Om Birla’s previous tenure as Speaker of the 17th Lok Sabha left much to be desired, and members of the 18th Lok Sabha must remain vigilant if they have to stop the downward spiral of Indian democracy, writes S.N. Sahu.
—
AS Om Birla begins his successive second term as Speaker of Lok Sabha, his record of service during the first term should make the opposition members more vigilant to vigorously uphold the executive’s accountability to the legislature, the defining feature of parliamentary democracy.
Among several parliamentary devices, the mechanism of asking written and oral questions of the government, participating in the debates and discussions of Lok Sabha on topical issues of public importance and effectively using department-related parliamentary committees to examine the Bills referred to them by the Speaker, enable members of Parliament (MP) to hold the government to account.
Manipur MPs were not allowed to speak
Tragically, during Om Birla’s first tenure, covering the 17th Lok Sabha, not only did several opposition MPs find it difficult to function as effective legislators but even many ruling party members were not allowed to speak on issues that agitated the whole nation.
For instance, when the no-confidence motion was moved by the opposition parties against the Narendra Modi government and Manipur’s travails of facing lingering violence was discussed, two MPs, R.K. Ranjan Singh of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), who was a minister of state for external affairs in the Modi cabinet, and Lorho S. Pfoze of the Naga People’s Front (supporting the Modi government), were advised by top BJP leadership not to speak on the issue as the Union home minister Amit Shah was speaking on behalf of the government.
That denial of opportunity to the MPs of the violence-afflicted state deprived them of representing their suffering people in Lok Sabha and voicing their pain and suffering.
That denial of opportunity to the MPs of the violence-afflicted state deprived them of representing their suffering people in Lok Sabha and voicing their pain and suffering.
Also read: Deleting democracy: Need for limiting Speaker’s power of expunction
One of those distraught Manipur MPs, Pfoze, while participating in a discussion on Barkha Dutt’s YouTube channel, Mojo Story, said, “The government should have first asked me to speak even if I didn’t make a formal request. I wanted to speak on behalf of my people.”
He remarked with a heavy heart that he did not put forth his request to speak out of respect for the government which he supported but felt dejected, sad and angry because he was asked not to speak.
He made a shocking revelation to Dutt that fifty of the questions he asked on Manipur were not picked up in any of the discussions, except one on education. It was indeed a grave matter that his right to use a parliamentary device of asking questions to hold the government to account was put in peril.
Om Birla, as a Speaker representing the House and defender of the rights and privileges of all MPs to participate in its proceedings, should have been sensitive enough to understand their minds, call them to speak and pick up the questions on Manipur. But he did not.
With such a track record, can Birla, during his second term, inspire confidence among MPs of the newly elected 18th Lok Sabha to hold the government to account?
Farm laws passed without consultation
The nation has not forgotten the year-long movement of farmers against farm laws passed in the Lok Sabha during the tenure of Birla without consultation with the stakeholders, a key component of which are farmers themselves.
Lawmaking is a deliberative and consultative process and that very process was dispensed with to pass several legislations including the farm laws. The negation of the lawmaking process during the tenure of Birla is a serious indictment of his ability to run the affairs of Lok Sabha which, among other powers, has the mandate to make laws for our country.
Eventually, those farm laws were repealed by the Modi government because of the persistence of the movement of the farmers.
Bills not referred to parliamentary committees
Related to the lawmaking process, defined by the adoption of methods of deliberation and consultation, is scrutiny and examination of Bills embodying the government’s intent.
Also read: ‘Encourages casteism’: Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla slammed for ‘Brahmin superiority’ remarks
When those Bills are discussed on the floor of Lok Sabha, the government’s intent gets fine-tuned by legislative intent, which represents the discussion in the House.
He remarked with a heavy heart that he did not put forth his request to speak out of respect for the government which he supported but felt dejected, sad and angry because he was asked not to speak.
But in the 17th Lok Sabha, hardly any discussion on Bills took place, leading to their passage without any legislative intent giving a final shape to them.
Before 2014, Bills drafted by several government departments used to be referred by the Speaker, Lok Sabha, to several department-related parliamentary standing committees for scrutiny and examination.
It is rather shocking that during the tenure of Birla, very few Bills have been referred to those committees, which normally function on a bipartisan basis.
According to PRS legislative research data, only 16 percent of Bills were referred to the committees by Speaker Birla during his first tenure covering the 17th Lok Sabha. It does not bode well for the cause of a robust lawmaking process based on scrutiny and examination of Bills on a bipartisan basis.
Inadequate discussion on Bills
Even after the Bills were scrutinised by the committees, they were hardly discussed in Lok Sabha. The legislative intent fine-tuning the Bills would be made possible when there is a discussion on those Bills involving members from ruling and opposition parties.
So the passage of Bills without adequate discussion in Parliament leads to the prevalence of government intent over legislative intent often invoked by courts to examine the constitutional validity of a law passed by Parliament and eventually enacted.
Former Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana famously said that Bills are passed without adequate discussion in the Parliament and it causes immense difficulty for courts to understand the legislative intent without which adjudication on impugned laws becomes problematic.
Birla must look back and salvage the dignity of his office during his second tenure by referring more Bills to the department-related parliamentary standing committees and allowing the legislative intent to play its due role in giving depth and content to multiple legislations introduced in Parliament.
He, as the custodian of the House and its privileges, must ensure that the opposition gets an adequate chance to play its due role in the proceedings of Lok Sabha and its committees.
Erosion of Parliament
Parliament’s role as a deliberative chamber suffered erosion when both the Chairman, Rajya Sabha, Jagdeep Dhankhar, and Lok Sabha Speaker, Om Birla, expunged several remarks of opposition leaders on the Adani issue.
With such a track record, can Birla, during his second term, inspire confidence among MPs of the newly elected 18th Lok Sabha to hold the government to account?
Similarly, the suspension of more than 140 opposition members, both from Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, created an impression in people’s minds that presiding officers of both Houses were bent upon punishing the opposition.
Issue of not filling up deputy Speaker’s post
Added to this is the unprecedented situation created by the decision not to fill up the post of deputy Speaker of Lok Sabha during the entire period of 17th Lok Sabha.
Om Birla should have acted on the pleas of several opposition leaders to take action for choosing the deputy Speaker of the House as mandated by Article 93 of the Constitution.
Similarly, the suspension of more than 140 opposition members, both from Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, created an impression in people’s minds that presiding officers of both Houses were bent upon punishing the opposition.
Leaving the post vacant for the entire tenure of five years of a Lok Sabha has no parallel in our parliamentary history. It is a serious violation of the Constitution and constitutes a blot on the Modi regime and occupant of the office of the Speaker, Om Birla, who should have taken the initiative to get the post filled up.
Now, Birla must look back at his track record as a presiding officer of Lok Sabha with a critical perspective to set a better benchmark of performance during his second term for justly enriching our parliamentary democracy.
