

3. Basic Structure Doctrine: Protect the essential framework of the Constitution, ensuring parliamentary actions do not undermine democratic values.

4. Checks and Balances: Acts as a check on the misuse of parliamentary powers.

What Parliament Can Do

1. Amend the Constitution: Parliament can amend provisions of the Constitution (subject to the basic structure doctrine) to align governance with contemporary needs.

2. Enact Laws: It can legislate on various matters, ensuring public welfare and addressing emerging issues.

3. Override Judicial Pronouncements: Parliament can introduce new laws or amendments to overturn judicial rulings, provided they do not violate the Constitution.

4. Strengthen Oversight: Enhance mechanisms to ensure accountability and collaboration with the judiciary without overreach.

About Parliament

The Indian Parliament consists of two houses:

1. Lok Sabha (House of the People): Represents the citizens and is directly elected.

2. Rajya Sabha (Council of States): Represents states and union territories.

Key Powers:

• Legislative Powers: Enact, amend, and repeal laws.

• Constitutional Amendments: Change the Constitution under Article 368.

• Budgetary Powers: Approve and allocate government spending.

• Oversight Powers: Scrutinize the executive branch.

Resolving Conflict

• Collaborative Mechanisms: Strengthening consultation between the judiciary and Parliament.

• Constitutional Clarity: Addressing ambiguities through detailed constitutional amendments or judicial guidelines.

• Judicial Restraint: Courts avoiding excessive interference in legislative matters.

• Parliamentary Restraint: Avoiding laws that directly challenge constitutional principles.

By maintaining a balance and respecting the roles of each institution, the principles of democracy and constitutional governance can be upheld.

4o

The Supreme Court of India has delivered several landmark judgments interpreting the Constitution and defining the powers of Parliament. These rulings have had profound implications for Indian democracy and the balance of power between different branches of government. Below is an overview of key judgments involving Parliament and the Constitution:

1. Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951)

Issue: Can Parliament amend Fundamental Rights under Article 368?
Judgment:

• The Supreme Court upheld Parliament's power to amend Fundamental Rights under Article 368.

• Significance: Established the supremacy of Parliament in amending the Constitution.

2. Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965)

Issue: Validity of constitutional amendments affecting Fundamental Rights.
Judgment:

• Reiterated the stance in Shankari Prasad, affirming Parliament's authority to amend the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.

• Significance: Continued to favor parliamentary sovereignty over judicial review.

3. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967)

Issue: Can Parliament amend Fundamental Rights?
Judgment:

• The Supreme Court ruled that Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights.

• Fundamental Rights were placed outside the purview of Article 368.

• Significance: Restricted Parliament’s amendment powers and empowered the judiciary.

4. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

Issue: Can Parliament amend the Constitution without limits?
Judgment:

• Introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine: Parliament can amend the Constitution but cannot alter its basic structure.

• Significance: Landmark ruling limiting parliamentary sovereignty while protecting the Constitution's core principles.

5. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)

Issue: Constitutionality of the 39th Amendment, which sought to bar judicial review of election disputes involving the Prime Minister.
Judgment:

• The Supreme Court struck down the amendment as it violated the basic structure of the Constitution.

• Significance: Asserted judicial supremacy in protecting constitutional democracy.

6. Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)

Issue: Validity of the 42nd Amendment, which attempted to curtail judicial review and enhance Directive Principles over Fundamental Rights.
Judgment:

• Struck down portions of the 42nd Amendment as unconstitutional.

• Reaffirmed the Basic Structure Doctrine and emphasized the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.

• Significance: Reinforced judicial review as part of the basic structure.

7. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)

Issue: Validity of the dismissal of state governments under Article 356 (President’s Rule).
Judgment:

• Limited misuse of Article 356.

• Judicial review was allowed to assess the validity of President's Rule.

• Significance: Strengthened federalism and curtailed arbitrary action by Parliament.

8. I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007)

Issue: Scope of the Ninth Schedule and immunity from judicial review.
Judgment:

• Laws placed under the Ninth Schedule after the Kesavananda Bharati judgment are subject to judicial review if they violate the basic structure.

• Significance: Ensured Parliament cannot override the Constitution’s fundamental principles by placing laws under the Ninth Schedule.

9. Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013)

Issue: Disqualification of convicted MPs and MLAs.
Judgment:

• Declared Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act unconstitutional.

• Convicted legislators are immediately disqualified.

• Significance: Strengthened accountability and integrity in Parliament.

10. NJAC Case (2015)

Issue: Constitutionality of the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act and the 99th Constitutional Amendment.
Judgment:

• Struck down the NJAC and amendment, citing judicial independence as part of the basic structure.

• Significance: Reasserted judicial primacy in appointments and checks on Parliament.

11. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)

Issue: Right to Privacy as a Fundamental Right.
Judgment:

• The Supreme Court declared privacy a Fundamental Right under Article 21.

• Significance: Limited Parliament’s ability to infringe on privacy through legislation.

12. Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd. (2019)

Issue: Constitutionality of the Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal, and other Authorities Rules, 2017.
Judgment:

• Struck down provisions violating judicial independence.

• Significance: Reaffirmed the principle of separation of powers.

Key Principles Emerging from These Judgments

1. Basic Structure Doctrine: Parliament can amend the Constitution but cannot destroy its fundamental framework.

2. Judicial Review: The judiciary can strike down unconstitutional laws or amendments.

3. Separation of Powers: Ensures no overreach by Parliament or judiciary into each other’s domain.

4. Federalism and Accountability: Protects the rights of states and ensures transparency in governance.

Impact on Indian Democracy

These judgments highlight the dynamic interplay between Parliament’s legislative authority and the Supreme Court’s role as the Constitution’s guardian. While Parliament represents the people’s will, the judiciary safeguards constitutional principles, ensuring a balance of power and the preservation of democracy.