Disruption of Parliament an offence against voters

That the majority remains a mute victim to this naked “contempt of Parliament” is certainly a weakness in our parliamentary system and needs to be corrected by rules and practices and their strict application. A way out must be found to prevent this growing “offence against voters” committed in the legislative bodies lest the situation should lead to a campaign for boycott of elections.

It can no longer be argued that the government has to conduct Parliament and Opposition parties have the right to obstruct. Enacting legislations and debating issues are the primary functions of Parliament. When these functions are stalled and only a few laws are allowed to be passed practically without debate, the legislature is failing in its role.

Like the previous monsoon session, the present winter session of the Parliament has also gone without completing and without even beginning some items in its agenda. Disruptions of Parliament proceedings have become the rule rather than exceptions in our highly charged political atmosphere. The situation demands a search into the conduct of our political institutions, leaders, and the way politics is understood and played in our country.

In parliamentary democracies, tension between the ruling party and the Opposition causing an exchange of verbal quarrel is common. It is of course the job of the Opposition to oppose but with sound points and in the interest of the nation. The right to oppose and expose and, if numbers allow, depose the government is not equivalent to the right to disrupt the functioning of the Parliament. Ideologies may vary, but all political parties are expected to be working for the welfare of the nation. Hence, opposition for the sake of opposition and that too by shouting, running into the well and preventing other members from speaking is undoubtedly undesirable and undemocratic.

A report by a Citizens’ Group calculated the loss of working hours in the 15th Lok Sabha as 577 hours in the Lok Sabha and 442 hours in the Rajya Sabha. Frequent disruptions resulted in drastic reduction in the work of both Houses to 61% in Lok Sabha and 66% in Rajya Sabha.

In the monsoon session this year, the Lok Sabha sat for 47 hours and 27 minutes working amidst shouting, but lost 34 hours and 4 minutes due to protests. To compensate the loss of working hours, it sat for 5 hours and 27 minutes. The question hour is lost almost as a routine, which effectively frees the Executive from the embarrassment of facing Parliament questions.

Additionally, it is calculated that the monetary loss to the exchequer in terms of the cost for every minute of Parliament’s time lost amounts to around Rs.2.5 lakh. It is no consolation to look back and find that disruptions in Parliament were known from the 1st Lok Sabha.

The situation is growing worse in the present 16th Lok Sabha. All parties seem to have entered a race to contribute more to disruption politics to gain publicity, and to promote the right to disruption as a legitimate parliamentary tool. It has reached a stage now necessitating ban on disruptions to Parliament proceedings so as to establish its role and responsibilities and its members. It seems that the next time when Parliament House undergoes renovation, the “well” of the House must be enlarged to accommodate more members.

It is true as often asserted by some of our best parliamentarians, that it is the responsibility of the government to run Parliament. But, this argument has been falsified in view of continuous disruptions by some parties even stalling crucial legislations and debates including those sponsored and advocated by themselves. It can no longer be argued that the government has to conduct Parliament and Opposition parties have the right to obstruct.

Enacting legislations and debating issues are the primary functions of Parliament. When these functions are stalled and only a few laws are allowed to be passed practically without debate, the legislature is failing in its role. It is indeed unbelievable that crucial economic and social reforms have fallen victims to obstructionist politics. Individual leaders and party interests have come to dominate national interests and public good. No wonder, people have started seriously discussing about taming non-functioning legislatures and legislators.

In some democracies, the “offence” of obstructing the legislature in carrying out its functions or of hindering any legislator in the performance of his/her duties is treated as “contempt of Parliament.” Actions that may constitute “contempt” include deliberately misleading the legislature or a legislative committee; refusing to testify before or produce documents to a House or committee; attempting to influence a member of the legislature by bribe or threat. There is no scope for judicial review in contempt charges.

In the event of grave disorder in the British House of Commons, the Speaker has the power to suspend or adjourn the sitting. This power derived from a Resolution adopted in 1902, has been rarely used. The right of the House to discipline unruly members is established by practice and precedent and also accepted by courts. MPs accused of contempt of Parliament may be suspended or expelled. They may also be committed to the Clock Tower under Big Ben, but reports suggest that this has not been used after 1880. The House of Lords has the power to impose fine and order imprisonment as punishment.

Parliamentary obstruction was known in a small way in 18th century Britain, but spread elsewhere to threaten smooth functioning of democracies in many European countries. Gladstone described this as “the disposition of the minority of individuals to resist the will of the House (of Commons) otherwise than by argument”. It was looked upon by some Speakers as abuse of freedom of debate for the purpose of defeating the will of Parliament.

In 1945, the Labour Party in Britain for the first time won majority, but was a small minority of 20 members in a total of 750 in the House of Lords. It faced a difficult situation in carrying out its electoral promises. A settlement was then reached between the ruling and Opposition party known as Salisbury Convention. It was established that the Opposition would not block any bill which had been promised in the election manifesto of the ruling party.

The British Parliament allocates 20 days in a year when the agenda is drawn by the Opposition. The work of Indian Parliament is wholly decided by the Government. In the years following independence in the early 1950s, the Parliament met for 120 to 140 days in a year and now it is drastically reduced. Parliamentary schedule is drawn by the Government – a system that enables it to curtail or postpone a session.

In the Commonwealth of Australia, the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 defines contempt of Parliament as “conduct including words, which amounts to or is intended to or likely to amount to an improper interference with the free exercise by a House or committee of its authority or functions, or with the free performance by a member of the member’s duties as a member”. Punishments for contempt are prescribed as fine of $ 5,000 and/or imprisonment for 6 months for individuals and fine of $25,000 in the case of corporations.

Long ago, the term “filibustering” was coined in America to refer to a parliamentary procedure where debate over a proposed piece of legislation is extended, allowing one or more members to delay, or entirely prevent a vote on the proposal, thus killing the Bill. It is an extreme measure used by a minority of Senators to block a decision. It has reference to Roman Senator Cato who continuously spoke to forestall voting for final decision.

That the majority remains a mute victim to this naked “contempt of Parliament” is certainly a weakness in our parliamentary system and needs to be corrected by rules and practices and their strict application.

A way out must be found to prevent this growing “offence against voters” committed in the legislative bodies lest the situation should lead to a campaign for boycott of elections. Politicians must realiSe that people are watching; media is news hungry: and NGOs are alert.

By Dr S Saraswathi