RECENTLY, a shocking report by Indian Express stated that the Prime Minister’s Office brazenly interfered in the functional autonomy of the Lok Sabha Secretariat, by instructing it to not admit questions, notices to raise issues in zero hours, or Special Mentions by Lok Sabha MPs, in issues relating the controversial PM CARES fund, the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund, and the National Defence Fund.
It is all the more shocking that the PMO usurped the Speaker’s sole power to decide the admissibility of questions by citing that the rules 41(2) (viii) and 41(2)(xvii) of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Lok Sabha should be invoked to reject the questions asked by Members on those aforementioned Funds. These instructions to the Lok Sabha Secretariat constitute nothing but dictations, even as its autonomy is protected from the executive or any other organ of the State under Article 98 of the Constitution.
Article 98 states that each House of Parliament shall have a separate secretariat staff and recruitment, and the conditions of service of persons appointed, to the secretarial staff of either House of Parliament are determined by recruitment rules which are applied by the sole authority of the Speaker or the Chairman, Rajya Sabha as the case may be.
These instructions to the Lok Sabha Secretariat constitute nothing but dictations, even as its autonomy is protected from the executive or any other organ of the State under Article 98.
How did the Constituent Assembly see the autonomy of Lok Sabha Secretariat?
On December 30, 1949, Dr B.R. Ambedkar, the Chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Constituent Assembly, while moving the Article 79-A of the draft Constitution (now Article 98) explained the reasons why the Constitution should guarantee the autonomy of the Secretariats of both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha from the Government of the day. While citing the stand taken then by the conference of Speakers of various provinces for such a provision in the Constitution, Ambedkar referred to the example of Vithalbhai Patel who, during the freedom struggle, as President (in today’s parlance - Speaker of Lok Sabha) of the Central Legislative Assembly fought for the autonomy of the legislature secretariat from the interference by Viceroy. Ambedkar recalled how Patel’s stand for autonomy eventually prevailed when Viceroy conceded it during 1928-29.
A distinguished member of the Constituent Assembly R. K. Sidhwa while participating in the discussion on Article 79A of the draft Constitution said “Sir, I welcome this article. The Speaker’s secretariat ought to be quite separate from the executive. It is a recognised fact everywhere.”
How the PMO’s instructions contradicts this vision
Such an invaluable legacy of upholding autonomy of the Lok Sabha Secretariat from the executive guaranteed by the constitutional provision enshrined in Article 98 has been trampled by the Prime Minister’s office which has instructed the Lok Sabha Secretariat not to admit questions concerning the above cited Funds.
In doing so, the PMO is negating the very provision of Article 98 and more importantly the vision and legacy of Vithalbhai Patel whose persistent efforts for safeguarding the inviolability of the independence of legislature secretariat was acceded to by the colonial rulers. That vision and legacy of became a moving force for Ambedkar and the Constituent Assembly to enshrine the autonomy of legislature secretariats including that of Lok Sabha Secretariat in the Constitution itself so that the Government of the day would not interfere in the domain of the legislature headed by the presiding officers.
The PMO in instructing Lok Sabha Secretariat not to admit questions has flagrantly violated the Constitution, Ambedkar’s vision, and most importantly, the legislative intent of the Constituent Assembly. Such shameful interference goes against the very grain of separation of powers defining the exclusive jurisdiction of the executive, legislature and judiciary in their respective spheres without any scope for interference of one organ in the jurisdiction of the other.
Eroding impartiality of the Speaker’s office
Recently Om Birla, Speaker of Lok Sabha, made an announcement in the House itself that he advised Prime Minister Modi not to come to the House because he had credible information that an unprecedented situation might be created by Congress members near the seat of Modi. Such a statement from the Speaker, accusing the primary opposition party, solely in support of the Prime Minister, clearly infringes the ideals of impartiality and neutrality defining the office of the Speaker.
Ideally, the Speaker should have called the Congress MPs to his chamber to discuss with them regarding the credible information he had received and attempt to diffuse the situation. Instead, his statements virtually inculpate Congress members Such actions of the Speaker are inconsistent with his office anchored in the ideals of autonomy and independence.
It is, therefore, of seminal importance to safeguard the autonomy of the office of the Speaker and Lok Sabha Secretariat to salvage Parliament and Parliamentary democracy.
Gandhiji wrote that a Speaker’s role was to act as a judge to give impartial and just rulings.
‘Speaker greater than Prime Minister’: Gandhi
In his article titled ‘Speakers and Politics,’ published in Harijan on July 17, 1938, Mahatma Gandhi had thoughtfully observed, “… The speaker’s position assumes very high importance, greater than that of the prime minister.”
Gandhiji in that article went on to flag the several attributes of a speaker. He wrote that a Speaker’s role was to act as a judge to give impartial and just rulings, enforce decorum and laws of courtesy between members, remain calm in the midst of storms and avail opportunities of winning over opponents which no other member of the House could possibly have.
Lok Sabha Speaker, Om Birla, must not bring any interference in the affairs of the Lok Sabha Secretariat to safeguard its autonomy as mandated by Article 98. He must protest against what PMO did in instructing the Lok Sabha Secretariat on the issue of questions.
He, himself, also must act in a manner which would uphold the dignity of his office, rooted in the ideals of impartiality and bipartisan approach.
We're bringing The Leaflet closer to you! Join thousands of readers on our new WhatsApp and Telegram channels. Stay informed, stay connected.