GS Paper: Parliament & State Legislatures

What’s the news?

• The government forms a committee to explore the possibility of One Nation, One Election.

Central idea

• In a significant move, the Indian government has established a committee under the leadership of former President Ram Nath Kovind to delve into the viability of implementing the concept of one nation, one election. This proposal coincides with the announcement of a special parliamentary session scheduled between September 18 and 22, with its specific agenda undisclosed.

Historical Context

• Independent India’s initial elections featured simultaneous Lok Sabha and state assembly polls. However, the synchronized cycle was disrupted due to various political changes, including the rise of regional parties.
• Over time, some states aligned their assembly elections with the Lok Sabha polls, while others maintained separate cycles.
• Prime Minister Narendra Modi has consistently advocated for the synchronization of Lok Sabha and state assembly elections.
• He announced the formation of a committee in June 2019 after his re-election, intending to explore this concept in consultation with political party leaders.

Arguments in Favor of Simultaneous Elections

• Cost Efficiency: Conducting multiple elections throughout the year consumes significant resources. Synchronizing elections could lead to substantial cost savings by consolidating administrative efforts, reducing expenses, and optimizing resource allocation.
• Effective Governance: Frequent elections disrupt governance as the Model Code of Conduct restricts policy announcements. Simultaneous elections could ensure uninterrupted policy implementation and governance, benefiting citizens with a consistent and focused administration.
• Resource Rationalization: Organizing elections requires considerable manpower, security personnel, and financial resources. Simultaneous elections would streamline resource allocation, reducing the strain on logistical arrangements and personnel deployment.
• Enhanced Voter Participation: Coordinated elections could potentially boost voter turnout by creating a sense of importance and urgency among citizens to participate in a comprehensive electoral process.
• Engagement of security forces: Deployment of security forces is normally throughout the elections and frequent elections take away a portion of such armed police force which could otherwise be better deployed for other internal security purposes.
• Impact on social fabric: Frequent elections perpetuate caste, religion, and communal issues across the country as elections are polarising events that have accentuated casteism, communalism, and corruption.
• Focus on populist measures: Frequent elections will impact the focus of governance and policymaking as it forces the political class to typically think in terms of immediate electoral gains rather than focus on long-term programs and policies.

Arguments Against Simultaneous Elections

• Logistical Challenges: Coordinating elections across states and levels of government presents significant logistical challenges, including the availability of polling stations, security arrangements, and managing a large-scale operation.
• Regional Representation: Simultaneous elections may favor national parties over regional ones, leading to a reduction in the representation of regional issues and undermining the diversity of political voices.
• Disruption on Government Collapse: If a government collapses before its term concludes, simultaneous elections could lead to a prolonged period of political uncertainty and governance instability at both state and national levels.
• Constitutional Amendments: Implementing simultaneous elections necessitates extensive amendments to the Constitution, electoral laws, and parliamentary procedures, which may require complex negotiations and consensus-building.
• Impact on Federal Structure: Simultaneous elections might blur the distinction between state and national issues, potentially weakening the federal structure and eroding the autonomy of state elections.
• Electoral Commission Capacity: Coordinating simultaneous elections would place a significant burden on the Election Commission’s resources, possibly affecting the efficiency and credibility of the electoral process.
• Complexity of the Anti-Defection Law: Simultaneous elections could complicate the implementation of the anti-defection law, potentially leading to legal challenges and political instability.
• Suppression of Diverse Voices: A single overarching election campaign might overshadow regional concerns and reduce the space for a diverse range of opinions and local issues.

Previous Considerations and Recommendations

• Election Commission’s 1983 Suggestion: In 1983, the Election Commission proposed the idea of holding simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies.
• The Law Commission’s 1999 Recommendation: The Law Commission, led by Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy, presented its 170th report in May 1999. The report recommended exploring a system where elections for the Lok Sabha and all legislative assemblies are held simultaneously.
• Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s Effort (2003): In 2003, then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee discussed the concept with Congress President Sonia Gandhi. Though initial discussions were positive, the idea did not gain traction beyond that point.
• L.K. Advani’s Proposal (2010): In 2010, BJP leader L.K. Advani proposed fixed-term legislatures and simultaneous Lok Sabha and Assembly elections. He emphasized the need to avoid frequent elections for the stability of governments.
• Election Commission’s Support (2019): In 2019, Chief Election Commissioner Sunil Arora expressed support for the idea of simultaneous elections, calling it a desirable goal. He suggested aligning the terms of state assemblies with the life of the Parliament for successful implementation.
• Parliamentary Standing Committee (2015): The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law, and Justice, led by E.M. Sudarsana Natchiappan, compiled a report in 2015. The report highlighted benefits such as reduced expenditure, policy continuity, and a minimized impact on essential services during election times.
• Law Commission’s Draft Report (2018): In August 2018, the Law Commission, under the leadership of Justice B.S. Chauhan, drafted a report stating that simultaneous elections couldn’t be held within the existing constitutional framework. The Commission recommended amendments to the Constitution, the Representation of the People Act 1951, and parliamentary procedures for its implementation. The report suggested that at least 50% of states ratify constitutional amendments.

Contemporary Perspectives

• BJP’s Manifesto (Recent Years): The BJP included the idea of “one nation, one election” in its election manifesto, viewing it as a means to streamline the electoral process and minimize disruptions caused by frequent elections.
• Opposition’s Reservations (2023): In 2023, leaders from parties such as Jharkhand Mukti Morcha, Shiv Sena (UBT), and the Congress have expressed opposition to the idea of simultaneous elections. They argue that it could diminish the importance of state elections and regional parties, leading to their overshadowing by national leaders.

Way forward?

• The standing committee recommended a cycle of elections, according to which elections to some legislative assemblies whose term end within six months to one year before or after the election date could be held during the midterm of Lok Sabha . For the rest of the states, elections could be held along with the general elections to Lok Sabha.
• Cost can be brought under control by ensuring that the legal cap on expenditure of candidates is followed by all parties.
• Accomplishing one year one election will be easier as it doesn’t require as many legal amendments as simultaneous polls for which the Centre will have to make five amendments to the Constitution.

Conclusion

• The concept of one nation, one election remains a subject of ongoing deliberation in Indian politics. While proponents emphasize its potential advantages, critics raise valid concerns about its implementation and impact on regional dynamics. The future of this proposal will depend on how these considerations are navigated in the evolving political landscape of India.

What’s the news?

• In the second day of the Monsoon Session of Parliament, the Lok Sabha witnessed adjournment proceedings as Opposition parties demanded an urgent discussion on the alleged sexual assault of women in Manipur amid the ongoing ethnic violence in the state.

Central idea

• Congress MPs moved adjournment motions, urging Prime Minister Narendra Modi to address the matter and uphold the government’s constitutional commitment to protect religious minorities and Scheduled Tribes. This article will delve into the concept of adjournment motions and their differences from other parliamentary motions raised in Indian Parliament.

What is an adjournment motion?

• An adjournment motion is a parliamentary procedure used to raise an issue of urgent public importance that requires immediate discussion and debate.
• It allows Members of Parliament (MPs) to interrupt the regular business of the house and seek the attention of the entire house on a specific matter that is deemed pressing and critical.
• Adjournment motion can be moved in the Lok Sabha by any member who seeks the Speaker’s consent to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance.
• The notice for an adjournment motion must be given before 10 am to the Lok Sabha Secretary-General on the day it is to be raised.

Parliamentary Procedures in Indian Parliament

• Members of Parliament in both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha have various procedures to draw attention to relevant issues.
• There are four main procedures under which discussions can take place in the Lok Sabha – a debate without voting under Rule 193, a motion (with a vote) under Rule 184, an adjournment motion, and a no-confidence motion.
• Similar measures, except no-confidence motion, also exist in the Rajya Sabha.

Rule 193: Short Duration Discussion

• Under Rule 193 of the Lok Sabha’s rules and Rule 176 of the Rajya Sabha’s rules, Short Duration Discussions can take place.
• These discussions require the Chairman or Speaker’s satisfaction that the matter is urgent and of sufficient public importance.
• The Chairman or Speaker can then fix a date for discussion, allowing a time period of up to two and a half hours.
• Disagreements over the rule to invoke led to the adjournment of the Rajya Sabha on the issue of Manipur.

Rule 184: Motion with a Vote

• A motion on a matter of general public interest can be admitted under Rule 184 if it satisfies certain conditions.
• The motion should not contain arguments, inferences, ironical expressions, imputations, or defamatory statements.
• It must be restricted to a recent occurrence and cannot pertain to a matter pending before any statutory authority, commission, or court of enquiry.
• The Speaker can allow such a motion to be raised at his own discretion, and a time period for discussion can be allotted.

Significance of the adjournment motion

• It allows the Parliament to discuss pressing matters promptly, ensuring that critical issues do not get overlooked or delayed.
• It serves as a tool for holding the government accountable for its actions or inactions.
• By raising urgent matters and initiating discussions, MPs can seek clarifications, explanations, and government responses, which promotes transparency in governance.
• The discussions resulting from an adjournment motion bring urgent matters into the public domain, raising awareness among citizens about significant issues affecting the country.
• The government is obligated to address the concerns raised during the adjournment motion debate.
• It provides an opportunity for the government to present its stance, actions, and plans to address the issue, thus ensuring greater accountability.
• It empowers the Opposition to raise important issues and bring government shortcomings to the forefront.
• It gives them a platform to voice dissent and critique government policies, fostering healthy democratic debates.

Criticisms over the adjournment motion

• The adjournment motion, once admitted, disrupts the regular proceedings of the house.
• Other important legislative business, debates, or bills scheduled for that session may get delayed or postponed, affecting the overall productivity of the Parliament.
• The debate resulting from an adjournment motion can be time-consuming
• Some critics argue that the adjournment motion overlaps with other parliamentary motions, such as the calling attention motion and the motion for an urgent discussion, which also provide opportunities to discuss urgent matters.
• In some cases, the adjournment motion can be misused for political purposes rather than genuinely addressing urgent matters.
• While the adjournment motion raises urgent matters and demands government attention, it does not guarantee immediate action or resolution.

Conclusion

• The recent demand for an urgent discussion on the ethnic violence in Manipur through an adjournment motion resulted in the Lok Sabha’s adjournment. Parliament has various procedures to address relevant issues, each with its own set of conditions and implications. As the proceedings are set to resume, it remains to be seen how the government and Opposition parties will navigate the demands for discussion on this critical matter.

Also read:

Short Duration Discussions in Parliament

Central Idea

• The recent inauguration of a new Parliament building in India was accompanied by both grandeur and controversy. While the exclusion of the President and the symbolic gestures surrounding the Sengol stirred significant debate, there is a deeper issue that remains overlooked the growing subordination of Parliament in India’s parliamentary democracy and the emergence of Executive democracy.

What is mean by Parliamentary Democracy?

• Parliamentary democracy is a form of government in which the executive branch, headed by a Prime Minister or equivalent position, derives its legitimacy and authority from the legislative branch, known as Parliament. In this system, the executive is accountable to Parliament and relies on its support to govern effectively.

What is mean by Executive Democracy?

• Executive democracy refers to a form of governance where the executive branch of government holds a dominant or disproportionate amount of power and influence compared to other branches, such as the legislature or judiciary. In an executive democracy, the executive branch, usually headed by a President or Prime Minister, exercises significant control over policy-making and decision-making processes

Executive Democracy vs. Parliamentary Democracy

How the safeguards against executive dominance are being diluted?

• Intra-Party Dissent: The anti-defection law, introduced through the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution in 1985, suppresses intra-party dissent by disqualifying members who defy the party whip. Despite its intention to curb horse-trading and unprincipled floor-crossing, this law has reinforced the power of party leadership, particularly the executive, while making intra-party dissent more difficult due to the risk of disqualification from Parliament.
• Limited Space for Opposition: Unlike other parliamentary democracies, the Indian Constitution does not allocate specific space for the political opposition in the House. As a result, parliamentary proceedings are largely under the control of the executive, leaving no constitutional checks on how that control is exercised. This hampers the opposition’s ability to hold the executive accountable.
• Partisan Speakers: The Speaker, who should be an impartial authority representing the interests of Parliament, often acts in a partisan manner.
• Undermining the Role of the Upper House: The Upper House’s role is further undermined by the misclassification of bills and the constitutional power to issue ordinances. Ordinances, meant for emergency situations when Parliament is not in session, are increasingly used as a parallel process of law-making, bypassing the scrutiny of the Upper House and creating a fait accompli.

The implications of executive dominance

• Weakened Checks and Balances: Executive dominance can undermine the system of checks and balances that is vital for democratic governance. When the executive branch holds excessive power, the ability of other institutions, such as the legislature and judiciary, to effectively monitor and limit executive actions can be compromised.
• Reduced Accountability: The concentration of power in the executive can diminish accountability mechanisms. Transparency and oversight mechanisms may suffer, limiting public scrutiny and the ability to hold the government accountable for its decisions, actions, and policies.
• Limited Legislative Influence: Executive dominance may curtail the influence and effectiveness of the legislature. The executive may have significant control over the legislative agenda, which can limit the ability of lawmakers to shape policies, propose amendments, and exercise meaningful oversight.
• Diminished Role of Opposition: Executive dominance can marginalize the role and impact of the political opposition. With limited avenues to influence decision-making, the opposition’s ability to present alternative viewpoints, challenge government actions, and hold the executive accountable may be restricted.
• Impaired Deliberative Democracy: Executive dominance may result in limited deliberation and debate on important legislative matters. When decision-making is centralized in the executive, opportunities for comprehensive discussion, public input, and the exploration of diverse perspectives may be diminished.
• Potential for Policy Capture: Concentrated executive power can create opportunities for special interest groups or powerful individuals to exert undue influence over policy decisions. This can lead to policy capture, favoritism, and a lack of equitable representation of diverse interests.
• Threat to Judicial Independence: Executive dominance can pose risks to the independence of the judiciary. The executive’s influence over judicial appointments and the potential for encroachment on the judiciary’s autonomy can undermine the impartial administration of justice and compromise the protection of individual rights.
• Democratic Backsliding: Excessive executive dominance without proper checks and balances can contribute to democratic backsliding. It can erode democratic norms, undermine institutional integrity, and potentially lead to authoritarian tendencies.

Facts for prelims: key constitutional provisions related to India’s parliamentary democracy

Way forward: Restoring the prominence of Parliament

• Review and Amend the Anti-Defection Law: Revisit the anti-defection law, Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, to strike a balance between party discipline and intra-party dissent. The law should focus on curbing unprincipled floor-crossing while allowing space for lawmakers to express dissenting views within their parties.
• Strengthen Opposition Rights: Allocate specific space and time for the political opposition in the House to hold the executive accountable. Consider implementing sessions like Prime Minister’s questions, where the Prime Minister faces direct questioning from the Leader of the Opposition and other politicians.
• Enhance Impartiality of the Speaker: Encourage the Speaker to act independently and impartially by introducing reforms that require the Speaker to relinquish party membership and impose constitutional obligations to ensure neutrality and fairness in conducting House proceedings.
• Preserve the Role of the Upper House: Protect the role and importance of the Upper House, the Rajya Sabha, by ensuring that bills are not misclassified as “money bills” to bypass its scrutiny. Limit the misuse of ordinances to maintain the integrity and effectiveness of the legislative process.
• Strengthen Parliamentary Oversight: Enhance the capacity of parliamentary committees to scrutinize executive actions, policies, and budgets effectively. Provide them with adequate resources and powers to conduct thorough investigations and hold the government accountable.
• Public Participation and Transparency: Promote public participation in the legislative process by making parliamentary proceedings more accessible to the public through live streaming, public consultations, and the dissemination of information. Enhance transparency by ensuring timely publication of bills, reports, and other parliamentary documents.
• Judicial Independence and Judicial Review: Uphold the independence of the judiciary and ensure that it acts as a strong check on executive power. Respect the decisions of the judiciary and safeguard its autonomy to ensure that laws and executive actions align with the constitution and protect individual rights.

Conclusion

• While the inauguration of a new Parliament building attracts attention, it is imperative to address the underlying issue of the increasing subordination of Parliament in India’s democracy. Restoring the prominence of Parliament in the democratic process necessitates comprehensive constitutional changes and reforms. Only then can India reclaim its status as a robust parliamentary democracy.

Central Idea

• India’s new Parliament building, inaugurated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, symbolizes the aspirations of 140 crore Indians. However, as the 17th Lok Sabha nears its final year, it faces scrutiny over its performance.

Performance of 17th Lok Sabha

• Sitting Days: The 17th Lok Sabha has functioned for 230 sitting days so far. However, if it falls short of surpassing the lowest recorded full-term Lok Sabha (331 sitting days in the 16th Lok Sabha), it would become the shortest full-term Lok Sabha since 1952.
• Referral of Bills to Committees: There has been a decline in the referral of bills to Parliamentary Standing Committees. Since 2004, only 45% of the total bills introduced in Parliament have been referred to committees. This suggests a potential decrease in comprehensive scrutiny and review of proposed legislation.
• Legislative Output: The number of bills introduced and passed in the 17th Lok Sabha has seen a decline. Out of the 150 bills introduced, 131 have been passed so far (excluding Finance and Appropriation Bills). The decreasing trend raises questions about the legislative productivity of the Lok Sabha.
• Budget Discussions: The latest Budget session of the 17th Lok Sabha was one of the shortest since 1952. The limited time dedicated to discussing financial matters, particularly the Budget, raises concerns about the depth of analysis and deliberation on critical fiscal issues.
• Debates on Matters of Public Importance: The number of debates conducted in the Lok Sabha during the tenure of the 17th Lok Sabha has been limited. There have been only 11 short duration discussions and one half-an-hour discussion, indicating a restricted avenue for robust parliamentary discourse on matters of public importance.
• Delayed Election of Deputy Speaker: Despite the constitutional provision mandating the election of a Deputy Speaker, the 17th Lok Sabha has not elected one, even as it enters its final year of the five-year term. This delay raises concerns about adherence to constitutional norms and the effective functioning of parliamentary proceedings.

Value addition box from Civilsdaily

Why the 17th Lok Sabha’s productivity has been low?

• Disruptions and Protests: The 17th Lok Sabha witnessed frequent disruptions and protests from opposition parties, leading to a significant loss of time and decreased productivity. Some of the major issues that led to disruptions include the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), National Register of Citizens (NRC), and farm laws.
• Lack of Consensus: The ruling party enjoyed a clear majority in the Lok Sabha, but there was still a lack of consensus on many key issues, resulting in a delay in passing important bills and legislation.
• COVID-19 Pandemic: The COVID-19 pandemic also contributed to the low productivity of the Lok Sabha as many sessions were delayed or cancelled due to safety concerns.
• Speaker’s Decision: The decision of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha to disallow opposition MPs from raising certain issues also resulted in protests and disruptions, further reducing the productivity of the house.
• Shorter Sessions: The 17th Lok Sabha had shorter sessions compared to previous Lok Sabhas, which also contributed to lower productivity. Many important bills and issues were left pending as there was not enough time to discuss and debate them thoroughly.

The concerns associated with the performance of MPs in the old Parliament building

• Limited Parliamentary Engagement: The limited number of sitting days raises concerns about the MPs’ ability to fully engage in legislative proceedings and address the various challenges and issues faced by the country.
• Decreased Scrutiny of Legislation: The declining referral of bills to Parliamentary Standing Committees raises concerns about the thorough scrutiny and review of proposed legislation.
• Legislative Productivity: The decreased number of bills introduced and passed in the 17th Lok Sabha raises concerns about its legislative productivity. This may limit the ability of MPs to address critical issues, propose new policies, and enact necessary reforms, hindering progress and development.
• Limited Budget Discussions: The shortened Budget sessions and reduced time allocated for financial discussions raise concerns about the depth of analysis and deliberation on critical fiscal matters.
• Restricted Debates on Public Matters: The limited number of debates conducted in the Lok Sabha raises concerns about the comprehensive discussion and examination of matters of public importance.

New Parliament Building: An Opportunity for Efficiency

• Responsible Parliamentary Conduct: Members of Parliament should prioritize constructive and meaningful debates, fostering a culture of respect, collaboration, and consensus-building. It is essential to move away from disruptive tactics and focus on substantive discussions that address the complex governance challenges of our time.
• Reducing Disruptions: Long periods of deadlock and disruptions hinder the smooth functioning of Parliament. Efforts should be made to minimize disruptions and ensure that discussions remain focused on key issues. Rules and procedures can be reviewed to encourage more disciplined and productive parliamentary conduct.
• Enhancing Communication and Participation: The new Parliament building, equipped with modern facilities, offers opportunities for better communication and engagement. Members should utilize these resources effectively to engage with constituents, share information, and seek feedback, fostering a more inclusive and participatory democracy.

Conclusion

• The performance of MPs in the 17th Lok Sabha is pivotal in driving effective governance and representing the aspirations of the Indian people. It is crucial for MPs to embrace their roles as custodians of democracy, remaining accountable to their constituents and working collectively to shape a brighter future for India.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your personal mentor for UPSC 2024 | Schedule your FREE session and get the Prelims prep Toolkit!

Must read:

Central Idea

• The 17th Lok Sabha is set to complete its five-year term in 2024. However, with only 230 sitting days so far, it is unlikely to surpass the 331 days of the shortest full-term Lok Sabha since 1952. The latest session, the Budget session, was marked by minimal legislative activity and continuous disruptions, with only one item, the Motion of Thanks on the President’s Address, being discussed.

Low Productivity of the 17th Lok Sabha

• The Lok Sabha has functioned for only 33% of its scheduled time (46 hours) during the Budget session, with the Rajya Sabha working for 24% (32 hours).
• The second part of the session was even more unproductive, with the Lok Sabha working for only 5% and the Rajya Sabha for 6% of their scheduled time.
• The number of Bills introduced and passed has also declined significantly since the first session, with fewer than 10 Bills being introduced or passed in each of the last four sessions.
• The latest Budget session was also one of the shortest since 1952, with the Lok Sabha spending only 18 hours on financial business, compared to an average of 55 hours in previous Budget sessions of the 17th Lok Sabha.

Lack of Debates and Discussions

• Short-duration discussions: The Rules of Procedure of both Houses of Parliament provide for various devices that can be used to draw attention to matters of public importance and hold the government accountable. However, in the 17th Lok Sabha, only 11 short-duration discussions and one half-an-hour discussion have been held so far, and none were held during the latest session.
• Question Hour: This is despite the fact that the latest session saw the least amount of time spent on questions in the current Lok Sabha. Question Hour functioned for only 19% of the scheduled time in the Lok Sabha and 9% of the scheduled time in the Rajya Sabha.

Why the Lok Sabha’s productivity has been low?

• Disruptions and Protests: The 17th Lok Sabha witnessed frequent disruptions and protests from opposition parties, leading to a significant loss of time and decreased productivity. Some of the major issues that led to disruptions include the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), National Register of Citizens (NRC), and farm laws.
• Lack of Consensus: The ruling party enjoyed a clear majority in the Lok Sabha, but there was still a lack of consensus on many key issues, resulting in a delay in passing important bills and legislation.
• COVID-19 Pandemic: The COVID-19 pandemic also contributed to the low productivity of the Lok Sabha as many sessions were delayed or cancelled due to safety concerns.
• Speaker’s Decision: The decision of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha to disallow opposition MPs from raising certain issues also resulted in protests and disruptions, further reducing the productivity of the house.
• Shorter Sessions: The 17th Lok Sabha had shorter sessions compared to previous Lok Sabhas, which also contributed to lower productivity. Many important bills and issues were left pending as there was not enough time to discuss and debate them thoroughly.

Implications of low productivity of the Lok Sabha

• Delay in passing important bills: When the Lok Sabha is unable to function effectively, it can lead to a delay in passing important bills, which may have an adverse impact on the economy and governance. For example, crucial bills related to taxation, infrastructure, and social welfare may get delayed, affecting the overall progress of the country.
• Poor quality of legislation: When the Lok Sabha is unable to function effectively, it may lead to poor quality of legislation. There may be a lack of debate and discussion, leading to hasty decision-making and poor-quality laws that may have unintended consequences.
• Damage to democratic institutions: When the Lok Sabha is unable to function effectively, it can damage the democratic institutions of the country. It can erode the trust of citizens in the democratic process and lead to a feeling of disenchantment and disengagement among the people.
• Wastage of taxpayers’ money: When the Lok Sabha is unable to function effectively, it leads to wastage of taxpayers’ money. The salaries and allowances of Members of Parliament are paid from the public exchequer, and if they are not able to discharge their duties effectively, it amounts to a waste of taxpayers’ money.
• Negative impact on investor confidence: When the Lok Sabha is unable to function effectively, it can have a negative impact on investor confidence. Investors may be hesitant to invest in the country, leading to a slowdown in economic growth and development.
• Lack of accountability: When the Lok Sabha is unable to function effectively, it may lead to a lack of accountability. Members of Parliament may not be held accountable for their actions, and the executive may be able to push through decisions without proper scrutiny or oversight.

Conclusion

• The 17th Lok Sabha has been marked by low productivity and a lack of debates and discussions, despite the availability of mechanisms to hold the government accountable. The upcoming year is unlikely to see a significant increase in the number of sitting days. This lack of productivity and accountability could undermine the role of Parliament in a democracy and the ability of the government to pass important legislation.

Mains Question

Q. What are the reasons for the low productivity of the 17th Lok Sabha? What are the implications of its low productivity, and how might it affect the country’s progress and democratic institutions?