THE HOUSE THAT KILLED THE BILLS

Frequent disruptions, fractured politics and the UPA Government’s failure to gather support for legislation has made this the most unproductive full

In July 2008, on the day of the trust vote in the UPA I government, Mr. Somnath Chatterjee, the then Speaker of the Lok Sabha, rued: “I think the Parliament of India is reaching its lowest position—Nadir!” Sadly, Mr Chatterjee was wrong. This week saw MPs involved in incidents of pepper spraying, brandishing of a knife and snatching of the presiding officer’s microphone in Parliament, marking a new low in the history of our democracy. The entire term of the 15th Lok Sabha has been marked by disruptions and the UPA Government’s failure to secure approval for legislations. As of now, 129 bills are pending in Parliament and 73 of them will lapse when the House is dissolved. The current House has also passed fewer bills than all full-term Lok Sabhas—165, compared to 248 bills of the previous Lok Sabha and an average of 330 of the first three. Indeed, this is the most unproductive House ever in terms of legislative activity.

To see even these few legislations through took much toil. The Food Security Bill and the Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Bill could only be passed after 12 MPs who were disrupting the Lower House to protest the creation of Telangana were suspended. The Women’s Reservation Bill was similarly passed after seven Rajya Sabha MPs agitating against it in the Upper House were suspended. If this wasn’t enough, Opposition MPs time and again took the Government to task over the timing and competence of Parliament to enact certain laws. Last year, during the debate on the Food Security Bill, senior BJP parliamentar-

ian Murli Manohar Joshi remarked, “Jab aap aye the, aap bill laane waale the. Ab jab aap la rahe hai, tab aap jane

wale hain (You were supposed to bring this bill soon after you came to power. Now, when you have brought it, you are leaving).” The UPA Government had announced, in President Pratibha Patil’s June 2009 speech to both Houses of Parliament, that it would pass the Food Security Bill in the first 100 days of its second term if the alliance was voted back to power.

In that speech, Patil had also said that the “Government will seek early approval of the bill introduced in Parliament for prevention of communal violence”. The legislation had been introduced by the UPA 1 Government in 2005. Earlier this month, however, Home Minister Sushilkumar Shinde withdrew it and tried to introduce the new Prevention of Communal Violence Bill in Rajya Sabha. But Opposition MPs protested vehemently. Leader of Opposition Arun Jaitley argued that Parliament did not have the legislative competence to enact such a legislation. Sensing the mood of the Upper House, Deputy Chairman P.J. Kurien deferred the bill’s introduction.

Some of UPA Government’s bills also came in for criticism from Parliamentary Standing Committees, which examine them in detail and make recommendations based on testimonies from the Government and other stakeholders. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance, which scrutinised the National Identification Authority of India Bill, recommended that the Central Government reconsider the UID scheme. The committee which looked into the Electronic Service Delivery Bill, which mandated the

Government to provide services to citizens electronically, suggested that the legislation be reworked to make it a model for states to enact their own laws.

On occasion when a bill was not sent to a standing committee, MPs insisted that it be: Last year, when the Government was pressing for passage of an amendment bill to keep political parties out of the purview of the Right to Information Act, Biju Janata Dal’s ( BJD) Jay Panda insisted it be referred to a committee. In 2010, when the Prevention of Torture Bill was passed by Lok Sabha without being sent to a standing committee, Rajya Sabha MPs ensured that it went to a Select Committee of the Upper House.

Sometimes, the Government faced opposition to its bills from the treasury benches. In August 2009, it was prevented from introducing the Judges (Declaration of Assets and Liabilities) Bill by both Opposition and Congress MPs. The following year, Congress leader K.S. Rao expressed “apprehensions” about the Educational Tribunals Bill, 2010, which was being piloted by then human resource development minister Kapil Sibal. Congress MPs from Andhra Pradesh have disrupted Parliament’s last three sessions to protest against the division of their state. They have, in fact, gone to the extent of giving a notice for a noconfidence motion against their own government.

Then there were bills on which the Government was unable to build political consensus. Reports indicated that passage of the Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Bill was delayed due to opposition from the Trinamool Congress. The Samajwadi Party opposed the Women’s Reservation Bill as well as the legislation that provided for reservation in promotions for SC and ST government employees.

To circumvent opposition and disruptions, UPA took to ordinances—in emergency situations, the Constitution empowers the Government to promulgate an ordinance, which must be approved by Parliament in its next session.

UPA 2 has issued 23 ordinances so far, some while a similar bill was pending in Parliament such as the Food Security Ordinance. It even re-promulgated those that were denied approval by Parliament such as the Indian Medical Council ( Amendment) Ordinance and the Readjustment of Representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies Ordinance— but the Opposition wasn’t amused. When the bill on the Medical Council came up for debate in 2012, Tathagata Satpathy of BJD remarked: “This Bill is in bad taste. It is a wrong way to address this problem.”

Are there lessons to be learnt from the morass of the 15th Lok Sabha? Indeed. One, that government should hold extensive pre-legislative consultations with all stakeholders before introducing a bill. Two, it should build consensus on legislative issues across the political spectrum. The first is easier and requires only some changes in government processes. The latter is harder, more so in the era of coalitions, and requires continuous dialogue between the government, its allies and the opposition. Keeping this in mind would stand the next government and the 16th Lok Sabha in good stead.