When
the last article on this site was titled Murder of Democracy,
it was not foreseen that worse was to come yet.
The new state of Telangana (तेलॅनगाणा) is about to be born. Let’s us wish it and all its inhabitants all the best! The
division of Andhra Pradesh is now a fait accompli. Therefore,
this is not about the split. It is about the manner in which the exercise was
conducted. The proceedings of the Lok Sabha were almost a throwback to
the days of the infamous emergency. The only difference, perhaps, was that,
during the emergency, Indira had sent all her opponents to prison, while
her daughter-in-law Sonia had the opponents of the bill ejected from
parliament. When the Lok Sabha met last week to pass the ‘Andhra
Pradesh Reorganisation Bill’, the Speaker used her powers selectively
to suspend the bill’s opponents and barred them from entering the house.
During
the emergency, quite a few bills were passed in parliament without following
any procedure, discussion or debate. Legislators glorified themselves
by their decibel power to say ‘aye’ vying with each other to shout the
loudest hoping the Empress would notice! It was in such an atmosphere
that even the Constitution was amended to insert two political clichés, ‘secular’
and ‘socialist’ in its preamble. The amendment was perhaps a smokescreen
to enact the other, notorious amendment (the thirty-ninth Constitutional
amendment) that gave retroactive immunity from legal proceedings to
Indira herself, which was enacted on August 10, 1975.
This
time around, the issue at hand is not about making laws that would place an
individual above judicial scrutiny or inserting political clichés in the Constitution.
How did the clichéd, ‘world’s largest democracy’ go about legislative
business that would have far reaching consequences? The legislation under ‘debate’
would affect a population of 8.5 crore of its citizens or, 7% of India’s
population. The point is it was not debated at all!
The
Bill No. 8 of 2014 as it was introduced in the Lok Sabha runs to seventy
six pages, and has one hundred and nine clauses and thirteen
schedules. The government itself has proposed thirty six amendments
to the bill. What was the time allotted to discuss such lengthy
legislation of a momentous and irreversible nature? It was allotted four
hours for discussion in the Lok Sabha and all of two hours in the
Rajya Sabha. Just to put things in perspective, reading the seventy
six pages at the slow pace required to digest its contents would need at
least six hours and twenty minutes.
Legislative
business involves a rather lengthy process and
it may be several months before a bill becomes an act. A bill is
a draft proposal placed before parliament. It has to pass through
several stages before it gets the parliament’s stamp of approval to become an act.
Whereas a proposed legislation can be introduced in either house of the
parliament, a bill that seeks to levy or waive off taxes (known as a ‘Money
Bill’) could only be introduced in the Lok Sabha first. A private
member (whether he is a member of the ruling party or the opposition) can
introduce a bill. A bill so introduced is known as a ‘Private
Member’s Bill’.
Here,
in brief, are the stages that a bill passes through before becoming an act:
First
Reading:
Introduction in the parliament. It requires permission of the presiding
officer, and the legislature. Ascertaining the will of the members may
entail in voting.
Gazette
Notification:
A bill introduced in parliament is notified in the official gazette.
Reference
to a Standing Committee: The presiding officer has the discretion to
refer the bill to a Standing Committee either on her own volition
or on the demand of a majority of members. Ascertaining the will of the
members may entail in voting. The voting may be by ‘voice vote’ but if a member
demands a ‘division’ the presiding officer is obliged to conduct a poll.
Second
Reading:
This implies a general discussion on the bill, but it has two or three
sub-stages including reference to a Select Committee / Joint
Parliamentary Committee of the two houses of parliament. Ascertaining
the will of the members may entail in voting. The voting may be by voice vote,
but if a member demands ‘division’ the presiding officer is obliged to conduct
a poll.
First
Stage:
If the bill is not referred to the Select Committee / Joint Parliamentary
Committee, it is generally discussed, debated and voted upon if a member
seeks ‘division’.
Second
Stage:
In this stage a clause by clause discussion of the bill takes place.
Each clause is discussed and debated upon. Amendments could be moved. Each
clause is voted upon before being accepted either through a voice vote or by a
ballot if a member demands a ‘division’. Similarly, any amendments moved should
be accepted or negated by a voice vote or by a ballot if a member demands a ‘division’
Third
Reading:
The member who proposed the original bill moves the bill. The
house then debates it. The bill requires parliamentary approval,
which is sought either through a voice vote or a ballot if a member demands ‘division’.
Reference
to the other house:
A bill introduced in one house is sent to the other house for
consideration and approval. It follows the same procedure there expect the
introduction stage or First Reading. If the other house makes any amendments
to the bill, which are at variance with the clauses approved in the
first house, it will have to be sent to the first house again for
re-consideration of the amended clauses and approval.
After
a bill passes through the stages detailed above and after it satisfies
the conditions set for approval of both the houses, it is referred to the President
for approval and later a Gazette Notification is published again,
this time notifying that the bill became an act.
How
did our parliament go about enacting one of the most important legislations that
would have far reaching and irreversible consequences? It gave a go-by
to all established rules, norms and procedures and steamrolled its way in both
the houses of parliament. And the principal
opposition party, the BJP entered into an unholy nexus with the government in
its act of daylight murder of democracy!
The
‘monumental’ exercise was finished in just twenty three – yes, twenty
three – minutes in the Lok Sabha. The upper house or the house of
elders, the Rajya Sabha went beyond the allotted two hours not because
of any zealousness or propriety our legislators had for parliamentary etiquette, rules
and procedures, but because the government wanted the business to be finished
and done with.
By
being receptive only to those ‘ayes’ and ‘noes’ which suited the
government’s political agenda and screening out the others, the Presiding Officers
did not cover themselves with glory.
Well written!
ReplyDeleteIn 1975 Indira had her opponents jailed, calling then anti-national. Times have changed and we are in the modern computer age. The Bahu comes from Italy and from the same place where the original Fascist, Mussolini was born. She had everyone 'jailed', including her own party members 'inside the parliament'! The jailed include the super-cop of the country, the Home Minister and the (titular!) head of our Government, the Prime Minister!
Could the President have intervened? Guess not, as things stand in our parliamentary democracy.
Democracy is the name of the game!
Rama Mohan Rao
Too atrocious and that is how they have been working and now they protest (since they are not in power.)
ReplyDelete