💥Join UPSC 2027,2028 Mentorship (August Batch) + XFactor Notes & Microthemes PDF
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

Login

GS Paper: Parliament & State Legislatures

  • Parliament attacks have exposed shameful lack of security preparedness

    2001 Parliament attack: 'A shot missed me and possibly hit a reporter' | Latest News India - Hindustan Times

    Central idea

    The breach of India’s Parliament, a symbol of democratic strength, on the anniversary of the 2001 attack reveals critical lapses in security, prompting a high-level inquiry. This collective failure of intelligence agencies underscores the need for thorough investigations, corrective measures, and strengthened security protocols to prevent recurring breaches and uphold the sanctity of parliamentary institutions.

    Key Highlights:

    • Fortress Breached: The Parliament building in India, known for its security, faces a significant breach, exposing flaws in the robust system.
    • Anniversary Irony: The intrusion occurs on the anniversary of the 2001 Parliament attack, questioning the preparedness of security agencies.
    • High-Level Inquiry: The government initiates an inquiry to identify lapses and rectify security vulnerabilities.

    Key Challenges:

    • Collective Security Failure: The breach underscores a failure of intelligence and security agencies responsible for safeguarding Parliament.
    • Questionable Access: Intruders obtained an entry pass signed by an MP, raising concerns about verification processes.
    • Efficacy of Corrective Measures: Doubts arise about the effectiveness of measures to prevent recurrent security breaches.

    Key Terms:

    • Security Blanket: Enhanced security measures implemented in a specific area.
    • Inquiry Committee: A high-level committee formed to investigate the breach and recommend improvements.
    • Tear Gas Canisters: Devices used for dispersing tear gas, hidden by intruders during the breach.

    Key Phrases:

    • “Temple of our Democracy”: Symbolic reference to the Parliament building as a stronghold of India’s democratic strength.
    • “Sanctum Sanctorum of India’s Democracy”: Describing the innermost and most sacred area of the Parliament.

    Key Quotes:

    • “How did a breach occur again? This is the main question. Those responsible should be punished.” – The author, a retired director general of Police.
    • “The incident happened on the very day on which the dreadful Parliament attacks took place 22 years ago.” – The article highlighting the irony of the timing.

    Key Examples and References:

    • Arrests Made: Four individuals, including one with an entry pass signed by an MP, are arrested in connection with the breach.
    • Historical Comparison: Drawing parallels with the 2001 Parliament attack to emphasize the breach’s significance.

    Key Statements:

    • “Egg on the Face”: The breach is described as an embarrassment to the security establishment, questioning overall preparedness.
    • “Collective Failure”: The incident is considered a collective failure of intelligence agencies, police, and security agencies responsible for Parliament security.

    Key Facts:

    • Enhanced Security: The new Parliament building, inaugurated earlier in the year, is believed to be more secure than its predecessor.
    • Timely Breach: Occurred on the day Parliament paid tributes to the martyrs of the 2001 Parliament attack.

    Key Data:

    • Total Arrests: Four individuals are arrested in connection with the breach.

    Critical Analysis:

    • Security Vulnerabilities: The breach raises concerns about the ability to prevent intrusions into highly secure areas.
    • Symbolic Timing: The timing on the anniversary adds symbolic weight to the security lapse, emphasizing the need for improvement.

    Way Forward:

    • Thorough Investigation: A comprehensive inquiry is essential to identify lapses and implement corrective measures.
    • Strengthen Security Protocols: Stricter verification processes for entry passes and enhanced security measures are crucial for preventing future breaches.

  • Expulsion of MP from Lok Sabha

    MP expulsion mahua moitra

    Central Idea: Expulsion of Mahua Moitra

    • A Member of Parliament from West Bengal was expelled from the Lok Sabha over allegations of a cash-for-query scandal.
    • Her expulsion highlights the importance of maintaining strict ethical standards and parliamentary etiquette in legislative proceedings.

    Parliamentary Etiquette and Rules

    • Expected Conduct of MPs: MPs must adhere to rules of parliamentary etiquette, such as not interrupting speeches, maintaining silence, and avoiding obstruction during debates.
    • Updated Rules for Modern Protests: In 1989, rules were updated to include prohibitions against shouting slogans, displaying placards, tearing documents, and using electronic devices for protest in the House.
    • Rajya Sabha’s Similar Rules: The Rajya Sabha, like the Lok Sabha, has similar rules to ensure smooth conduct of proceedings.

    Power of Suspension in Parliament

    • Presiding Officer’s Authority: The presiding officer of each House can direct an MP to withdraw from the chamber for disorderly conduct, resulting in absence for the day.
    • Naming and Suspension Process: MPs obstructing House business can be “named” by the presiding officer, leading to a possible suspension motion by the Parliamentary Affairs Minister.
    • Duration of Suspension: Suspensions can last until the end of the session.

    Legal Recourse: Approaching the Supreme Court

    • Option for Judicial Review: The expelled MP has the option to challenge the expulsion in the Supreme Court, as explained by former Lok Sabha Secretary General P D T Achary.
    • Constitutional Provisions: Article 122 of the Constitution provides immunity to parliamentary proceedings from judicial scrutiny based on procedural irregularity.
    • Scope for Judicial Review: Despite this immunity, the Supreme Court in the 2007 Raja Ram Pal case clarified that judicial review is possible in cases of substantive or gross illegality.

    The Raja Ram Pal Case (2007)

    • Case Background: Raja Ram Pal, a BSP leader, was among 12 MPs expelled in the 2005 cash-for-query scam.
    • Supreme Court’s Stance: The Court upheld the expulsion but noted that proceedings tainted by substantial illegality are open to judicial scrutiny.
    • Judicial Review of Parliamentary Actions: The Court affirmed its role in scrutinizing legislative actions that infringe on fundamental rights.

    Article 105 of the Constitution

    • Powers and Privileges of Parliament: Article 105 deals with the powers, privileges, and immunities of Parliament and its Members.
    • Judicial Scrutiny of Privilege Enforcement: The Court recognized that the enforcement of privilege by the legislature can be subject to judicial review, within certain constitutional limits.

    Grounds for Challenging Expulsion

    • Examining Privilege and Procedure: The court can scrutinize whether the privilege cited for expulsion existed and if proper procedures were followed.
    • Functioning of Committees: The roles of the Privileges Committee and Ethics Committee are distinct, focusing on investigating misconduct and ensuring dignity in the House.
    • Investigative Procedures: Proper investigative procedures, including the right to depose and cross-examine, are essential for fairness and truth-finding.

    Determining Offense and Punishment

    • Article 20 of the Constitution: This article stipulates that punishment requires an existing law defining the act as an offense.
    • Case-Specific Issues: In the case of the expelled MP, issues like sharing Parliament login-passwords and accepting money for questions are examined for rule violations.
    • Breach of Privilege and Inquiry: Accepting money for asking questions in Parliament is a breach of privilege warranting inquiry by the Privileges Committee.

    Conclusion

    • Ongoing Debate and Implications: The case continues to spark debate on the limits of parliamentary privilege, the role of the judiciary, and the ethical standards expected of elected representatives.
    • Balancing Authority and Rights: The expulsion case underscores the delicate balance between parliamentary authority and the rights of its members.
    • Importance of Judicial Oversight: The potential for judicial review emphasizes the importance of legal oversight in maintaining democratic principles and fairness in legislative processes.

  • Derek O’Brien writes: Let’s bring laughter back to Parliament

    Kharge's 'credit' request to PM Modi on India's Oscar wins causes laughter riot | Latest News India - Hindustan Times

    Central idea 

    The article celebrates the infusion of wit and humor in parliamentary debates, highlighting instances of playful banter among politicians. It emphasizes the positive impact of humor in diffusing tension and fostering a lighter atmosphere in the political arena. The ironic touch is noted as the article points out the absence of a dedicated “Wit and Humour” page on the Rajya Sabha website.

    Key Highlights:

    • Introduction: The article explores the positive impact of humor in parliamentary debates, emphasizing recent instances of wit in economic discussions.
    • Historical Perspective: Various anecdotes showcase the witty exchanges among prominent politicians, such as Piloo Mody, Madhavrao Scindia, and Ram Manohar Lohia.
    • Current Scenario: The article humorously notes the absence of a dedicated “Wit and Humour” page on the Rajya Sabha website, highlighting an ironic aspect of parliamentary proceedings.

    Key Terms:

    • Parliamentary debates
    • Wit and humour
    • Playful banter
    • Political discourse
    • Rajya Sabha
    • Economic parameters

    Key Phrases:

    • “State of the country’s economy”
    • “Friendly banter”
    • “Cutthroat political colosseum”
    • “Bring back some wit”
    • “Lighter side of political debates”
    • “Positive impact of humor”
    • “Diffusing tension”
    • “Ironic touch”

    Key Quotes:

    • “It is because you had a good governor for three years.” – Chairman of the House
    • “Let me confirm, sir, that is the only reason all this (progress) happened in Bengal.” – Response to the Chairman’s remark
    • “‘Wit and Humour’ page on the Rajya Sabha website reads ‘Feature under Development.’”

    Anecdotes:

    • Piloo Mody’s witty response to disagreeing with a minister’s speech.
    • Madhavrao Scindia’s comment on the Janata government’s performance.
    • Ram Manohar Lohia’s anecdote about Nehru’s grandfather being a chaprasi in the Mughal court.
    • Mahavir Tyagi’s humorous remark on Nehru’s statement about Aksai Chin.

    Key Statements:

    • “In the cutthroat political colosseum, let’s bring back some wit into Parliamentary debates.”
    • “Nothing like friendly banter to cool off a heated exchange.”

    Key Examples and References:

    • Instances of witty exchanges involving Piloo Mody, Madhavrao Scindia, Ram Manohar Lohia, Mahavir Tyagi, and others.
    • The absence of a dedicated “Wit and Humour” page on the Rajya Sabha website.

    Critical Analysis:

    • While the article positively highlights the role of humor, a more critical analysis could explore potential drawbacks or criticisms associated with the use of wit in parliamentary discussions.

    Way Forward:

    • Encourage more friendly banter and wit in parliamentary discussions to foster a congenial atmosphere.
    • Consider developing a dedicated “Wit and Humour” page on parliamentary websites to showcase the lighter side of politics.
    • Conduct a more in-depth analysis of the impact of humor on political discourse, addressing potential challenges or criticisms.

  • Supreme Court questions Governor’s Discretion on TN Bills

    Central Idea

    • The Supreme Court has taken notice of the Tamil Nadu government’s assertion that Governor R.N. Ravi lacks the “discretion” to withhold approval for the ten Bills “re-passed” by the State Legislative Assembly.
    • This legal matter revolves around the interpretation of Article 200 of the Constitution, which governs the Governor’s role in granting assent to Bills passed by the State Legislature.

    Article 200 of the Indian Constitution

     

    • It pertains to the “Assent to Bills.”
    • It outlines the procedure for the Governor of a state in India to give their assent to bills passed by the state legislature.
    • Article 200 states that when a bill is passed by the legislative assembly of a state (or in the case of a bicameral legislature, by the legislative assembly and legislative council), it shall be presented to the Governor for their assent.

    Governor’s Discretion: The Governor has the discretion to either:

    1. Give their assent to the bill, after which it becomes a law.
    2. Withhold their assent to the bill, in which case the bill does not become law.
    3. Return the bill (if it is not a money bill) to the legislature with a request for reconsideration, along with a specific message explaining the reasons for withholding assent.

    Reconsideration by the Legislature: If the Governor returns a bill for reconsideration, the legislature can then reconsider the bill, taking into account the Governor’s message. They may choose to make amendments to the bill or pass it again without any changes.

    Assent after Reconsideration: If the bill is passed again by the legislature, with or without amendments, and is presented to the Governor, the Governor is bound to give their assent to it. In other words, the Governor cannot withhold assent a second time.

     

    Governor’s Discretion

    • Article 200 Interpretation: The Tamil Nadu government argued that once Bills have been re-passed by the Assembly, they are treated similarly to Money Bills and cannot be rejected by the Governor.
    • Questioning the Process: The CJI questioned whether the Governor must send the Bills back to the Assembly for reconsideration after withholding assent.
    • Limiting Presidential Referral: The State also emphasized that the Governor cannot refer the reiterated Bills to the President after withholding assent.

    Background and Delay

    • Delayed Bills: The Bills in question were sent to the Governor’s office between January 2020 and April 2023, and the State accused the Governor of holding them indefinitely.
    • Special Session: The TN Assembly convened a special session to re-pass the Bills after the Governor withheld assent.
    • Governor’s Statement: The Governor returned the Bills with a simple statement: “I withhold consent,” prompting the Assembly to take action.

    Legal Perspectives

    • Governor’s Ceremonial Role: The State contends that the Governor’s role is primarily ceremonial and that he must act within the State Legislature’s framework.
    • Will of the People: The Bills passed by the Assembly represent the will of the people and should not be delayed or rejected without valid reasons.

    Supreme Court’s Response

    • Addressing Delay: The Supreme Court acknowledged the need to address whether there has been a delay in the Governor’s constitutional function.
    • Bill Status: The Attorney General mentioned that 182 Bills were presented to the Governor, with 152 approved, five withdrawn, and nine reserved for referral to the President.
    • Key Issue: The real issue in this case involves amendments to State universities’ legislations that affect the Governor’s powers to select Vice-Chancellors.

    Conclusion

    • The Supreme Court’s hearing on this matter raises critical questions about the Governor’s role in granting assent to Bills and the need to ensure timely decision-making in the best interest of the people and governance of the State.
    • The interpretation of Article 200 of the Constitution will play a pivotal role in this legal dispute.

  • Governors can’t sit on Bills passed by Assembly: Supreme Court

    governor

    Central Idea

    • In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has asserted that a State Governor cannot obstruct crucial bills passed by a State Legislature.
    • The court delivered this verdict in response to a writ petition filed by the Punjab government.
    • The Punjab government approached the Supreme Court, challenging Governor Banwarilal Purohit’s decision to withhold some bills, alleging the legislative session’s illegitimacy.

    SC Ruling on Governors Bill Withholding

    • Court’s Warning: The court sternly warned the Governor that he was “playing with fire” and directed him to make a decision regarding these pending bills presented to him for assent.
    • Power of Elected Representatives: Emphasizing the supremacy of elected representatives in a parliamentary democracy, the court highlighted that real power resides with them.
    • Governor’s actual Role: The court underscored that the Governor’s role is that of a constitutional statesman guiding the government on constitutional matters.

    Governor’s Grounds for Delay

    • Governor’s Grounds: Governor Purohit contended that the Assembly session was “patently illegal” because the Speaker had adjourned the Budget Session sine die in March without proroguing it.
    • Special Assembly Sitting: He refused to consider the proposed laws passed in a special June sitting, arguing that they were in breach of Punjab Vidhan Sabha Rules.
    • Court’s Disagreement: The court disagreed with the Governor’s claims, stating that the Speaker acted within his rights in adjourning the House sine die.
    • Constitutional Validity: The court upheld the Speaker’s authority and stressed that it was not constitutionally valid for the Governor to question how the Speaker conducted the House’s affairs.

    Court’s Disagreement with the Governor

    • House’s Autonomy: The court affirmed that each legislative house has the right to be the sole judge of the legality of its own proceedings.
    • Legitimate Session: It found that the June 19-20 legislative session adhered to Rule 16 of the Punjab Vidhan Sabha Rules, rejecting any doubts cast on its legitimacy.
    • Democratic Peril Warning: The court cautioned that any attempts to challenge the legislative session could pose a grave peril to democracy.

    Governor’s Role Defined

    • No Judgment on Prorogation: The court questioned the Governor’s right to sit in judgment on whether the session was prorogued and emphasized that the Speaker’s decisions on adjournments governed the House.
    • Avoiding Perpetual Session: While acknowledging the Speaker’s authority, the court cautioned against exploiting the sine die adjournment to perpetually avoid prorogation.

    Conclusion

    • The Supreme Court’s verdict reiterates the importance of upholding legislative proceedings and the authority of elected representatives.
    • It underscores that Governors should respect the autonomy of legislative houses and not obstruct the passage of bills based on perceived procedural violations.
    • This landmark decision ensures the preservation of democratic principles and the effective functioning of State Legislatures.

  • TN moves Supreme Court against Governor over Bill withholds

    tn governor

    Central Idea

    • The Tamil Nadu state government has taken its concerns to the Supreme Court regarding the prolonged delay in the approval of Bills and Government orders by the Governor.

    TN Petition to the Supreme Court

    • Constitutional Challenge: The TN government has filed a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
    • Objective: The petition seeks a declaration that the Governor’s inaction, omission, and delay in assenting to Bills and considering Government orders forwarded by the Tamil Nadu State Legislature is unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, and a misuse of power.
    • Impact on Administration: The Governor’s delay in signing remission orders, day-to-day files, appointment orders, and granting approvals for prosecution is causing severe disruptions in the state administration.

    Article 32 of Indian Constitution

    • Article 32 grants individuals the right to move to the Supreme Court of India for the enforcement of their fundamental rights.
    • It is considered a fundamental right in itself and is often referred to as the “Right to Constitutional Remedies.”

    What are the Discretionary Powers of the Governor?

    The Constitution makes it clear that if any question arises whether a matter falls within the governor’s discretion or not, the decision of the governor is final and the validity of anything done by him cannot be called in question on the ground that he ought or ought not to have acted in his discretion.

    Constitutional Discretion:

    • Reservation of a bill for the consideration of the President (Article 200).
    • Recommendation for the imposition of the President’s Rule (Article 356) in the state.
    • While exercising his functions as the administrator of an adjoining union territory (in case of additional charge).
    • Determining the amount payable by the Government of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram to an autonomous Tribal District Council as royalty accruing from licenses for mineral exploration.
    • Seeking information from the chief minister with regard to the administrative and legislative matters of the state.

    Situational Discretion:

    • Appointment of chief minister when no party has a clear-cut majority in the state legislative assembly or when the chief minister in office dies suddenly and there is no obvious successor.
    • Dismissal of the council of ministers when it cannot prove the confidence of the state legislative assembly.
    • Dissolution of the state legislative assembly if the council of ministers has lost its majority.

    Can the Governor withhold His Assent to a Bill in Exercise of His Discretionary Powers?

    • While a plain reading of Article 200 suggests that the Governor can withhold his assent, experts question whether he can do so only on the advice of the Council of Ministers.
    • The Constitution provides that the Governor can exercise his executive powers only on the advice of the Council of Ministers under Article 154.
    • The larger question is why a Governor should be allowed to withhold assent when the Bill is passed by the Assembly.

    Rationale behind Governor’s Power

    • Checks and Balances: Delay in approval allows the Governor to scrutinize bills and orders more thoroughly, ensuring that they are in line with the constitution and the interests of the state.
    • Prevention of Hasty Decisions: It prevents hasty or ill-considered legislation from being passed, which might have unintended negative consequences.
    • Protection of Minority Rights: The Governor can act as a safeguard against the majority’s potentially oppressive decisions, protecting the rights and interests of minority groups.
    • Aid to Parliamentary Democracy: The delay provides time for public debate, expert opinions, and stakeholder consultations, which are essential aspects of parliamentary democracy.
    • Conflict Resolution: In situations where there are disputes between the state government and the center or between various state institutions, the Governor’s involvement can facilitate resolution.

    Issues with the delays

    • Delay in Decision-Making: The Governor’s failure to take a decision on the Bills passed by the legislature leads to a delay in decision-making, which affects the effective functioning of the state government.
    • Delay in Implementation of Policies and Laws: When the Governor fails to make a decision on a Bill passed by the assembly, it delays the implementation of policies and laws.
    • Undermines the Democratic Process: The Governor, who is appointed by the Centre, can use his powers to delay or reject Bills passed by state assemblies for political reasons, which undermines the democratic process.
    • Public Perception: The public often views pending Bills with the Governor as a sign of inefficiency or even corruption in the state government, which can damage the government’s reputation.
    • Constitutional Ambiguity: There is ambiguity in the Constitution regarding the Governor’s power to withhold assent.
    • Lack of Accountability: When the Governor withholds assent, he does not provide any reason for his decision.

    Recent Instances of Withholding Assent

    • Chhattisgarh (2020): The Chhattisgarh Governor withheld assent to a bill amending the Chhattisgarh Lokayukta Act, 2001.
    • Tamil Nadu (2021): The Tamil Nadu Governor reserved a bill exempting state students from NEET medical entrance exams for the President’s consideration after a significant delay.
    • Kerala (2023): Kerala’s Governor signed five bills into law but withheld assent to six others, citing concerns about their constitutionality and legality.

    Mains Marks Enhancer: Supreme Court’s Stance and Commission Recommendations

    • Nabam Rebia and Bamang Felix vs Dy.Speaker (2016): The SC clarified that a Governor’s discretion under Article 200 is limited to deciding whether a bill should be reserved for the President’s consideration. The Court emphasized that actions or inactions by the Governor regarding bill assent can be subject to judicial review.
    • Punchhi Commission (2010): This commission recommended the establishment of a time limit within which the Governor should decide on granting assent or reserving a bill for the President’s consideration.
    • National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC): NCRWC proposed a four-month time limit for the Governor to decide on a bill’s fate. It also suggested the removal of the Governor’s power to withhold assent except in cases explicitly stipulated in the Constitution.

    Conclusion

    • The dispute between the government and the Governor underscores the importance of timely decision-making to ensure the effective functioning of the state administration.

  • Ethics, parliamentary conduct and the Indian MP

    parliamentary conduct

    Central idea

    The Lok Sabha Ethics Committee is checking if Mahua Moitra took money for asking questions, mixing parliamentary rules with possible law-breaking. Without a clear definition of ‘unethical conduct,’ it shows the challenge of balancing parliamentary norms and legal issues. The case highlights the complex process of handling allegations of misconduct among MPs.

    Key Highlights:

    • Mahua Moitra, a Trinamool Congress MP, faces proceedings from the Lok Sabha Ethics Committee over allegations of receiving money for posing questions in Parliament.
    • Accepting money for parliamentary work is considered a breach of privilege and contempt of the House.
    • Past instances include expulsion of MPs found guilty of accepting money for putting up questions, emphasizing the seriousness of such charges.

    Challenges:

    • Lack of clear definitions for ‘unethical conduct’ places the evaluation of MPs’ actions on the Ethics Committee’s discretion.
    • The term ‘unethical conduct’ remains undefined, and decisions rely on the committee’s judgment.
    • Cases of misconduct, misuse of privileges, and personal indiscretions fall under the purview of the Ethics Committee.

    Concerns:

    • The Ethics Committee examines cases of moral lapses by MPs, ranging from personal misconduct to misuse of official privileges.
    • Legal implications of accepting illegal gratification for parliamentary work might involve criminal investigations, separate from parliamentary proceedings.
    • The scope of investigation by parliamentary committees differs from judicial probes, and evidence evaluation is based on the preponderance of probabilities.

     

    Prelims focus

     

    Establishment: Formed in 2000.

    Mandate: Examines complaints related to unethical conduct of MPs.

    Responsibilities: Investigates complaints, recommends action, and formulates a code of conduct.

    Scope: Focuses on behavior that may not have a clear definition, leaving it to the committee’s discretion.

    Decision Authority: Decides whether specific acts are unethical or not.

     

    Analysis:

    • Past cases include MPs found guilty of unethical conduct, such as bringing companions under false pretenses on official tours.
    • Serious cases of misconduct, violating laws like the Passports Act, are often dealt with by the Committee of Privileges or special committees, not the Ethics Committee.
    • Investigative methods include examining written documents, oral testimonies, expert depositions, and findings are based on a common-sense approach.

    Key Data:

    • The Ethics Committee was established in 2000 to examine complaints related to the unethical conduct of MPs and recommend actions.
    • MPs facing expulsion due to misconduct, such as accepting money for parliamentary work, may still face criminal charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

    Key Terms for mains value addition:

    • Breach of privilege and contempt of the House.
    • Unethical conduct, moral lapses, and misuse of privileges.
    • Committee of Privileges, special committees, and the Ethics Committee.
    • Article 105 of the Constitution grants MPs the freedom to speak without disclosing their information sources.

    Way Forward:

    • The Ethics Committee’s role in probing MPs’ conduct necessitates a balance between parliamentary discipline and legal considerations.
    • Clarity in defining ‘unethical conduct’ and guidelines for online submission of questions could enhance transparency.
    • Recognizing the distinction between parliamentary discipline and criminal investigations in handling serious allegations against MPs.

  • Give up impropriety, demonstrate impartiality

    Central idea

    The Chief Justice of India expresses concern over the Maharashtra Assembly Speaker’s inaction on pending disqualification petitions since July 2022, emphasizing the importance of upholding the court’s orders. The article highlights the historical evolution of the Speaker’s role, citing instances of misuse, partisanship, and delays in addressing disqualification petitions, posing a threat to the stability of elected governments.

    Key Themes:

    • The Supreme Court consistently emphasizes the need for an unbiased mechanism, possibly an independent tribunal, to handle disqualification cases.
    • Concerns about the Speaker’s delay in addressing disqualification petitions and potential challenges in the certification of Bills as Money Bills.

    Data Highlights from the Article:

    • Parliamentary Standing Committees Referral: During 2004-14, over 60% of Bills in the Lok Sabha were referred to committees for detailed scrutiny. However, from 2014-2023, this referral rate dropped to less than 25%.
    • Suspension Instances: Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury (Congress) swiftly suspended for remarks against the PM, later revoked. Ramesh Bidhuri (BJP) faced no swift action for passing communal slurs against an MP.
    • Challenges in Maharashtra Assembly: Unconstitutional suspension of 12 BJP MLAs for a year in July 2021, set aside by the Supreme Court.
    • Defection Decision Delays: Inaction by the Maharashtra Assembly Speaker on disqualification petitions pending since July 2022. Supreme Court recommends an independent tribunal for timely decisions on defection cases.
    • Certification of Bills Challenges: Ongoing challenges in the Court regarding the certification of certain Bills as Money Bills by the Lok Sabha Speaker.
    • International Speaker Practices: In Britain, the Speaker resigns from their political party upon election and seeks re-election as an impartial Speaker. This practice is not followed in India.

    Speaker’s Functions and Gaps:

    • Dual functions of certifying Bills as Money Bills and deciding on disqualification under the Tenth Schedule.
    • Misuse of suspension provisions against Opposition members, highlighting instances of bias.
    • Failure to refer significant Bills to Parliamentary Standing Committees affecting parliamentary functioning.
    • Custodianship of the rights and privileges of the House, its committees, and members.

    Challenges in Deciding Disqualification:

    • Misuse of powers against Opposition members, unequal treatment for remarks against leaders.
    • Delayed or inadequate actions on disqualification petitions, undermining stability in governance
    • Past instances show Speakers favoring ruling dispensation, raising concerns over neutrality.
    • Proposal for an independent tribunal, recommended by the Supreme Court, to handle disqualification cases.
    • Maharashtra Assembly Speaker’s inaction on pending disqualification petitions despite court directions.

    Key Supreme Court Judgments Simplified

    Kihoto Hollohan (1992):

    • Minority judges believed that giving the Speaker power to decide defections violated democratic principles.
    • The case suggests the need for an independent tribunal, headed by judges, to handle defection cases.

    Keisham Meghachandra Singh vs The Hon’ble Speaker Manipur (2020):

    • The Supreme Court recommended a constitutional amendment for an independent tribunal to decide defections.
    • The ongoing inaction of the Maharashtra Assembly Speaker on disqualification petitions was highlighted.

    Once a Speaker, Always a Speaker:

    • Comparison with Britain’s practice where the Speaker resigns from the political party for impartiality.
    • Indian Speakers rarely exercise the option to resign from their political party, impacting perceived impartiality.

    Way Forward and Reforms:

    • Adoption of British practices to instill confidence, emphasizing Speaker’s impartiality.
    • Urgent need for Speakers to demonstrate impartiality, even if formal reforms are pending.
    • Consideration of reforms such as an independent tribunal for handling disqualification cases.
    • Urgent measures needed to address challenges and restore faith in the institution of the Speaker.
    • Speakers must commit to displaying impartiality, aligning their functions with democratic principles.

  • LS Ethics Committee: Its’ Constitution, Members

    Central Idea

    • The Lok Sabha Ethics Committee, set up over two decades ago, plays a pivotal role in overseeing the conduct of members and addressing cases of misconduct.
    • While it predominantly handles relatively minor offenses, its significance in maintaining ethical standards in Parliament cannot be understated.

    History of Ethics Committees

    • Origin in 1996: The concept of ethics panels for the two Houses of Parliament was first proposed during a Presiding Officers’ Conference in Delhi in 1996.
    • Rajya Sabha’s Pioneering Committee: Vice President K R Narayanan, who served as Rajya Sabha Chairman, established the Ethics Committee for the Upper House on March 4, 1997. It officially commenced its duties in May of the same year.
    • Lok Sabha’s Journey: Lok Sabha’s Ethics Committee journey was delayed initially. A study group within the House Committee of Privileges recommended its formation in 1997 after studying legislative ethics practices worldwide. However, it only became a permanent fixture in the Lok Sabha in 2015, following its ad hoc establishment in 2000.

    Procedure for Complaints

    • Complaint Origins: Any person can file a complaint against a Member of Parliament (MP) through another Lok Sabha MP. The complaint must be accompanied by evidence of alleged misconduct and an affidavit confirming its authenticity. MPs can also lodge complaints without the need for an affidavit.
    • Speaker’s Role: The Speaker can refer any complaint against an MP to the Ethics Committee.
    • Prima Facie Inquiry: The Committee conducts a preliminary inquiry to determine if a complaint warrants further examination. It proceeds to evaluate and make recommendations after this stage.
    • Report Presentation: The Committee presents its findings to the Speaker, who seeks the House’s input on whether to consider the report. A half-hour discussion on the report can also be scheduled.

    Privileges Committee Comparison

    • Overlapping Responsibilities: The Ethics Committee and the Privileges Committee occasionally deal with similar cases. More serious allegations typically go to the Privileges Committee.
    • Privileges Committee’s Mandate: The Privileges Committee safeguards the “freedom, authority, and dignity of Parliament.” It can address breaches of privilege by MPs or non-MPs that undermine the House’s authority and dignity.
    • Ethics Committee’s Scope: The Ethics Committee primarily focuses on cases of misconduct involving MPs.

    2005 Cash-for-Query Case

    • Expulsion of MPs: In 2005, a significant episode unfolded when both Houses expelled 10 Lok Sabha MPs and one Rajya Sabha MP implicated in the cash-for-query scandal. They were accused of accepting money to raise questions in Parliament.
    • Bansal Committee’s Report: The Lok Sabha took action based on the report of a special committee led by Chandigarh MP P K Bansal. In contrast, Rajya Sabha entrusted the House Ethics Committee with investigating the matter.
    • Evidence in the 2005 Case: Former Lok Sabha Secretary General P D T Achary noted that the 2005 case was backed by substantial evidence from a sting operation. Establishing a money trail could be the challenge in the recent Bengal MP case.

    Conclusion

    • The Lok Sabha Ethics Committee, although historically ad hoc and relatively recent in its permanent establishment, plays a critical role in upholding the ethical standards of India’s parliamentary members.
    • It serves as a guardian of parliamentary ethics, ensuring that members adhere to the highest moral standards while fulfilling their legislative responsibilities.
    • The Committee’s work, while often overshadowed, is integral to maintaining the integrity of the Lok Sabha.

  • How MPs ask Questions in Lok Sabha?

    Central Idea

    • A Parliamentarian is being questioned by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Lok Sabha Ethics Committee, in her alleged involvement in ‘cash for query’ allegations.
    • This has thrust the spotlight on the importance and procedure of asking questions in the Lok Sabha.

    Procedure for Raising Questions

    • Rules and Directions: The process of raising questions is governed by Rules 32 to 54 of the “Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha” and Directions 10 to 18 issued by the Speaker, Lok Sabha.
    • Notice Submission: MPs initiate the process by submitting a notice addressed to the Secretary-General of the Lok Sabha, specifying the question’s text, the relevant Minister, desired answer date, and order of preference if multiple questions are tabled.
    • Limitations: MPs are allowed to submit a maximum of five notices for oral and written answers combined, per day, with any excess notices considered for the subsequent session days.
    • Notice Period: The notice period for a question is usually not less than 15 days.
    • Submission Modes: MPs can submit notices through the online ‘Member’s Portal’ using their login credentials or physical forms available in the Parliamentary Notice Office.

    Conditions for Admissibility of Questions

    • Admissibility Rules: Various rules govern the admissibility of questions, such as a limit of 150 words, prohibition of arguments or defamatory statements, avoidance of character or conduct references except in official capacity, and disallowance of policy-related queries.
    • Legal Matters: Questions concerning subjects under court consideration or those that may compromise national unity and integrity are inadmissible.

    Types of Questions

    • Starred Questions: MPs pose starred questions for oral responses from the Minister-in-charge. These questions require submission at least 15 days in advance, with a maximum of 20 listed for oral answers each day.
    • Unstarred Questions: Unstarred questions receive written replies from the Ministry and must also be submitted 15 days ahead. A daily limit of 230 unanswered questions for written answers exists.
    • Short Notice Questions: Pertaining to urgent public concerns, these questions can be asked with less than 10 days’ notice, accompanied by a valid reason.
    • Questions to Private Members: Addressed to the MP themselves, these are posed when the subject relates to bills, resolutions, or House-related matters under that MP’s responsibility.

    Importance of Raising Questions

    • Parliamentary Right: MPs have an inherent and unrestricted parliamentary right to raise questions, serving as a legislative control mechanism over executive actions.
    • Information and Critique: Questions help obtain administration and government activity details, critique government policies, expose lapses, and prompt ministers to take corrective actions.
    • Government Feedback: For the government, questions gauge public sentiment towards policies, and administration, and can lead to parliamentary commissions, inquiries, or legislative actions in response.