<b>Hamid Ansari:</b> Rules of procedure are being violated

My concern today is with the institution of legislatures, not so much with the powers and functions bestowed on them by the Constitution as with the modalities of their actual functioning.

Competent observers have noted that in recent times the idealised view of legislatures as deliberative bodies is contradicted by the induction of un-parliamentary practices whereby they tend to become sites for adversarial combat in which the hallmark of an effective legislator is often seen to be "an ability to shout and disrupt proceedings, preferably from the well of the House". In this context a number of questions come to mind:

• Do the legislatures at central and state levels function enough? 
• Do they spend sufficient time on deliberation, legislation and accountability of executive?
• Is their functioning in line with established norms and public expectations?
• Do they, by their functioning, set a model or a pattern of behaviour for the public especially the youth to emulate?
• Are correctives possible, or has the system lost its way?

A look at the statistical data answers the first two questions. In the period 1952-1961, the annual average of sittings of the Lok Sabha was 124.2 and of the Rajya Sabha 90.5. In the next decade, it was 116.3 and 98.5 respectively. These figures declined to 81 and 71.3 respectively in the decade 1992-2001 and to 70.3 and 69.6 in 2002-2011. The trend is evident and the conclusion is inescapable that while adhering to the letter of Articles 85 of the Constitution (and Article 171 for state legislatures) stipulating the requirement to meet at less than six month's interval, the time made available notionally for Parliament or assembly sessions has contracted.

Record of many decades also shows that the notional time allocation is different from the time actually utilised for conduct of business. The reason for this is that uniquely Indian contribution to parliamentary practice known as disruption.

Conferences of Presiding Officers in May and September 1992 addressed the problem, as did the Golden Jubilee Session of the Lok Sabha in 1997. Solemn commitments were made unanimously on each occasion; passage of time was to show that neither the solemnity nor the unanimity had the slightest impact on actual behaviour in legislative chambers.

Yet another effort, on a wider scale, was made in November 2001. The conference resolved, apart from pious rededication to principles, that "immediate steps be taken to ensure a minimum of 110 days of sittings of Parliament and 90 and 50 days of sittings of the Legislatures of big and small states respectively, if necessary, through appropriate constitutional amendments". It also recommended "automatic suspension" for specified periods of Members guilty of grave misconduct.

None of this was acted upon except for the incorporation in 2001 of automatic suspension in Lok Sabha (but not Rajya Sabha) rules. It has been used for the first time only in recent weeks.

In the meantime, and notwithstanding solemn commitments, time continues to be lost in disruptions.These disruptions take place with the knowledge, and at the instance, of political parties and their leaderships and are undertaken to (a) attract public attention (b) force the executive to undertake the course of action proposed by them (c) demonstrate their ability to logjam the functioning of the legislature.

Our Constitution guarantees the freedom of expression. This includes the right to argue, to debate, and to agitate. The unstated major premise is that the exercise of this right cannot be arbitrary, cannot be at the expense of the same right by fellow citizens. The boundaries of freedom do get transgressed when agitation takes the place of debate, when their respective venues get transposed, when another member of the legislature is prevented from enjoying the right that the agitating members claim for themselves. It is for this reason that all legislatures make rules of procedure for their functioning.

The unfortunate reality today is that these rules of procedure are being violated brazenly and with impunity. A corrective, in the shape of disciplinary action by the Presiding Officers, is hampered if not made dysfunctional by the refusal of the legislative body or a good segment of it to support the Chair and ensure civility and compliance by the defaulting member.

There is an imperative need for correctives in other areas of work too. Allow me to mention a few:

• The decision of November 2001 of increasing the number of working days to 110, 90 and 50 for parliament, larger and smaller states respectively, is highly desirable since it would make available sufficient time for scrutiny of legislative proposals, discussion on issues of public concern raised by Members, and overall accountability of the executive.
   
• Rules for observance of parliamentary etiquette and norms of civility need to be made stricter and enforced more stringently.
   
• The compelling urge to articulate views on matters of recent happening by seeking the suspension of the Question Hour can be channelled into procedures either by shifting the Question Hour or by dispensing with it altogether since only a few, not exceeding five or six are actually taken up and written answers are in any case given even if the question hour does not function.
   
• The Committee system can be strengthened by having a higher attendance requirement and by the induction of experts in an advisory capacity. The present practice of exempting ministers from appearance before the committees should be reviewed. As in other parliamentary democracies, the examination of witnesses (but not the finalisation of reports) should be open to the public.

As a mature democracy and in a world increasingly characterised by globalisation of standards, we should take note of global assessments of our performance. A survey done last year gave us a rating of 9.58 on electoral process and pluralism, 9.41 for civil liberties, 7.50 for functioning government, 6.11 for political participation and 5.0 for political culture. The survey gave Indian democracy an overall score of 7.52 and a global ranking of 38.

Clearly, the scope for improvement beckons us even as we celebrate our successes.

Edited excerpts from an address by Vice President Hamid Ansari at the special sitting of the Kerala Legislative Assembly to commemorate its 125th Anniversary at Thiruvananthapuram, on September 11, 2013