DHARMASHASTRA NATIONAL LAW

UNIVERSITY JABALPUR

PROJECT OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

TOPIC-: COMPARATIVE STUDY OF PARLIAMENTRY DEBATE

QUALITY IN NEHRUVIEN ERA AND CONTEMPORARY TIMES

SUBMITTED BY-: SUBMITTED TO -:

AMAN USMANI Mr. ASHIT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
B.A LL.B (HONS) SEMESTER 4TH ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF LAW
ENROLMENT NO-: BAL/010/ 18 Ms.SRISHTI CHATURVEDI
ASISTANT PROFESSOR OF LAW

1|Page
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................................... 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT..................................................................................................... 3
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 4
PART I ................................................................................................................................. 6
1. DISSENT : A Disregarded Essential.............................................................................. 6
2. Standard of Debates : From Pinnacle to Nadir.............................................................. 11
PART II .............................................................................................................................. 15
1. Parliamentary Efficiency : What is the status quo?....................................................... 15
a) Number of Parliamentary Meetings and Sitting Hours.............................................. 17
b) Poor Attendance of MPs in Parliamentary Sessions:................................................. 18
c) Poor Participation by MPs in Parliamentary Debates:............................................... 18
d) Poor Utilization of Question Hour................................................................................ 19
e)Wastage of public money.............................................................................................. 20
f)How many bills passed ................................................................................................. 21
g)Decline in Quality of Matters being discussed:............................................................ 21
h)Salary and allowances:.................................................................................................. 22
i)Walk out......................................................................................................................... 22
PART III............................................................................................................................. 25
1. Competency of the Parliamentarians ............................................................................ 25
2. Dynamic Governance Patterns ..................................................................................... 27
3. Aaya Raam Gaya Raam : The Politics of Anti – Defection........................................... 28
4. Parliamentary Privileges : Luxury or Responsibility?................................................... 30
CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………………..35

2|Page
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

No project can be completed without the help of others, in this purview I would like to express
my gratitude to all who those helped me in this project.

Firstly, I would like to thank Mr.ASHIT SRIVASTAVA & Ms.SRISHTI CHATURVEDI for
guiding and helping me throught the project. The project would not have possible without her
constant assistance and advice.

I would also like to thank our vice chancellor ,PROF. BALRAJ CHAUHAN SIR & Head of
department V.S GIGIMON SIR For Giving me this wonderful opportunity. This project
has helped me gain knowledge and enhanced my understanding on my project comparative
study of parliamentary debate quality from nehruvien era to contemporary era.

Lastly, This my project would not have been possible without the support & guidance of JALAJ
GOANTIYA SIR.

-: AMAN USMANI
SEMESTER III, B.A LL.B (HONS)

3|Page
 INTRODUCTION

“Whether we like it or not, we have now become an Indian nation united and indivisible. No
fantasy or artificial scheming to separate and divide can break this unity. We must accept the
logic of fact and history and engage ourselves in the fashioning of our future destiny”1

Order, Decorum and Dignity of Parliament are of principal significance for the
effective working and accomplishment of parliamentary organizations. Everywhere
throughout the world concerns have been communicated about the decay of these elements in
the parliament. Seen with regards to the development of democracy, these issues are
comprehended as aberrations.2 On November 25th, 1949, when our Constitution was
being adopted, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar asked, "If we wish to maintain democracy... what must
we do? First thing in my judgement we must do is to hold fast to constitutional methods of
achieving our social and economic objectives. When there was no way left for
constitutional methods for achieving economic and social objectives, there was a great
deal of justification for unconstitutional methods," he remarked that “such methods in the
context of the availability of constitutional methods are nothing but the grammar of anarchy
and the sooner they are abandoned, the better for us". 3 What Dr. Ambedkar said with
regards to democracy is strong and even more important for the working of democratic
institutions. Democracy runs based on its institutions. For democracy to deliver good results,
it is important that its institutions should be strong.4

Pandit Nehru was the prime draftsman of India's political foundations. 5 His commitment to the
advancement of parliamentary democratic government in the nation was peculiar. It was he
who fabricated, step by step, the framework and structure of parliamentary establishments in
India.6 “The greatest contribution of Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of independent
India, to the development of the Indian nation was neither the policy of non-alignment nor the
conception of the five year plans, but the practical achievement of providing a durable basis to

1
Maulana Abul Kalam Azad
2
Yogendra Narain, ‘Discipline, Decorum and Dignity of Parliament’ Rajya Sabha Secretariat
<https://rajyasabha.nic.in/rsnew/publication_electronic/decipline.pdf > accessed 26 th March 2019
3
ibid
4
Shanthi Kalathil, ‘Why Democratic Institutions Matter’ < https://blogs.worldbank.org/publicsphere/why-
democratic-institutions-matter> accessed 26th March 2019
5
infra n()
6
infra n()

4|Page
India's democratic institutions and of endowing them with an aura of legitimacy.” 7 That India's
representative institutions endured was an extraordinary tribute to Nehru's confidence in and
regard for the parliamentary system. He was a true democrat by instinct which can be proved
by a number of instances. Despite enjoying a clear majority in the parliament, he never tried to
suppress the opposition, which, he considered to be an integral element of democracy.8
However, situations are no longer the same. The parliamentary culture which carried, in itself,
the sanctity of democracy is been devalued by the parliamentarians themselves. All the ideals
which were incorporated by the starting governments, more specifically, Nehru are now being
ignored. Other than this, the efficiency of working of parliament is also critically declining.

In this academic piece of research, the authors shall examine the various parameters on which
the standard of parliamentary culture can be assesed post Nehruvian era. The authors have
categorized different parameters in three parts which will give the reader a clear picture as to
how the respect for parliamentary culture and parliament as an institution has declined
severely post Nehruvian era. The authors shall also suggest some measure that can be
taken into consideration in order to solve this problem and re – establish the sanctity of
democracy in the minds of people, especially politicians and parliamentarians.

7
Rajni Kothari, ‘The Meaning of Jawaharlal Nehru’ The Economic Weekly (spl edn, 1964)
<https://www.epw.in/system/files/pdf/1964_16/29-30-
31/the_meaning_of_jawaharlal_nehru.pdf?0=ip_login_no_cache%3Df6f52aca673f608c1d2aa1745f6ef72e>
accessed on 26th March 2019
8
Infra n()

5|Page
 PART I

“No one can be a true nationalist who is incapable of feeling ashamed if their state or government
commits crimes including those against their fellow citizens”9

1. DISSENT : A Disregarded Essential

The age of renaissance was the phase where people denied not to question and blatantly
accept, whatever is being presented to them. “To the scholars and thinkers of the day, it was primarily
a time of the revival of Classical learning and wisdom after a long period of cultural decline and
stagnation.”10
It gave the people, power of questioning, disagreeing and rejecting notions. Martin Luther King and
Galileo Galilei, both questioned the social norms set by the society and rejected them. In 1927,
Heinrich Wieland got the Nobel Prize for Chemistry for finding a structure of cholic corrosive which
was turned out to be wrong within a year. In 1959, Severo Ochoa and Arthur Kornberg shared a Nobel
Prize for the revelation of catalysts that complete the blend of RNA and DNA in living beings. It
worked out that these chemicals were not the correct ones. 11 The biggest success of Gandhiji in the
freedom struggle was to fill strength in the people of India to question the ‘Whiteman’s burden’
theory.12 “In fact, the history of progress of mankind is a history of informed dissent ; much of creative
activity of high quality in all the areas of human endeavour at any given time has been a reflection of
dissent.”13

The Indian freedom movement was driven by dissent. After a ban on his book Hind Swaraj, Gandhiji
wrote to the government, a long letter, which said, “In my humble opinion, every man has a right to
hold any opinion he choose, and to give effect to it also, so long as, in doing so, he does not use
physical violence against anybody”. 14 The constituent assembly also tried to incorporate the
significance of dissent into the constitution for they gave the fundamental right of speech and
15
expression to the people of India. “Today we favour democracy as the most acceptable form of
governance because a citizen has a right to dissent without fear of victimisation — as long as such
dissent does not lead to inhuman or

9
Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, 1983
10
The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, ‘Renaissance : European History’ April 20, 1998
<https://www.britannica.com/event/Renaissance> accessed on 26th March 2019
11
Surbhi Mishra, ‘Dissent – An Integral Aspect of Democracy’ <https://indianfolk.com/dissent-in-
democracyriya/> accessed on 26th March 2019
12
Ravish Kumar, Free Voice on Democracy, Culture and the Nation, Speaking Tiger Publishing Private
Limited, 2018
13
Pushpa M. Bhargava, ‘The importance of Dissent in Democracy’ The Hindu (New Delhi, 18 June, 2014)
<https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/The-importance-of-dissent-in-democracy/article11640706.ece>
14
Ramachandra Guha, Democrats and Dissenters, Penguin Books, 2016
15
Article 19(1)(a), The Constitution of India

6|Page
 unconstitutional action. By contrast, dissent in an authoritarian, dictatorial or colonial regime could
lead to the severest of punishments — loss of life — as happened in colonial India, Hitler’s Germany
or Stalin’s USSR.”16 “As has been rightly remarked by Dadasaheb Mavalankar, the first Speaker of
Lok Sabha – the extent to which persons holding different points of view or ideologies exhibit the
qualities of tolerance, 'give and take', and make an effort to understand the differing points of view, to
that extent only, the parliamentary government stands the chance of being successful .”17 The
very essence of parliamentary democracy is that the arguments must be raised, questioned,
answered and then only allowed to proceed with it. Here comes the need of a strong opposition, the job
of whom is to critically examine the policies of the government and highlight loopholes in it. More
than opposition, it is the job of the government to listen to the counter arguments and not get intolerant
to it.

The respect for dissent and opposition has been on a declining curve. The first parliaments have seen
some good opposition leaders like Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia, Acharya J.B. Kriplani, Feroze Gandhi,
S.A. Dange and others. “On the Government side, the then Prime Minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru
was always eager to hear the suggestions made by Opposition members. During those days there were
hardly any incidents when the Treasury Benches were reluctant to take note of the points raised by the
other side. In 1951, when the 'Mudgal Case' was brought to the notice of Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru, he
himself took the initiative to refer the matter for an enquiry and later to move the resolution for the
expulsion of Shri Mudgal from Parliament, though the latter belonged to his own Congress Party. In
1957, when Feroze Gandhi brought the L1C Scandal to light, the Government took necessary steps
immediately.”18
The factors which drove the exemplary behaviours of such parliamentarians might be the spirit
of national movement and the then social ethos and values. 19 Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru, amongst all was
one of the best parliamentarians, India ever had, in the terms of his respect for dissent and
opposition20 which can be proved with a number of instances.
Pt. Nehru was a true democrat by instinct who contributed immensely towards incorporating
true democratic and parliamentary ethics in the people of India. 21 Despite entertaining a full majority in
the house, he never tried to strangle the opposition. 22 He understood the importance of dissent in
democracy. He favoured healthy and constructive criticism from all sections of the house. 23 “Some of
his strongest
16
Zoya Hasan, ‘The Dissident Citizen’ India Today (New Delhi, 11th August 2018)
<https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/independence-day-special/story/20180820-the-dissident-citizen-1309431-
2018-08-11> accessed on 26th March 2019
17
C Venkatesan, Is Parliamentary Democracy in Peril, (2001) 68 Journal of Parliamentary Information 395,
18
ibid 397
19
Ibid 397
20
R Venkataraman, Nehru : The Parliamentarian, (2009) 68 Mainstream Weekly
21
P Sakthivel, Jawaharlal Nehru : The Parliamentarian & Contemporary Indian Parliament, (2011) 72 IJPS
103
22
ibid
23
Somnath Chatterjee, ‘Parliamentary Democracy and Some Challenges’ The Hindu (New Delhi, 15th
November 2007) p.8

7|Page
critics in Parliament happened to be his greatest admirers and perhaps, there cannot be a
better compliment to Nehru’s democratic credentials than this fact.” 24 “Nehru knew the art of dissent.
No, he was not for stigmatising or scandalising his opponents. He debated, discussed and differed –
with grace and civility.” 25 "Nehru frequently met Opposition leaders to exchange ideas on crucial
issues and asked his Ministers to welcome probing questions and debates. Even though, there
was no formal opposition party, Nehru gave highest respect to Opposition leaders," 26 He wanted
to have a strong opposition for healthy discussion about each and every topic 27 Unhappy about the
lack of an opposition in the Parliament, had ‘begged, cajoled, asked and tried to persuade’ Jayprakash
Narayan to come to Parliament and take on his role as an opposition leader. 28

In the 1950s, MPs saw one another as political rivals, not enemies. 29 S.C. Kashyap recalls one
particular debate over the government's economic policies where Lohia said: “Aaj aam aadmi ki
rozana aamdani
25 paise hai. Aur yeh hazrat (pointing towards Nehru) jo baitthe hain inke kutte ka rozana khurak 25
rupiah hai (The common man earns about 25 paise a day but this man's dogs eat meals worth Rs 25
every day).”30 And yet nobody shouted him down. Nehru too kept smiling. 31 “Once when some
members from the Opposition felt that certain remarks made by the then Special Assistant of Nehru
(M.O. Mathai) were a contempt of House and brought a privilege motion, Nehru requested the Speaker
to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges. He said “when a considerable section of the House
was feeling that something should be done, it is hardly a matter for a majority to over-ride those
wishes. Suggestion to drop this matter would, I think, not be a right one because it almost appears
that an attempt was made somehow to hush matters or hide matters. It is not a good thing
for such an impression to be created.”32

At a point amid the talk on President's Address, Ashok Mehta, from the opposition, depicted
the President's Address as dreary and reprimanded the Government for it. While answering to
the discussion, Nehru said: "Now Sir, first of all 1 should like to refer to a criticism which has been
made strongly and forcefully by Shri Asoka Mehta about the President's Address being odourless,
colourless and generally inane. As members of the Government, who are responsible for the
President's Address that criticism applies to us certainly. I am prepared to say that criticism is partly
justified".33 “Nehru

24
ibid
25
Avijit Pathak, Nehru knew something you don’t, Mr. Modi, The Wire 6th December 2018
<https://thewire.in/politics/nehru-knew-something-you-dont-mr-modi> accessed on 26th March 2019
26
Pranab Mukherjee in an address to nation on 14th November 2014
27
ibid
28
Sagarika Ghose, Indira : India’s Most Powerful Prime Minister, Juggernaut Books 2017 p153
29
supra n13
30
Avijit Ghosh, ‘Where's the debate in this din of democracy?’ The Times of India (New Delhi, 28th December
2008)
31
ibid
32
Lok Sabha Debate 2 May, 1963, c.13408
33
Ibid., Vol., XXV, 1959, p.169

8|Page
would often begin by welcoming ‘well deserved criticisms’ in Parliament saying that his government
could benefit by them. At the same time, he would disarm his critics by observing that beyond that
criticism there was a vast amount of agreement on fundamentals, and then he would set out to analyze
the areas of agreement. He was so introspective as to go out of the way to see the other man's point of
view.”34 He “tried his best to pick out points from the criticism of the opponents of his stand, and was
patient enough to try 107 to rebuild and reshape his own plans and ideas.” 35
Pt. Nehru was also very fond of his fellow parliamentarians’ eloquence and speech delivery skills, one
of them being Atal Behari Vajpayee. Nehru is often remembered to stop for listening to the speech of
Vajpayee ji. Pandit Nehru was highly influenced with his eloquence in Hindi that in 1957 he predicted
Vajpayee to be the prime minister of India in future. While introducing Vajpayee to a foreign
dignitary, Nehru said, - this young man one day will become the country's prime minister.36 After, the
1962 Indo
– China war, the prime minister stood in the parliament listening to nothing but his
criticism.37
Renowned Indian poet, Ramdhari Singh Dinkar, who himself was appointed by the party of Nehru to
the Rajya Sabha, criticised the peace policy of Nehru by reciting his poem – Himalaya38 in the Rajya
Sabha in front of Nehru himself. The noteworthy point here is the democratic ethic of Nehru,
tolerating his criticism.39

The problem started with the third prime minister, i.e. Smt. Indira Gandhi. After 1971, she had become
quite intolerant as power was totally in her hands. She loved being called Durga. The Bangladesh
victory was a turning point. Sanjay Gandhi was the only one she believed. She started listening to very
few minds. She even let go her closest ally and adviser P.N. Husker. 40 The later governments were also
highly intolerant to dissent and criticism. Criticism to a person’s policies was now being taken
as offensive. The ultimate goal had become acquisition of power by any means. Mr. Rajiv
Gandhi remarked in the house that “he will make the opposition leaders run to their grandmothers,
using an old Hindi expression.” 41 “He had also accused them of sticking to their seats in Rajya Sabha
like limpets,

34
Uma Shankar Dixit in Kashyap (ed.) op. cit., p. 127
35
ibid
36
Sanjay Basak, ‘This young man will be PM one day, Nehru had said of Vajpayee’ Deccan Chronicle 16th
August 2018 <https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/current-affairs/160818/atal-bihari-vajpayee-will-be-pm-
one-day-nehru-had-said.html> accessed on 26th April 2019
37
Shiv Shankar Menon, ‘The Indo – China war of 1962 and it’s political afterlife’ THE WIRE 17th July 2017
<https://thewire.in/books/review-remaking-national-memory-of-the-1962-sino-indian-war> accessed on 26 th
March 2019
38
Ramdhari Singh Dinkar, ‘Himalaya – Anubhuti’
39
Kumar Vishwas at Bharatiya Chhatra Sansad, Pune at MITSOG, Pune
40
Sagarika Ghose, Indira : India’s Most Powerful Prime Minister, Juggernaut Books 2017 p132
41
Sachidananda Murthy, ‘The Line between Personal Attacks and Political Critiques’
<https://english.manoramaonline.com/news/columns/national-scrutiny/up-elections-war-of-words-odi-rahul-
personal-attacks.html> accessed 26th March 2019

9|Page
which caused a huge uproar, since only opposition members in Lok Sabha had resigned their seats,
ahead of the 1989 Lok Sabha elections.”42

The situation is even worse now. The intolerance to dissent has crossed the corridors of parliament and
reached between masses. Today mobs are driven with intolerance, the social media becomes
the platform to share fake news and other contents. People are being punished for speaking up.
According to Ravish Kumar, “The WhatsApp University has also extensively defamed, vilified
and abused journalists … The handful of us journalists, who are only doing our job, have been
declared traitors.”43
The instances of mob lynching are caused by rising intolerance in the minds of the people, the
derivation of which is from the ideologies and conduct of the politicians. Supreme Court, in a three
judge bench said, “Lynching is an affront to the rule of law and to the exalted values of the
Constitution itself…. lynching by unruly mobs and barbaric violence arising out of incitement and
instigation cannot be allowed to become the order of the day”. 44
Dissent has now been considered equivalent of putting forth anti – nationalistic ideas. A person if
dares to question the government is labelled to be anti – national. Nation and government are been
equated and criticism to government is considered to be criticism to the nation. Criticism is considered
to be a negative aspect and not at all thought to be constructive. The institutions which try to
protect the democratic ethics implemented by the constitution are been weakened in a
systematic manner. “If politics transforms society to such an extent that it calls the dissenter a trailer,
putting a barbed wire of intimidation between itself and citizens, then it is a form of violence too” 45.
The spaces left out for people are very less. 46 “It is almost as if we live in a fictional state in a place far,
far away, but the reality hits home. In this state of the nation, aided by technology, unnamed armies
wage wars on behalf of the government. They are the chief censors whose rallying cry quickly gathers
a mob. They are the chief nationalists who wage daily battles and slay imagined enemies of the state.
They hunt in packs and take down people. It is an apocalyptic vision of a country where people are at
war with each other. The author reminds us of the dangers ahead when he harks back to Hitler and the
propaganda machinery which transformed people into willing participants in an imaginary nation-
building exercise.”47
Now, these instances show the depth of filthy ideology our politicians or to be more specific
parliamentarians. It can also be argued that the reason why parliamentarians resort to these methods is

42
ibid
43
Supra n4
44
Samanwaya Rautre, ‘Lynching due to rising ‘intolerance’: Supreme Court’, The Economic Times 18th July
2018 < https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/lynching-due-to-rising-intolerance-
supreme-court/articleshow/65032756.cms> accessed 26th March 2019
45
Supra n4
46
ibid
47
Anuradha Raman, ‘The Free Voice: On Democracy, Culture and the Nation review: Looking through glass’
THE HINDU 7th April 2018 < https://www.thehindu.com/books/books-reviews/the-free-voice-on-democracy-
culture-and-the-nation-review-looking-through-glass/article23465517.ece> accessed on 26th March 2019

10 | P a g e
that it is liked by the public. But this way or the other, the value of dissent and opposition has reduced
severely and it’s high time we address this issue.

2. Standard of Debates : From Pinnacle to Nadir

The time when the parliament had started working, if thought logically, the topics to
be discussed in the parliament were comparatively important and controversial for they
were laying down the ideals on which the country was going to be governed. But still it is
seen that the standard of debates, then was far better than the standard of debates now. “In the
1950s, even bitterly contested issues never degenerated into abuse leading to chaos.”48 “MPs
saw a single another as political rivals, not enemies. In those times several lesser-
known MPs specialized in a particular topic and were heard with seriousness. For instance,
Uma Charan Pattnaik, an independent MP from Orissa's Ganjam constituency inside of first
two Lok Sabha elections was an expert on defence matters. When he spoke there was pin-drop
silence.”49

Nehru esteemed Parliament and advocated that the Parliament ought to be made a
viable instrument for democracy in India.50 “He used to attend Question Hour regularly even
on days when his Ministry was not involved in the day’s interpellations. He used to
watch young members struggling to put their questions, with sympathy and
encouragement.”51 He needed the Ministers to be completely informed of their charge
and disapproved of Ministers attempting to dodge answers. 52 “During his presence in the
House, Ministers were afraid of asking for notice unless the question was totally unrelated to
his subject. He also used to join in the laughter with others when delicate humour came out of
a question or an answer.”53 Nehru used to hear the discussions in his room through the
speakers. At whatever point there was any fascinating discussion or some hot trades, he
would unobtrusively stroll into the House and without disturbing the procedures, sit down in
the back seat and watch the proceedings. At whatever point strategy must be expressed or
elucidations to be offered, Nehru mediated in the discussion and raised the standard of
debate.54 He was especially supportive of the young individuals' endeavours and although
they made errors, he addressed them with a smile. On

48
P Sakthivel, Jawaharlal Nehru : The Parliamentarian & Contemporary Indian Parliament, (2011) 72 IJPS
106
49
ibid
50
Subhash C. Kashyap (ed.) Nehru and Parliament, Lok Sabha Secretariat (New Delhi, 1986), Introduction
51
ibid
52
ibid
53
P Sakthivel, Jawaharlal Nehru : The Parliamentarian & Contemporary Indian Parliament, (2011) 72 IJPS
107
54
ibid

11 | P a g e
exceedingly imperative discussions Pt. Nehru himself used to pick speakers from his side and
he would even short them on the partisan principles.55

Nehru was a strange mixture of forbearance and restlessness. “When senior leaders of
the Opposition like the late Shyama Prasad Mookherjee used to taunt him in the most
elegant parliamentary language, Nehru used to wait his turn to give a stinging reply. At the
same time, he was impatient with mediocrity and with reactionary views. Once he burst out in
Parliament against one of his own party members saying he was parading obscurantism and
medievalism as nationalism. In the party meetings, Panditji used to give fullest scope for
expression of views by the members. On several occasions members used to insist on their
right to speak and Nehru would just sink in his chair allowing the members to have their
say.”56

But the case is not the same now. Gone the days when the debates in the parliament
was characterised by wit, irony and humours. Healthy ideological clashes are no longer there
in the picture. Today, the debates have just been reduced to character assassinations. 57 In
politics, it is usual to make charges and counter claims. In any case, the best an abomination
of Indian governmental issues today is that the lawmakers and their associated gatherings,
tossing all morals and built up dignity to the breeze, are playing filthy games to rundown their
rivals. In the nation, the largest democracy of the world with around 130-crore populace,
the chosen agents, it appears, have no work cherished in the Constitution for them to do, but
to peep at the private existence of rivals and throwing defamations on one another.58

As also mentioned earlier, Mr. Rajiv Gandhi once asserted in the house that “he will make the
opposition leaders run to their grandmothers, using an old Hindi expression.” 59 “He had also
accused them of sticking to their seats in Rajya Sabha like limpets, which caused a huge
uproar, since only opposition members in Lok Sabha had resigned their seats, ahead of the
1989 Lok Sabha elections.”60 The offensive remarks of Mr. Gandhi were obviously violative
of all canons of Parliamentary propriety. 61 Rajiv Gandhi, also, while justifying the 1984 Sikh
riots which followed from the death of Mrs. Indira Gandhi, remarked, “When a big tree falls,
the earth
55
ibid
56
Supra n12
57
B.L. Fadia and Kuldeep Fadia, Indian Government and Politics, (15th edn, Sahitya Bhawan 2019) 364
58
Samuel Mathai, ‘The Character Assassination Politics’, Mitaan Express 5th December 2017 <
https://mitaanexpress.com/character-assassination-politics/> accessed 26 th March 2019
59
Sachidananda Murthy, ‘The Line between Personal Attacks and Political Critiques’
<https://english.manoramaonline.com/news/columns/national-scrutiny/up-elections-war-of-words-odi-rahul-
personal-attacks.html> accessed 26th March 2019
60
ibid
61
Supra n35

12 | P a g e
shakes”.62 These instances show that the person had no such regard for the democratic values
and ethics.63

On 7th December, 2009, a Member of Parliament Beni Prasad Verma made derogatory
remarks about former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. 64 “Verma had used the
expression“neech” (low) in the House while translating the phrase ‘little men’ used by
Liberhan to describe Vajpayee and L.K. Advani.” 65 However, then Prime Minister was quick
enough to apologize for his colleague’s remark.66 He said, “I have learnt that an undesirable
development took place. What a member of the ruling coalition said was not appropriate”67.
Now let us compare this with a second scenario. On 8th February 2017, Prime Minister
Narendra Modi came up with insulting remarks against former Prime Minister Manmohan
Singh.68 He said “For the past 30-
35 years, Manmohan Singh ji has been directly associated with financial decisions. There
were
many scams around him, but his own image remained clean. Dr Sahab is the only person who
knows the art of bathing in a bathroom with a raincoat on” 69 This followed walk out
by opposition parties.70 There is a clear distinction in both the cases. In both, there
had been violation of parliamentary culture and dignity. However, there is atleast some
respect shown for the parliament as an institution of democracy in the first case where the
Prime Minister himself apologized for the remarks. In the second case, the situation is in
contrast. The Prime Minister himself made the remarks and no apology, whatsoever,
came from his side.These instance, too, show the lack of respect for democratic values and
spirit.

62
‘Why Both Congress and BJP Have Suppressed the Truth about 1984’ THE WIRE
<https://thewire.in/video/watch-why-both-congress-and-bjp-have-suppressed-the-truth-about-1984> accessed
on 26th March 2019
63
ibid
64
‘PM apologises for Atal remark’ HINDUSTAN TIMES 10th December 2009
<https://www.hindustantimes.com/delhi-news/pm-apologises-for-atal-remark/story-
qcBopOkbmbhrb4pgwdZP7J.html> accessed on 26thMarch 2019
65
‘PM snuffs out house crisis with apology’ THE TELEGRAPH 10th December 2009
<https://www.telegraphindia.com/india/pm-snuffs-out-house-crisis-with-apology/cid/563973> accessed on 26 th
March 2019
66
‘PM Apologises for Congress MP’s remarks against Vajpayee’ THE INDIAN EXPRESS <> accessed on 26th
March 2019
67
‘Manmohan Apologises for remarks by Colleague against Vajpayee’ THE HINDU 10th December 2009
<https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/Manmohan-apologises-for-remarks-by-colleague-against-
Vajpayee/article16852440.ece> accessed on 26th March 2019
68
‘Modi attacks Manmohan with 'raincoat' remark, livid Cong walks out of RS’ BUISNESS STANDARD 9th
February 2017 <> accessed on 26th March 2019
69
‘Only Manmohan Singh knew the art of bathing with a raincoat on: PM Modi’ TIMES OF INDIA 9th February
2017 <https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/only-manmohan-singh-knew-the-art-of-taking-bath-wearing-a-
raincoat-pm-modi/articleshow/57043170.cms> accessed on 26th March 2019
70
ibid
13 | P a g e
The matter of bad conduct and indiscipline inside the House had turned out to be serious to
the point that Parliament in 1992 came up with a Special Forum for the sole
motivation of discussing about the need to keep up decorum and discipline inside the
House.71 “Five years later, in 1997, the primary legislative business of the special session of
the Parliament had to pass a unanimous resolution calling for greater discipline within
Parliament. Then again in November 2001, the all-India Conference of presiding officers and
parties adopted a 60-point code of conduct guidelines aimed at sanctioning grave
misbehaviour with suspension. This resolution was unanimously supported by 300 leaders
from all parties both at the federal and sub-national level. But when the Prime Minister asked
the opposition not to resort to any step that would erode democratic values, the leader of the
opposition Sonia Gandhi retorted that ‘a great deal of disruption’ in Parliament was due to
the government’s reluctance to face the House on controversial matters. The situation till
today has seen no improvement. The cost of the parliamentary time lost is estimated to be
around Rs 75 million each session.”72

The above instances clearly show that there has been a vast decline in the ethics of
parliamentary ethics. The declining levels of discussions in Parliament and the way in which
parliamentarians behave, overlooking that there is a tremendous contrast between a battle on
the floor of the house and a battle in the city are pointers towards the absence of capacity or
legitimacy in the parliamentarians.

71
Secretary General, Discipline, Decorum & Dignity of Parliament
<https://rajyasabha.nic.in/rsnew/publication_electronic/decipline.pdf> accessed 26 th March 2019
72
Devesh Kapur and Pratap Bhanu Mehta, ‘The Indian Parliament as an Institution of Accountability’,
Democracy, Governance and Human Rights Programme Paper Number 23 January 2006

14 | P a g e
 PART II

“It's too much to expect in an academic setting that we should all agree, but it is not too much
to expect discipline and unvarying civility”73

1. Parliamentary Efficiency : What is the status quo?

“The framers of the Indian constitution accepted the parliamentary system of politics not only
because India was familiar with these institutions but also they recognized that parliamentary
democracy was the most accommodative and representative system that could provide space
and expression to divergent interests”.74 “The idea of a vibrant, independent and accountable
Parliament is the central to making democracy”. 75 Over the decades, the Parliament has been
one of the most important pillars of Indian democracy. Parliament symbolizes the ethos ofour
country and the parliamentarians are believed to respect those ethos. The responsibility
for providing direction, momentum, and institutions for social engineering has been
with our Parliament.76 “In the early years, especially in the Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru
era, the Parliament discharged its function of charting out the path of social engineering with
the utmost sense of responsibility, in the process earning the admiration and respect of the
people.77 Some of the strongest critics of Nehru in Parliament happened to be his greatest
admirers, and perhaps there cannot be a better compliment to Nehru’s democratic credentials
than this fact.78 But the golden days of Indian Parliament has gone. Now, in the era of
coalition politics, competitive and confrontational politics, the Parliament find itself disabled
in the discharge of its essential functions. Healthy debate and discussions, the hallmarks
of Parliamentary democracy, are being over-shadowed by disruption, confrontation and
other non-democratic alternatives”.79 At present less importance has been given to
Parliamentary proceedings. Most of the bills, including Budget, were passed without any
debate in the Parliament, the opposition members

73
Jon Howard, Former Prime Minister of Australia (1996 – 2007)
74
M Manisha and Sharmila Mitra Deb, Indian democracy: problems and prospects (Anthem Press 2009)
75
P. Sakthivel, ‘Jawaharlal Nehru: the Parliamentarian and Contemporary Indian parliament’ [2011] vol. 72
IPSA p103
76
Somnath Chatterjee, ‘Constitution, Parliament and the People’ The Hindu (New Delhi December 8, 2004) 10
77
P. Sakthivel, ‘Jawaharlal Nehru: the Parliamentarian and Contemporary Indian parliament’ [2011] vol. 72
IPSA p104
78
Somnath Chatterjee, ‘Parliamentary Democracy & Some Challenges’ The Hindu (New Delhi November 15,
2007) 8
79
ibid 9

15 | P a g e
stalled the Parliament sessions even for unwanted reasons, most of the members of the
Parliament were absent during the session of the Parliament and some 25 to 30 per cent of
valuable time of the Parliament were wasted, mainly because of unruly behaviour of
the members of the Parliament. 80 The presiding officers of both houses of the Parliament were
not able to discharge their constitutional duties 81 and they were forced to adjourn the
house on several occasions. The former speaker of Lok Sabha, Somnath Chatterjee left the
house in a huff because of unable to maintain the order of the house. 82 A genuine and
proactive Parliament can help great administration, however the desires for the citizens
must be satisfied if the establishments of Parliament, and its individuals, are very much
educated, submitted and sharpened.83 In the Nehruvian period, both Parliament and
parliamentarians were working with poise and specialist. Records likewise show that the
then parliamentarians go to the parliamentary sessions with well preparations and were
heard with riveted consideration. While dissecting the account of Indian Parliament, Morris-
Jones discovered Nehru as an explanation for the fruitful working of the Parliament while
contending that “Perhaps India without Nehru’s leadership might not so firmly have acquired
this political system, might not have been able so quickly to let it take clear shape.” 84
There is a generous change in the vocabulary of parliamentary politics and
parliamentarians in contemporary India. The recurrence of parliamentary disturbances
through walk outs has turned into the standard. The quality time of the Parliament is
squandered on minor political discussions, boisterousness, issue and showy behavior. The
parliamentary corruption could likewise be seen not just in the falling standard of the
parliamentarians yet in addition with wrongdoing, cash, tricks and demagoguery. We have
constrained our investigation just on a few scales. Many of them, be that as it may, see the
Nehruvian period as the golden age of parliamentary culture and believe that the framework
has lost a lot of its sheen since. “Even the report of the National commission to review the
working of the constitution speaks of increasing concern about the decline of
parliament, falling standards of debate, erosion of the moral authority and prestige of the
supreme tribune of the people”.85

80
Supra n(4)
81
P. Sakthivel, ‘Jawaharlal Nehru: the Parliamentarian and Contemporary Indian parliament’ [2011] vol. 72
IPSA p105
82
‘When Somnath Chatterjee was Lok Sabha Speaker without a Party’ India Today ( New Delhi August 13
2018) <https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/when-somnath-chatterjee-was-lok-sabha-speaker-without-a-party-
1313146-2018-08-13> accessesd on 26 March 2019
83
‘India abandoning parliament session’<http://spoonfeedin.blogspot.com/2008/09/india- abandoning-
parliament-session.html> accessed on 26 March 2019
84
G. Rubinoff, ‘The Decline of India’s Parliament’ (1998) JLS p13
85
J. Sri Raman, ‘Decline of Parliament’ The Hindu (New Delhi August 23 2011)

16 | P a g e
a) Number of Parliamentary Meetings and Sitting Hours: There is a continuous decrease
in the quantity of days for which the two Houses of Parliament sits each year and time for
which thoughts are made for settling on inquiry of national importance has extensively
diminished lately. “As per the recent analysis of PRS Legislative Research (PRS), against the
average 127 days of sitting in the 1950s, Lok Sabha met only 74 times in 2012. Rajya Sabha
on an average meets 93 days a year in 1950s. But it has reduced to merely 74 days
in 2012”.86 Worst of all was the winter session of Parliament in 2010. “In the Whole session,
the Rajya Sabha met just for 2 hours and 44 minutes, the Lok Sabha for 7 and half hour”. 87
“The number of Lok Sabha sessions that took place during the winter session was 23 which
are way less than last few years”.88 “Interestingly, the highest number of sitting was recorded
in year 1956 when Jawaharlal Nehru was the Prime Minister”. 89 For instance, during
the first Parliament (1952-57) the House of People met for 677 days (3,784 hours) and
this was considered as highest recorded count of the number of sitting of the House of People.
“Morris- Jones examined the extent to which the institution functioned successfully as a
component of representative government during the Nehruvian regime”. 90 “Actual days
of sitting to deliberate are a third of what they were in the 1950s, even though other aspects
of constituency representation such as travelling to and communicating with constituents have
gotten easier”.91
In the year 2011, both houses sat down for total of 23 days which is the lowest number of
sitting in a non-election year in last 2 decades. “In 2008 it was 46 days only, making the
lowest number of days in the last few years with the exception of 2004, which was an election
year.”92 “India's Growing Crisis of Governability, powerful leaders and political parties in
India have often proved to be enemies of democratic institutions and have shown sustained
disrespect towards their functions”.93 “More than 10% of the total time was lost on each of the
Lok Sabah’s except during the 11th LS and the 16th LS. The record for the most time lost is
during the 15th LS where

86
‘Functioning of 16th Lok Sabha (2014-2019)’ (2019)
<https://www.prsindia.org/sites/default/files/parliament_or_policy_pdfs/PRS%2016th%20LS%20Vital%20Stats
.pdf> accessed on 26 March 2019
87
ibid
88
Dr. Rushikesh Hole, ‘Hasn’t our Parliament declined in contemporary times’ (2010)
https://www.prep4civils.com/blog/daily-essay/339/hasn%e2%80%99t-our-parliament> accessed on 26/03/19
89
Subhash C. Kashyap, Reviewing the Constitution ( New Delhi, Shipra Publications 2000)
90
WH Morris-Jones, ‘Parliament in India’ (1957) UPP
91
Devesh Kapur and Pratap Bhanu Mehta, ‘The Indian Parliament as an Institution of Accountability’ (2006)
Democracy, Governance and Human Rights Programme (UNRISD) 27
92
Vinod Bhanu, ‘Abandoning a Parliament Session’ The Hindu (New Delhi September 13 2008) 12
93
Atul Kohli, Democracy and Discontent: India’s growing crisis of governability (Cambridge University Press
1991)”

17 | P a g e
40% of the total time was lost due to interruptions and adjournments”. 94 The percentage of the
time lost has been on the rise consistently since then. Time lost during the 10 th Lok Sabha was
only 9.95% of the total time which grew to almost 39.88% of the total time in the 15 th LS. In
the first Lok sabha session only 16 minutes were lost while in 14 th session 127 hours and 45
minutes.95 As per critics, Parliament's stature was diminished under Indira Gandhi and it was
successfully diminished to an elastic stamp. Rajiv Gandhi was missing from the floor
notwithstanding amid significant discussions. In spite of the fact that P.V. Narasimha Rao had
a notoriety of being a decent and genuine parliamentarian, he additionally kept up a lack of
interest towards the institution.

b) Poor Attendance of MPs in Parliamentary Sessions: “There is a growing tendency

among
them to treat the sessions casually”.96 During the 11th and 12th sessions of the 14th Lok Sabha,
75% of members have their attendance below the median point of 16. “As can be seen most of
the MPs attended between 11 and 15 days in total. Not only that, the number of MPs whose
attendance ranged from 0–5 days increased in the 12th session”. 97 Even in the fifteenth Lok
Sabha there are only seven out of 545 members have 100 percent attendance. 98 The average
attendance is hardly between 70%-75% which is way less than 1950’s. “On the other hand
attendance used to be much better than the present time during Nehruvian era, due to the fact
that MPs were interested in debating upon issues of national importance”.99

c) Poor Participation by MPs in Parliamentary Debates: The nature of interest of

MPs mirrors the correct portrayal of individuals in Parliament. In the present occasions
the participation in critical Parliamentary discussion has diminished at a disturbing rate. In
2009, investment in Lok Sabha for going of bills was extremely poor. In 2006 Lok Sabha,
even an hour of discussion did not happen and over 40% of bills were passed. What is
gloomier is that
65% of MPs did not let out the slightest peep about any enactment amid that year.100 This was

94
Dr. B L Fadia, Indian Government and Politics ( 15th edn, Sahitya Bhawan Publication 2019) p 363
96
Srinivasan K. Rangachary, ‘Parliament paid for nothing’ The Shillong Times (Guwahati September 2011)
<https://ibnlive.in.com/news/mps-should-debate-issues-not-disrupt-parliament/86387-37.html> accessed on 26
March 2019
97
National Social Watch Coalition: Governance and Development 2008-2009 (NGO Study, New Delhi,
Daanish Books 2009)
98
‘Representative at Work’ (2009-2010) <https://massforawareness.org/> accessed on 25 March 2019
99
Willard M. Berry, ‘Parliamentary Participation in the Indian Lok Sabha 1957-1974’ Legislative Studies
Quarterly (Comparitive Legal Research Center) 4(1) (1979) 7-29
100
‘Citizen’s Report on Governance and Development’ (New Delhi, Pearson Longman Press 2007)

18 | P a g e
not the situation till Nehruvian time. Amid this period antagonistic issues were debated with
pride on the floor of the House. MPs were contending with one another as political opponents,
however never permitted to decline the House into a chaotic fight ground. All MPs were dealt
with equivalent in worth and were heard with all earnestness and tolerability.101

d) Poor Utilization of Question Hour: "Question hour can be the way of getting the
government to focus on substantive issues", says political scientist Imtiaz Ahmad. 102 Most
MPs are either absent or indifferent about the questions asked in Parliament. In the winter
session of 2009, 34 members hour in Lok Sabha and 5 members in Rajya Sabha were absent
who were to raise the questions in question hour and because of which the house has to be
adjourned. This is a very sorry state of affair for Parliamentary democracy. 103 It is interesting
to note that, as many as 56 MPs, including a former Prime Minister, did not raise not even
single question in the Parliament during their entire five year term in the Parliament. 67 MPs
asked only 10 questions during their entire term in the Parliament. This shows how a large
number of MPs treat their job a part time job. Many MPs failed to attend the house for several
days at a stretch but some clever MPs signed the attendance and then left the house thereafter
so as to become eligible for their daily allowance. Jawaharlal Nehru has attended Parliament
sessions regularly but now it is disheartening to mention that an entire Parliament session was
abandoned mainly because of the non-availability of the Prime Minister of India. Question
hour is the first hour of sitting in the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha. “It is also uniquely
Indian in which MPs are not even required to give any notice to the Speaker”. 104 Chairman
Hamid Ansari said that “it has been observed that members tend to raise issues
concerning them at the expense of Question Hour”.105 The statement itself shows the
disturbing nature of question hour and least significance being appended to this profitable
piece of Parliamentary system. In this question hour of 2010 Monsoon Session of the
Parliament out of 480 starred questions just 4 questions

101
Avijit Ghosh, ‘Where’s the debate in this din of Democracy’ The Times of India (New Delhi December 28
2008) 8”
102
Nandita Sengupta, ‘Question Hour: Many don’t know what questions are being asked in their names’ The
Times of India ( New Delhi December 2 2009) <https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Question-Hour-
Many-dont-know-what-questions-are-being-asked-in-their-names/articleshow/5290186.cms> accessed on 26
March 2019
103
Sakthivel.P, ‘Erosion of Parliamentary Democracy, South Asia Politics’ (2010) 8(10) p50
104
Mahesh Vijapurkar, ‘Hero of Zero Hour: Why Rahul Gandhi made that speech’ (2011)
<https://www.firstpost.com/politics/hero-of-zero-hour-why-rahul-gandhi-made-that-speech-
70334.html> accessed on 25 March 2019
105
‘Question hour shifted to 2 pm in Rajya Sabha’ The Indian Express (New Delhi 2011)
<https://www.indianexpress.com/news/question-hour-shifted-to-2-pm-in-rajya-sabha/757773/> accessed on 26
March 2019

19 | P a g e
were addressed orally while rest 476 were replied in written format because of regular
disturbances in Parliament and different issues being examined being referred to question
hour. Correspondingly in Rajya Sabha not by any means a single question was addressed
orally.106
In 2009 session of Lok Sabha, out of 1100 questions admitted for question hour, only 266
were
called in house. “Even, out of these 266 questions, in 57 questions enquiring MP was
not present so only 209 questions were orally answered”.107 “In 1957, it was a Lok Sabha
Question Hour query by MP Feroze Gandhi that unraveled the Mundhra scandal
leading to the resignation of then finance minister T T Krishnamachari”. 108 Question hour
was fully utilized in Nehruvian era but now it is rare to be seen in the Parliament.

e) Wastage of public money: To be effective, Parliament needs to work in a restrained and

composed way, as a living organization. An enormous amount of cash is spent on it. As of
late, there are some of the time endeavors to irritate the procedures of the places of Parliament
by plan of action to lungpower and, now and again, muscle control. It results in the loss of
validity and viability as the most vital open discussion in the nation. 109 Each question hour
cost Rs.14
Lakh to the legislature and with around 20 questions being recorded every day amid
Parliament
Question Hour and only 10-12 of them being taken for answering. 110 “It is significant to note
that, each question costs the exchequer about Rs.70, 000 to Rs.1 Lakh. For conducting one
session of the Parliament the government is spending nearly 250 crores”. 111 It assumes the
burden of Rs. 34,500 in one minute, in 1-Hour 20.7 Lakhs, in 1-Day 1.55 Crores and in 1
Session 250 Crores.112 The individuals from the early Parliament were likewise particularly
worried about open cash and winning financial circumstance of the nation and that is the
reason, in the early years the Parliament released its capacity of graphing the way of social
building with the most extreme awareness of other's expectations, during the time spent
acquiring appreciation and regard of the general population.113

106
Rohit Kumar, ‘Vital Stats: Parliament in Winter Session 2010’ (2010)
<https://www.prsindia.org/parliamenttrack/vital-stats/> accessed on 26 March 2019
107
ibid; T. K. Vishwanathan, ‘Session Review: Lok Sabha’ The Journal of Parliamentary Information (2011)
108
Nandita Sengupta, ‘Question Hour: Many don’t know what questions are being asked in their name’ The
Times of India ( New Delhi December 2 2009)
109
Somnath Chatterjee, ‘Constitution, Parliament, and the People’ The Hindu (New Delhi December 8 2004) 10
110
Supra n(21)
111
ibid
112
ibid
113
Somnath Chatterjee, ‘Constitution, Parliament, and the People’ The Hindu ( New Delhi 2007)

20 | P a g e
f) How many bills passed: Interruption of parliamentary procedures is certainly not another
marvel. Forty-three bills were on the Parliament's administrative motivation for exchange and
disregarding 20 days of the session. Be that as it may, impromptu leaves (three days)
and interruptions left the Parliament with brief period to discuss. 114 Of the 10 Bills passed by
Lok Sabha till January 7, nine were talked about for not exactly 90 minutes. In the sixteenth
Lok Sabha, less Bills (26 percent) are being alluded to Parliamentary Committees when
contrasted with the fifteenth Lok Sabha (71 percent) and the fourteenth Lok Sabha (60
percent). The eighth Lok sabha enacted 333 statutes including 10 constitutional amendments.
Till July 1989, 317 statutes were passed which had been debated for 232 days in Lok sabha an
201 days in Rajya sabha. This is the actual number of days in which statutes passed were
debated. It means that the Lok sabha spent an average of 0.732 days per statute and the Rajya
sabha 0.634 days.

g) Decline in Quality of Matters being discussed: The nature of issues being examined in
Parliament has declined for an extensive timeframe. Rather than taking part in subjective and
sensible discussions, our parliamentarians are regarding the Parliament as a stage where they
'yell to test their vocal chords'. So Parliament is divided in 2 groups; “one making the laws
and other breaking the laws, thus a serious doubt is raised over the development of
country”.115 The parliamentarians gave only 165 min. in 2009 for making some laws which
was very less.116
After Jawaharlal Nehru, there has been a lofty decrease in nature of issues being talked about
in the Parliament and the strategies surrounded because of these considerations. Post-
Nehruvian age of Indian pioneers, for instance Indira Gandhi regarded Parliament as an
'elastic stamp' for forcing her limited choices. Both Rajiv Gandhi and Narsimha Rao
additionally stayed least keen on Parliamentary works.117 “Most of the bills discussed in
Parliament were passed in a very short duration of time and only few bills were discussed at
length. The South Asian University Bill, for instance, was introduced in Rajya Sabha, and
passed within two days

114
Chakshu Roy, ‘Parliamentary Disruption has become a norm, this Lok Sabha mirrors the decline’ (2019)
<https://www.prsindia.org/content/parliamentary-disruption-has-become-norm-lok-sabha-mirrors-decline>
accessed on 26 March 2019
115
“Srikanta Ghosh, Indian Democracy derailed poltics and politicians (APH Publishing Corporation 1997)
116
Rohit Kumar, ‘Parliament in 2009’ (2019) <https://www.prsindia.org/parliamenttrack/vital-stats/parliament-
in-monsoon-session-2010-1277/> accessed on 25 March 2019
117
‘Decline of Parliamentary Governance: Indian Scenario’ (2017) 3(2) RLR
<https://rostrumlegal.com/journal/decline-of-parliamentary-governance-indian-scenario/> accessed on 26
March 2019

21 | P a g e
without any debate”.118 The case in this bill was w.r.t the higher education which is one of the
fundamental proposes of approach matters to be talked about in the Parliament. Along these
lines, unmistakably the perfect obligation of Parliament is to order laws by talking about them
long, however here the majority of the bills are being passed by without conveying
any discussion or dialogues. Such episodes were unimaginable amid the Nehru
period.119 92 percent of budgetary proposition in 2012 were guillotined for example put to
cast a ballot with no discourse. While in 2011, 81 percent of requests were guillotined.
Parliament has become “increasingly unprofessional, passing budgets with almost no scrutiny
which is a clear sign of decline.”120

h )Salary and allowances: It is owrthwhile to make reference to here, the individuals from
the Central Assembly got Rs.20 routine set of expenses in 1921. In May 1945, they were paid
a day by day remittance of Rs.30 and a conveyance allowance of Rs.15, which were merged
to Rs.45 and kept on being paid to the individuals from the Constituent Assembly from
December
1 946 onwards. “Some members of the Constituent Assembly chose to draw only Rs.30 and
several others surrendered their allowances to the local Congress committees and took lesser
amounts fixed by the party”.121 The salary was expanded to Rs.500 in 1964, Rs.750 in 1983,
Rs. 1,000 out of 1985, Rs. 1,500 out of 1988, Rs. 4,000 out of 1998, Rs.12,000 in 2001 and to
the ongoing size of Rs.1 6,000 of every 2006. The everyday remittance was expanded to
Rs.31 in 1964, Rs.51 in 1969, Rs.75 in 1983, Rs.1 50 of every 1988, Rs.200 in 1993 (subject
to the individuals marking the Attendance Register), Rs.400 in 1998, Rs.500 in 2001 and then
to the present rate of Rs. 1,000. “The Salaries and Allowance Act has been amended 27 times
since
1954”.122

i) Walk out: During Pranab Mukherjee’s budget presentation, some of the members of
opposition walked out to protest against tax proposel, leaving Mukherjee to finish the last 15

118
C V. Madhukar, ‘46 Day Report Card’ The Indian Express (New Delhi December 24 2008)
<https://www.indianexpress.com/news/46day-report-card/402181/0> accessed on 25 March 2019
119
Justice A.M. Ahmadi, ‘Dr Zakir Husain Memorial Lecture On the Problems and Prospects of Indian
Transformation’” (1996) < https://www.ebc-india.com/lawyer/articles/96v2a1.html> accessed on 26 March
120
Pratap Bhanu Mehta, ‘The rise of Judicial Sovereignty’ Journal of Democracy18, no. 2 (2007)
121
Era Sezhiyan, ‘By the Members for the Members’ THE FRONTLINE (New Delhi September 22 2006)
pp92-93
122
ibid

22 | P a g e
minutes of his speech in the absence of the opposition. This is the first run through in
the historical backdrop of parliament that the whole resistance arranged a walkout
when the monetary allowance was introduced. Basudev Acharia said, “A situation like
one or two opposition constituents staging a walkout during budget presentation may have
happened in the past. This is Acharia's ninth term as the Lok Sabha member.” 123 The Code of
Conduct for members is categorical about what one can and cannot do while the proceedings
of the House are on. “The dos include: always address the Chair, keep to one's usual seat
while addressing the House, maintain silence while not addressing, maintain the
inviolability of the question hour, refrain from rushing into the well of the House, and resume
one's seat as soon as the Speaker rises to speak. The don'ts include the following: do not
interrupt any member while speaking by disorderly expression or noises, do not obstruct
proceedings, do not shout slogans inside the House, do not question or comment on the ruling
of the Chair, do not speak unless called by the Chair or speak unparliamentary words, do not
use one's right of speech to obstruct the business of the House, among others”. 124 These
disruptions were created in Nehruvian era as well but now it has become everyday thing in the
Parliament. “In the last decade, MPs have raised slogans, snatched papers from ministers and
used pepper spray in the House. During this session, both houses witnessed coordinated
sloganeering and display of placards. In the Lok Sabha, MPs threw paper planes and a
protesting MP, dressed in costume as a former chief minister, and played music to disrupt
the house”.125

Constitutional commitment to rule of law, guarantee of freedom of thought,

articulation, conviction, confidence and love and affirmation of social, monetary and political
equity were joined as the guiding principle of the democratic framework. 126 “President's rule
was imposed on eight occasions during the prime ministerial tenure of Nehru and
Shastri from 1950 to
1966”.127 But in the era of India Gandhi, it was imposed 42 times.128 This error among

123
‘Oppn’s budget walkout may be first time ever’ News 18 ( New Delhi February 26 2010)
<https://www.news18.com/news/politics/oppns -walkout-may-be-first-time -3346.html> accessed on21/03/2020
124
Purnima S. Tripathi, ‘Code and Conduct’ (2001-2002) 18(26) THE FRONTLINE
<https://frontline.thehindu.com/static/html/fl1826/18260230.htm> accessed on 26 March 2019
125
Chakshu Roy, ‘Parliamentary Disruption has become a norm, this Lok Sabha mirrors the decline’ (2019)
<https://www.prsindia.org/content/parliamentary-disruption-has-become-norm-lok-sabha-mirrors-decline>
accessed on 26 March 2019
126
S.S. Tiwana, ‘Crisis in Indian Parliamentary Democracy’ [1994] vol.55 IPSA p55
<https://www.jstor.org/stable/41855680> accessed on 25March 2019
127
J.L. Hardgrave Jrand S. Kochanck, ‘Jndian Government and Politics in a Developing Nation’ Harcourt
Bruce (New York 1986) 70

23 | P a g e
hypothesis and practice enervates parliamentary democracy in India. 129 “In India, the
state legislatures meet for an average of 26 days a year in which a majority of the sitting days
are during the budget session”.130 Because of absence of adequate sittings, the individuals
don't have adequate time to ponder upon bills, and a few of them are passed without much
talk. The Rajya Sabha is deliberating on a private member bill making it required for
Parliament to sit for 100 days.131 “The discussion that follows considers certain implications of
this trend, both implicit and explicit”. 132 In 1952, the Preventive Detention Amendment bill
brought about an unprecedented hullabaloo. That such behaviour was rare at the time was
apparent from Nehru’s comment: “I do not know if that gentleman has the least conception of
what parliament is, what democracy is, and how one is supposed to behave or ought to
behave.”133 This has led to widespread public outcry that has focused on two elements—
“first, the waste of taxpayers’ money on a perpetually disrupted and consequently, non-
functioning Parliament; second, the legislative paralysis that has stultified governance”.134

129
Lai, Hardwari, ‘When Speakers are Partisan...’ The Tribune (New Delhi June 11 1992) 6
130
Abhijit Banare, ‘Why decline in sittings of the parliament and Assemblies is worrying’ (2018)
<https://www.prsindia.org/content/why-decline-sittings-parliament-assemblies-worrying> accessed on 26
March 2019
131
ibid
132
‘Decline of Parliamentary Governance: Indian Scenario’ (2017) 3(2) RLR
<https://rostrumlegal.com/journal/decline-of-parliamentary-governance-indian-scenario/> accessed on 26
March 2019
133
Ronojoy Sen, ‘The Politics of Parliamentary paralysis’ (New Delhi September 21 2016)
<https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/the-politics-of-parliamentary-paralysis/article7562315.ece> accessed
on 25 March 2019
134
Arghya Sengupta and Ors, ‘Disruptions in the Indian Parliament’
<https://static1.squarespace.com/static/551ea026e4b0adba21a8f9df/t/5790647ab8a79bc4629180ca/1469080933
324/Report_Disruptions+in+the+Indian+Parliament_Vidhi.pdf> accessed on 26 March 2019

24 | P a g e
 PART III

“There are facilities available even for a heart transplant, but this syndrome of political
defections is yet to find the remedy”135

1. Competency of the Parliamentarians

Council of ministers in the Indian Parliament hold an extremely crucial stature which comes
with immense power and a great form of responsibilities. As Article 74 affirms that
the President of India shall be bound by the aid and advice of the council of ministers 136, it
becomes all the more vital to ensure that these council of ministers represent a much more
celebrated form of diversity in India so that the voices of all the groups coexisting in our
nation, are represented adequately137. In the first general elections, the cabinet which was
formed upon a total of 46.6% voters turnout wherein the voters accounted for a total of
173.2 million138. However, during the tenure of Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru various incidents of
discontentment were observed within the cabinet due to ego clashes.139 An incident of this can
be observed when Nehru raised questions on the efficiency of the then Finance Minister,
Shanmukham Chetty by saying, “I am told that a very large number of files from the
education ministry have been in the finance ministry for many months and some for over a
year. Indeed some proposals have simply lapsed because of this delay. You will agree with me
that any system which leads to proposals being hung up for a long time is not
satisfactory.” Subsequent to this, Chetty promptly replied by saying that “I am also
enclosing a copy of my letter to Maulana Sahib in which I have made some suggestions for
strengthening the education ministry also, so that proposals emanating from them reach the
finance ministry in a form capable of rapid disposal without considerable difficulty in
assessing the full implications of the proposals...Normally, the administrative departments
themselves fully scrutinise all administrative and financial implications of any proposals
they wish to put forward, and they are presented to the finance ministry in a manner capable
of their appreciating all the implications without considerable

135
Atal Bihari Vajpayee
136
Constitution of India, 1950
137
Cristina Barbieri and Michelangelo Vercesi, ‘The Cabinet: A Viable Definition and its Composition in View
of a Comparative Analysis’ (2013) 48 CUP 526, 530
138
S.S. Tiwana, ‘CRISIS IN INDIAN PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY’ (1994) 55 IJPS 57
139
Josy Joseph, ‘Star wars in Nehru Cabinet’<https://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-star-wars-in-nehru-
cabinet-1168827> accessed on 11th March 2019

25 | P a g e
difficulty. Unfortunately, proposals from your ministry are not presented to the finance
ministry in the same manner as from other ministries,” 140 likewise there were quite
some incidents of clashes which were recorded at the time of the tenure of Nehru which
extended for a total of 17 years.

After this, another thing which should be taken into consideration is the composition of the
elected members of the popular chamber of the parliament or the Lok Sabha. Predominantly,
at the time of Nehru, the members who comprised the members of the Lok Sabha belonged to
either the urban successful educated folks or the traditional elite section of the society,
however in this, the former enjoyed an upper hand over the latter. 141 However, a notable thing
to observe here is that, a nation which had just overcome the colonial rule, was able to manage
almost half or rather more than half of its parliamentary members to be graduates or post
graduates (50-
52%).142 First Lok Sabha consisted a total of 31 lawyers which later on went to decline to 29
in the second Lok Sabha and 22 in the third one. 143 In the post Nehruvian
governments however, the proportion or rather the concentration of a diversified regional
representation was more evident. For instance, according to the data of Gilles Verniers
(a renowned political scientist) in 1952, the representation of the different states (in the
composition of the cabinet ministry) was just 15 whereas at the time of P.V Narsimha Rao, the
proportion of the regional representation was the highest ever, wherein the cabinet
enjoyed a representation of 26 states. 144 This was however the result of the coalition
government where the interest of more than a single political party has to be taken care of.
Another observation with respect to the composition is that the number of Muslim and
Women representative in the legislative body has not witnessed any type of raise. 145 This is a
matter of concern wherein on one hand we claim to celebrate the concept of unity in diversity
but at the same are reluctant with the idea of inclusion.

140
ibid
141
M Manisha and Sharmila Mitra Deb, ‘Indian Democracy: Problems and Prospects’(first published,2009
Anthem press) 69
142
ibid 70
143
Lok Sabha Secretariat, Fifty years of Lok Sabha (1952-2002) – A Statistical profile, New Delhi, 2002 p.33
144
Prabhat Singh, Pramit Bhattacharya, ‘India’s council of ministers: From Nehru to
Modi’<https://www.livemint.com/Politics/HwRBV3ZpQOxmlhvuoPOkqM/Indias-council-of-ministers-From-
Nehru-to-Modi.html>as accessed on 12th march 2019
145
Rahul Verma and Vikas Tripathi, ‘Making Sense of the House: Explaining the Decline of the Indian
Parliament amidst Democratization’ (2013)
<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270671106_Making_Sense_of_the_House_Explaining_the_Decline_
of_the_Indian_Parliament_amidst_Democratization>as accessed on 12th March 2019

26 | P a g e
When, INC came into power with a humungous popularity, it also had to face a severe
downfall in the post Nehruvian era. In 1962, INC enjoyed a large representation of 361
seats which eventually fell down to 281 seats in the 1967 elections (4% decrease in the
electoral share of INC).146 after “the Congress’ majority was greatly eroded after the general
elections in 1967. The more aggressive wing of the socialists led by Ram Manohar Lohia won
more seats and they targeted Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and her government. Lohia
nicknamed her ‘goongi gudiya’ and his supporters used ruder invectives”147. With this it
should be noted as to how the subsequent parliaments deteriorated the sanctity of democracy
in our nation which further went on to become the reason of the decline of the
parliamentary culture. Indian democracy witnessed an era of coalition governments and the
emergence of several regional parties after the decline of Congress in the nation. However,
these governments faced instability and a deadlock between two political parties.
Pramod Kumar observes that “coalition politics functioned more as coalition of interests
between big business, land speculators, big farmers and government contractors within the
party system, coalition politics functioned more as a coalition of patronage for sharing spoils
between the national and regional political parties”148.

2. Dynamic Governance Patterns

Further, after the subsequent victory of Indira Gandhi, the phenomenon of centralised
governance prevailed in the country. Eminent political analyst Rajini Kothari states that
centralised structure is “suicidal for prevalent party system and the federal structure” 149
. However, Nehru maintained a strengthened form of central governance. In fact,
this subordination was coupled with the emergence of the Kamraj plan wherein Awasthi noted
that “The subordination of state governments to the centre was at peak when under the Kamraj
Plan six Chief Ministers were forced to resign in the name of reorganization of the party” 150 In
the post Nehruvian period, precisely in 1980, when congress again came into power, it
blatantly dismissed a total of nine non-congress state government’s through Article 356
of the Constitution151. The scenario of the 1989 Indian politics represented an uglier form of
federal
146
Arun Kaushik and Rupayan Pal, ‘How Representative Has the Lok Sabha Been?’(2012) 47 EPW
<https://www.epw.in/journal/2012/19/notes/how-representative-has-lok-sabha- been.html?
0=ip_login_no_cache%3Df56fcd2d0a06819a291f97fd9193917b>as accessed on 13th March 2019
147
supra 10
148
Pramod Kumar, “Coalition Politics: Withering of National-Regional Ideological Position?”(2011) SAGE
Publications 49
149
Rajni Kothari, ‘State against Democracy: In Search of Humane Governance’ (1988) 30
150
S, S Awasthy, ‘Indian Government and Politics’(first published in Har-Anand Publications, 2009) 136, 137
151
supra 1

27 | P a g e
mechanism. As Arora mentions that “the dividing line between government and
opposition therefore gets further complicated by the fact that the central opposition may be the
state ruling party and vice versa. The complexities of the electoral federalism and the
presence of large number of single state parties in federal coalitions make it virtually
impossible to eliminate state concerns from parliament even if it were considered desirable to
do so”152. In the famous case of S.R Bommai & ors. v Union of India, 153 it was held for the
very first time in the judicial history of India wherein the power of the Union Government to
impose president’s rule was made subject to the judicial review. This turn represented that
Judiciary has always kept a check on the powers and the execution of powers by the
legislature and the executive in our country. In addition to this, the idea of political collective
responsibility and the political homogeneity which are often regarded as some of the salient
features of a strengthened parliamentary form of a government were on a massive downfall at
the time of the coalition government in India. In the period of around 1999, various examples
can be seen in the same regard. That “there is a gap between the program of DMK and INC
but they are an alliance partner. Similarly BJP and Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) are
running coalition in Punjab devoid of homogenous ideology. In such a situation political
homogeneity is not taken into account owing to political compulsions. To run administration
Common Minimum Program (CMP) is chalked out, despite this every party has its own
agenda. In the UPA II Congress as a major alliance partner failed in prevailing upon the
Agriculture Ministry to check the rising prices. This leads to differences among coalition
partners and premature fall of the governments.”154 In the above incident, the general secretary
of congress Janardan Dwivedi with his utter discontentment with the coalition government
stated that “It is a coalition government and not a fully-fledged Congress
government...Congress is the largest in coalition, but it is the first among equals.”155

3. Aaya Raam Gaya Raam : The Politics of Anti – Defection

Floor Crossing or as Subhash C Kashyap synonymously refer as the politics of defection156. In

1960s and 1970s when the incidents of defections became quite prevalent in India, there arose

152
Balveer Arora, “The Indian Parliament and Democracy” (first published in Ajay K Mehra and Gert W.Kueck
(ed.), The Indian Parliament:A Comparative Perspective, 2003) 369, 404
153
[1994] 2 SCR 644
154
Dr.Parvaiz Ahmad Qureshi, ‘An Evaluation of the Working of Indian Parliamentary Democracy in the
21stCentury’ (2017) 7 IJMR 24
155
ibid
156
Kashyap, Subhash , 'The Anti-Defection Law - Premises, Provisions and Problems'(1989) 35 Journal of
Parliamentary Information (1) 9, 2

28 | P a g e
the need to curb this misfunctioning or "to curb the evil of political defections", anti-defection
law was introduced in the year 1985.157 Under this,

“1. If an MP/MLA who belongs to a political party voluntarily resigns from his party
or, disobeys the party "whip" (a direction given by the party to all MPs/ MLAs to vote in a
certain manner), he is disqualified. The party may however condone the MP/ MLA within 15
days.

2. An independent MP/ MLA cannot join a political party after the election.

3. An MP/ MLA who is nominated (to the Rajya Sabha or upper houses in state legislatures)
can only join a party within 6 months of his election.”158 Also, the onus of deciding whether

a particular member of the house is to be disqualified on grounds of defection is on

the presiding officer of the house159

In the case of Ravi Naik v. The Union of India 160 the Supreme court of India broadened the
definition of the term “voluntary” and stated that it has a much wider connotation than just
giving resignation. In the leading case of Kihoto Hollohan vs. Zachilhu161 the court stated that
“Notwithstanding anything contained in the Constitution, no court has any jurisdiction
in respect of any matter connected with the disqualification of a member of a House on the
ground of defection.”

During the period of 1967 to 1972 almost a total of 2000 cases of defection against
4000 members of the Lok Sabha and the State Legislature were observed in the nation. And
when
116 out of 210 members of the States were appointed as the Councils of Ministers or the
cabinet ministers it substantiated enough evidence that the bait of the government
encouraged this phenomenon of floor crossing.162 As observed by Subhash C Kashyap “It can
be observedthat the percentage of defection would increase gradually if the States were also
participated in the drama where the Political Scenario as well as Governments would be
stronger than others and the defection cases would cause rarely.” 163 Further in the year 1968
under the leadership of Y.B Chavan a committee was constituted to make some
recommendation on the then prevailing
157
The Constitution (Fifty Second-Amendment) Act, 1985
158
Anirudh, ‘Defections in Parliament’(2010) <https://www.prsindia.org/theprsblog/defections-parliament> as
accessed on 12th March 2019
159
Durga Das Basu: Shorter Constituion of India (14th edition Lexis Nexis 2009 )
162
Debanis Roy Chowdhury, ‘ANTI-DEFECTION LAW IN INDIA: NEED TO AMEND?’ (2017)
<http://jurip.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Debanis-Roy-Chowdhury.pdf> as accessed on 12th March 2019
163
Subhash C. Kashyap, ‘The Anti-Defection Law-Premises, Provisions and Problems’(1989)11 JPI 9

29 | P a g e
practice of defection he further went on to term this as “national malady”164. However, during
the first three Lok Sabhas, INC enjoyed a fulfilling majority with the largest opposition
forming
41 seats.165 In the beautiful words of Mahatma Gandhi – “The Congress has gained the trust of
the people on account of its many sacrifices and penances but if at this moment it were to let
the people down by becoming their overlord instead of their servant and arrogate to itself a
position of master, I venture to prophesy on the strength of my experience of long years that
though I may be alive or not, a revolution will sweep over the country and that the people will
pick out the white capped ones individually and finish them and that a third power will stand
to gain by this.”166 On all of these situations that had prevailed in the political environment of
the nation, it is vital to note the remarks of Subhash C Kashyap wherein he stated that –
“While men like Nehru could afford to take unpopular decisions and still carry the people
along, the leaders of today, whether in the Congress or in other parties, must satisfy the
demands and expectations of their followers organized in larger or smaller cliques, and
the survival of leadership is often a matter of intelligent tension management. This is much
more the case at the state level.” 167 Hence, the practice of floor crossing not only weakens the
foundation of a political party but also it shakes the fundamental requirement of a healthy
democracy. It is one of the basic features of a healthy democracy wherein the ruling party as
well as the opposition enjoy quite a firm hold in the legislative structure of a nation. And if
due to the cheap baits offered by one political party, the ministers of other withdraw their
support from the existing party in the name of the shift of the ideology then we might
lead to a state of complete dictatorship.

4. Parliamentary Privileges : Luxury or Responsibility?

“Parliamentary privilege refers to rights and immunities enjoyed by Parliament as an

institution and MPs in their individual capacity, without which they cannot discharge their
functions as entrusted upon them by the Constitution.”168 With these, India has witnessed
various incidents wherein these privileges were availed by the members of the parliament in
an unjust manner. Here, we will analyse how in the Nehruvian era the idea of these privileges
was conceived and
164
K. N. Singh, ‘Anti-Defection law and Judicial Review’(1992) 38 JPI 32
165
Paras Diwan, ‘AYA RAM GAYA RAM : THE POLITICS OF DEFECTION’(1979) 21 JILI 3
166
This statement, originally made by Gandhi in his Diary of May 21, 1947, was quoted by H. V. Kamath in
Parliament on May 7, 1962. Lok Sabha Debates, Third Series, Vol. 11, cc 2931-2
167
Subhash C. Kashyap, ‘THE POLITICS OF DEFECTION: THE CHANGING CONTOURS OF THE
POLITICAL POWER STRUCTURE IN STATE POLITICS IN INDIA’ (1970) 10 UCP 3 204
168
Sana, ‘Parliamentary Privileges’(2011) <https://www.prsindia.org/theprsblog/parliamentary-privilege-faqs>
as accessed on 15th March 2019

30 | P a g e
 how the subsequent governments have disregarded the very purpose of these privilegesthence
resulting in the decline of the parliamentary culture. In the constitution it is mentioned that
“No member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of
anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof, and no person
shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of either House of
Parliament of any report, paper, votes or proceedings.”169 The same is for the members
of the state legislatures.170 Once, the opposition alleged that the Special Assistant of Nehru,
M.O Mathai made certain remarks which amounted to contempt of house and subsequently, a
motion under parliamentary privileges was called upon. On this Nehru said "if considerable
section of the House was feeling that something should be done, it is hardly a matter for a
majority to over- ride those wishes. Suggestion to drop this matter would, I think, not be a
right one because it almost appears that an attempt was made somehow to hush matters or
hide matters. It is not a good thing for such an impression to be created."171 This represents
that Nehru respected and upheld the doctrinal value of the concept of parliamentary privileges.
In the year 1991 when P.V Narsimha Rao formed a coalition government and became the
Prime Minister, the motion of no confidence was initiated against him in the parliament.172
Narasimha Rao defeated the motion of no-confidence by 265 votes to 251– with the support
of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) members.173 Later, Rao was accused “that a criminal
conspiracy was hatched pursuant to which certain members of Parliament belonging to
Jharkhand Mukti Morcha and certain others owing allegiance to Janta Dal (Ajit Singh Group)
agreed to and did receive bribes from Narasimha Rao and others to give votes with a view to
defeat the no-confidence
motion.”174 In the case P.V Narsimha Rao v Union of India175 the Apex Court held
that they can legally take bribes and vote as per the desire of the bribe-giver and
they will not be liable for corruption because, under legislative privileges,
they cannot be questioned “in respect of any vote” given by them. 176 Also, in
1978, Subramaniam Swamy was expelled from the Upper House of the
parliament “for bringing disrepute to Parliament by his activities through

169
Constitution of India, Art. 105(2)
170
Constitution of India, Art 194
171
Lok Sabha Debate (1959), volume XXV 169
172
A.G. Noorani, ‘Appointing a PM’ (2009)
<https://frontline.thehindu.com/static/html/fl2613/stories/20090703261307300.htm> as accessed on 13 th March
2019
173
ibid
174
Balwant Singh Malik, ‘P.V. NARASIMHA RAO V. STATE : A CRITIQUE, <https://www.ebc-
india.com/lawyer/articles/9808a1.htm> as accessed on 14th March 2019
175
(1998) 4 SCC 626
31 | P a g e
interviews in foreign publications that were construed as anti-India propaganda.”177 After he
was alleged of breaching the sanctity of the parliament, the Committee of Privileges asked
him if he wants to say anything in the said matter and if he wants to be heard in person.
Swamy first asked to get represented by his counsel. The committee did not approve of this
upon which he failed to appear before the committee on the required date. 178 This further
represents as tohow after Nehru, the decorum and the dignity which was expected from
the parliamentarians through their conduct was greatly disregarded. If seen from the judicial
point of view, over the years, courts have decided upon various incidences which
required a clear view on the demarcation between the Right to free speech and
Expression179, the idea of Parliamentary privileges 180 envisaged in our constitution and the
offence of Defamation.181 The leading cases which threw light and therefore hold significance
in this regard include the case of Raja Ram Pal v. Hon'Ble Speaker Lok Sabha And
Others182 wherein the court stated that “The proceedings which may be tainted on account
of substantive illegality or unconstitutionality, as opposed to those suffering from mere
irregularity thus cannot be held protected from judicial scrutiny by Article 122(1)”.183
However in the case of Amarinder Singh v. Special Committee, Punjab Vidhan Sabha And
Others184 the court held that “It is our considered view that the Vidhan Sabha exceeded
its powers by expelling the appellant on the ground of a breach of privilege when there
existed none. The alleged improper exemption of land was an executive act attributable to
the appellant and it did not distort, obstruct or threaten the integrity of legislative
proceedings in any manner. Hence the exercise of legislative privileges under Article
194 (3) was not proper in the present case.”185

The conditions further deteriorated when in under the general rules enumerated to
conduct efficient proceeding in the Lok Sabha the speaker 186, Sumitra Mahajan, suspended 25
leaders
177
Swaraj Thapa, ‘What is a privilege motion?’ The Indian Express (July 24, 2018)
<https://indianexpress.com/article/what-is/what-is-a-privilege-motion-5272697/> as accessed on 14 th March
2019
178
RAJYA SABHA (1976) <https://rajyasabha.nic.in/rsnew/privileges_digest/priv-19.pdf> as accessed on 14 th
March 2019
179
Constitution of India 1950, Art. 19
180
Supra n 34
181
Indian Penal Code 1860, s 499
182
(2007) 3 SCC 184
183
M.R Madhavan, ‘Power to Certify’ The Hindu (May 16, 2016) <https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-
ed/aadhar-bill-the-power-tocertify/article8604009.ece> as accessed on 15th March 2019
184
2010 (6) SCC 113.
185
PTI, ‘Assembly expulsion of Amarinder quashed’ The Hindu (April 27, 2010)
<https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/Assembly-expulsion-of-Amarinder-
quashed/article16372795.ece> as accessed on 15th March 2019
186
‘Rules Of Procedure And Conduct Of Business In Lok Sabha’(Lok Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi 2014) r.
374(A)

32 | P a g e
of Congress party for disrupting the proceedings of the house.187 The situation went to such an
ugly form wherein the speaker publicly stated that “The entire country should watch this those
(the papers thrown at) are official papers. Doing that is a crime creating a ruckus at the Well is
indiscipline in itself but tearing up paper and throwing it at the Speaker four times worse.”188
This clearly depicts as to how detrimental the overall conduct of the parliamentarians have
gotten to after the age of Nehru.

The other time, when India witnessed a serious malfunction of the democratic framework of
the parliament was in 1975, when internal emergency was imposed by the then Prime Minister
Indira Gandhi. She stated that - “an imminent danger to the security of India” is the reason due
to which the imposition of the internal emergency is taking place. 189 Justice J.C Shah however
in his report stated that “there was no evidence of any breakdown of law and order in any part
of the country to justify the imposition of the Emergency.” 190 Amidst this , another thing
which shows that the parliamentary values were grossly disregarded in this incident was when
in the Shah commission report it was distinctly deduced that Mrs. Gandhi had planned
emergency as early as June 22 but kept it under cover (even her own cabinet was unaware of
the same) until the morning of June 26.191 To the extent that even her own cabinet got to know
about it through the newspapers in the morning. 192 At one point where the dreamers of the
ideal nation state who drafted the Constitution of India, ruled the nation with the view that
India shall be the epitome of democracy, Indira Gandhi proved that in the game of politics and
ego clashes, only power stays relevant and everything else including the democracy can be
sacrificed.

Nehru encouraged the young minds to participate in the legislative process. Once an Odisha
MP, Uma Charan Pattnaik was regarded by Nehru and Nehru stated that, “He was an expert
on defence matter. When he spoke there was pin-drop silence” 193 Nehru actually understood
the

187
Ronojoy Sen, ‘The politics of parliamentary paralysis’ The Hindu (August 21, 2015)
<https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/the-politics-of-parliamentary-paralysis/article7562315.ece> as
accessed on 15th March 2019
188
‘Speaker Sumitra Mahajan suspends six Congress MPs’ The Economic Times (Jul 25, 2017)
<https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/speaker-sumitra-mahajan-suspends-six-
congress-mps/articleshow/59745755.cms> as accessed on 15th March 2019
189
‘May 16, 1978, Forty Years Ago: Shah indicts Indira’ The Indian Express (December 19, 2018)
<https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/editorials/may-16-1978-forty-years-ago-shah-indicts-indira-
5178187/> as accessed on 15th March 2019
190
‘Shah Commission of Inquiry’ (interim report I) March 11, 1978
191
supra n 54
192
Sagarika Ghose, ‘Indira: India’s Most Powerful Prime Minister’
193
P. Sakthivel, ‘JAWAHARLAL NEHRU: THE PARLIAMENTARIAN AND CONTEMPORARY INDIAN
PARLIAMENT’ (2011) 72 IJPS 106

33 | P a g e
worth of the democratic conduct in the parliament of India and this was duly met by
him without any prejudice.194

During the discussions of the Constituent assembly, when the issue of whether a
governor should be nominated or not, Nehru stated that – “we must base democracy on the
electoral process. We have done it. But the point is whether we should duplicate it again and
again. That seems to me unnecessary, apart from leading to conflict and waste of energy and
money, it also leads to a certain descriptive tendency in this huge context of elective
Governor plus parliamentary system of democracy. Therefore, I should like to support fully
the amendment proposed that Governor should be nominated.” 195 Where Nehru was
concerned about the expenditure of money in the legislative processes, it has now been
observed that the parliament of India incur a whooping expenditure due to the absence and
inefficiency of the members of the parliament. In 2016 “A total of Rs 45,000 is entitled to
each MP for office expenses. Out of these, Rs 15,000 is for meeting expenses on stationery
items and postage, and Rs 30,000 is paid by the Lok Sabha/Rajya Sabha Secretariat to the
person.”196 Today neither the leader of our nation nor the concerned parliamentarians have
payed heed to the democratic values that
were dreamt by the constitution makers of our country.

34 | P a g e
 CONCLUSION

“If I find the constitution being misused, I shall be the first one to burn it”203

When India got independence from the colonial rule, the leaders imagined the dream of
a developed nation state through the path of the democracy. The global contemporaries of that
period doubted our country’s capability to establish herself as a democratic state due to
various impediments like Communal disharmony due to the partition, poor state of economic
affairs, deplorable literacy levels and what not. Winston Churchill, once went on to say “If
India is granted freedom, power will go to the hands of rascals, rogues, freebooters".
However, despite all of these hurdles the political geniuses of India proved to the world that a
nation can stand firmly even after a brutal exploitation of 200 years. The Parliament of India
was structured in a way wherein it celebrated all the requisites of a democratic institution. The
principle of dissent was embraced back then and the sanctity of democracy was both adored
and taken care of during the conduct of the parliamentarians. The standard of debates
represented a true form of intelligent and necessary political discussions and the
parliamentarians themselves used to actively take part in the legislative processes of
the nation. The efficiency of the parliamentarians reflected their dedication of making
the nation state a model of an ideal form of democracy by utilising the time of the parliament
in discussing important bills etc. However, today the nightmare of these leaders have come
true wherein the parliamentarians have become just a bunch of goons hungry for the seat of
power and politics. As illustrated in the paper, the leaders have misused the power and the
privileges that were envisaged in the constitution of India. There are various reasons
discussed above why nehruvien era was golden era for democracy and parliamentary
form of government.

203
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar

35 | P a g e