Pepper spray attack in Lok Sabha as T-Bill is introduced

The Lok Sabha witnessed an unprecedented low on Thursday when Congress MP from Vijayawada L. Rajagopal used a can of pepper spray inside the House to protest against the tabling of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Bill.
Modugula Venugopala Reddy of the Telugu Desam Party broke the glass and microphone on the table of the Lok Sabha Secretary-General while Union Home Minister Sushilkumar Shinde was introducing the Bill that seeks to bifurcate Andhra Pradesh.
Three MPs were rushed to hospital as they complained of uneasiness after inhaling pepper spray fumes while another fainted on the floor of the House after he complained of chest pain.
Outside Parliament, the Opposition said proper procedures were not followed while tabling the Bill. However, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kamal Nath said the Bill had been tabled and was now the property of the House.
The House was adjourned in less than five minutes immediately after the Bill was tabled amid din and chaos. When the House met again, Speaker Meira Kumar announced the suspension of 16 Seemandhra MPs — 12 belonging to the Congress, three from the TDP and two from the YSR Congress Party — under rule 374A of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha, but was adjourned for an hour within minutes as Mr. Venugopala Reddy broke the glass and Mr. Rajagopal used the pepper spray. Mr. Reddy denied that he had a knife.
The suspended members have been barred from attending the proceedings “for five consecutive sittings or the remainder of the session, whichever is less.”
As Mr. Rajagopal was whisked away, the other members hurriedly left the premises, some of them coughing and complaining of irritation in the eyes and throat.
Later, Mr. Rajagopal claimed he had used the spray for “self-defence” as he saw Mr. Venugopala Reddy being attacked by Telangana MPs.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Congress president Sonia Gandhi were not present in the House.
Congress party spokesperson Abhishek Singhvi told journalists that by introducing the Bill in Lok Sabha, the UPA had “bitten the bullet” on the formation of Telangana, pointing out that it was not an issue that could be “contained on political lines” as every party was divided on regional lines.
However, when asked whether he believed that the legislation would be approved in this session, Mr. Singhvi responded, “That is a million dollar question.”

RLD legislators go shirtless in U.P. Assembly

The Uttar Pradesh Assembly session on Wednesday began on a stormy note as legislators raised anti-government slogans and two of them took off their shirts protesting over various issues.
The bedlam started as soon as Governor B. L. Joshi began his address to the joint sitting of the two Houses of the State Legislature . The session has been called to pass an interim-budget for 2014-15.
The BSP members climbed on their benches displaying banner and placards, and raised issues from law and order to farmers’ plight, besides demanding dismissal of the government.
While, two Rashtriya Lok Dal (RLD) legislators Veerpal and Sudesh Sharma took out their ‘ kurtas’ in protest against the SP government for allegedly not paying the arrears of cane growers of western Uttar Pradesh.
They termed the State government ‘anti-farmers’.
From the government side, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Mohammad Azam Khan counter-attacked at the same time and said they (BSP MLAs) were shameless people, who have no right as they have looted the people of the State in the previous (BSP) regime.
The Governor’s address could not be heard amid the din and lasted for barely three to four minutes after which he left. Later, the house was adjourned till 12.30 pm.The BJP members boycotted the joint session, stating it was an account of the activities and achievements of the government and the present regime has completely failed on all fronts.


EC to parties: Don’t just promise, explain how they’ll be fulfilled

When political parties draft their election manifestos in the coming weeks, they won’t be able to woo voters through mere promises, even if some of them are seen as populist or unrealistic, like they have in the past.
Days before announcing the schedule for the Lok Sabha polls, the Election Commission has included fresh guidelines in the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) that say manifestos will not just have to “reflect the rationale” for a promise but will also have to “broadly indicate the ways and means to meet the financial requirements for it”.
The move, said officials, follows a Supreme Court direction and consultations with all recognised national and state political parties and is essentially targeted to ensure “free and fair polls”.
Stating that the “trust of voters should be sought only on those promises which are possible to be fulfilled”, the new guidelines say that “political parties should avoid making those promises which are likely to vitiate the purity of the election process or exert undue influence on the voters in exercising their franchise”.
The new guidelines, now included as Part VIII in the MCC and sent to all national and state political parties, state that “in the interest of transparency, level playing field and credibility of promises, it is expected that manifestos also reflect the rationale for the promises and broadly indicate the ways and means to meet the financial requirements for it”.
The Supreme Court had in 2013 directed the Election Commission to frame guidelines regarding the contents of election manifestos in consultation with all recognised parties.
Conflicting views had emerged during the ECs recent meeting with parties on the subject. While some parties had expressed support for such guidelines, some others were of the view that it was their “right and duty” towards voters “to make such offers and promises in manifestos in a healthy democratic polity”.
The main argument against including manifestos-related guidelines in the MCC is that it may not be possible for political parties to work out in advance, minute details of the financial impact of the promises being made.
Agreeing in principle that framing of manifestos is the right of political parties, the EC has said it “cannot overlook the undesirable impact of some of promises and offers on the conduct of free and fair elections and maintaining level playing field for all political parties and candidates”.
The Model Code of Conduct for guidance of political parties and candidates is a set of norms that has been evolved with the consensus of political parties who have consented to abide by the principles embodied.
This code also binds political parties to respect and observe it in its letter and spirit. The Election Commission ensures its observance by political parties in power, including ruling parties at the Centre and in the states and contesting candidates.

Din yields to calm on final day of Lok Sabha

A day after Parliament passed the contentious Telangana Bill, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said the country had the capacity to rise above partisan politics to enact crucial laws in the national interest.
“The passage of the Telangana Bill indicated that this country can take difficult decisions,” Dr. Singh said in his closing remarks in the Lok Sabha on Friday, the last day of the 15th Lok Sabha. The House was later adjourned sine die .
Dr. Singh hoped that a new sense of consensus would emerge “out of this strife and tension that prevailed in the atmosphere at times.”
“We are now entering into a phase — a phase of judgment where people will now have an opportunity to judge the performance, weaknesses and achievements of the government in the upcoming election,” he said.
In his speech, Leader of the House Sushilkumar Shinde said members from the government and the Opposition might vociferously vent their differences inside Parliament, but these sentiments were not carried outside.
Appreciating the Opposition, particularly the Leader of the Opposition Sushma Swaraj, Mr. Shinde said they took together decisions on a number of landmark laws.
He also drew the attention of the House over the manner in which the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act was passed unanimously.
“Just one incident shook us so badly and the House passed the Bill. Despite differences we rose to the occasion and passed the Bill with unanimity, which we usually don’t see,” he said.
As she spoke for the last time, Ms. Swaraj praised UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi for her gracefulness and BJP leader L.K. Advani, whose eyes welled up, for his judiciousness.
She said when the 15th Lok Sabha’s history was written, it would say that while there were the most interruptions, much-awaited Bills were also passed. Speaker Meira Kumar said she was pained by the frequent disruptions, and hoped that logic would replace pandemonium.

Need reforms to make legislature more accountable
The flurry of legislative activity in Parliament in the week gone by indicates two things. First, it shows how much can be achieved when there is political will. It is a pity, therefore, that just 24% of the 15th Lok Sabha's time was spent on business and the rest on unseemly squabbles. For this, both the ruling coalition and the opposition must share the blame. Second, it reveals how little time is spent on actually discussing the merits of legislation. Both of these should ring alarm bells. Our legislatures, with Parliament setting the example, must get their act together. They are elected primarily to legislate and they must do justice to that job. Over the medium term, we need reforms that make the legislature more accountable, but one of the first tasks of the new government and opposition should be to reach a bipartisan consensus on making Parliament more productive.

 Mysterious Lok Sabha TV blackout during passage of Telangana Bill
TIMES VIEW

Blackouts negate voters' rights

Transparency isn't delivered in a day. It was after decades of debate over the desirability of allowing electronic media into legislative chambers thatLok Sabha and Rajya Sabha channels were set up to provide live broadcast of parliamentary proceedings. There has always been a proviso for the Speaker to expunge specific portions. Independent television operators are banned. SoParliament broadcast is not without checks and balances. But what was extraordinary this week was that it was the passing of a pivotal Bill, creating India's 29th state, which was blacked out. All nine cameras located in Lok Sabha mysteriously lost their feed.

These are against clear guidelines that telecast of Lok Sabha proceedings should be a true reflection of what is happening in the House — including scenes of disorder, walkouts, coming to the well, etc. Guidelines are as specific as to say that cameras will focus on the spots of disorder on occasions of such disorder in the House. There is obviously no mention of pepper spray — no one anticipated this! But the basic spirit of telecasting guidelines is that constituents have a right to see their representatives in live action.

It's nonsense to justify blackouts by saying these discourage parliamentarians' unruly behaviour. That needs tougher action from Speakers, plus automatic protocols for punishing the tearing of bills, watching porn, fisticuffs, ripping mikes, and so on. Ironically this argument used to be made the other way — live coverage would encourage MPs to be on their best behaviour and participate in orderly debate. That they haven't lived up to expectations is no reason to shroud their misbehaviour in darkness. Such a strategy is reminiscent of the days of Doordarshan's monopoly, where the state decided what news citizens could safely consume. Thanks, but we would rather make that decision ourselves.

COUNTERVIEW

Option must be retained

Pyaralal Raghavan

The blackout of parts of the debate on the Telangana Bill by Lok Sabha television can be justified. Though the channel management blames it on technical snags it is very likely that the broadcast was stopped to prevent an extension of the conflagration from the precincts of Parliament to towns and cities in Andhra Pradesh, given the passions that have been aroused by bifurcation of the state. Such an action to curb the spread of violent sentiments is not only correct but also sanctioned by the code of ethics laid down by the News Broadcasters' Association, which represents private television news broadcasters in India. Those guidelines clearly specify that visuals broadcast should not induce, glorify, incite or positively depict violence and its perpetrators regardless of ideology or context.

With its members going on the rampage the Lok Sabha channel had little option but to switch off the broadcast as such visuals would have added credibility and legitimacy to the disgraceful behaviour and encouraged clashes among people in Andhra Pradesh, leading to loss of life and property. The only thing wrong was that the channel chose to do it surreptitiously by blaming it on technical glitches. Instead it should have come out openly and announced that the happenings in Lok Sabha were unfit for broadcast, and that the channel reserved the right to pull the plug in similar exceptional circumstances. This would have cleared the air.

Self-regulation of broadcast of indecent and profane activities has been the norm across the globe. In fact, international laws require governments to sometimes prohibit freedom of expression to protect other rights. They specifically state that laws can prohibit any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that incites discrimination, hostility or violence. At times, the debate on the Telangana Bill certainly fell in this category.

 Citizenship for all our citizens

This Parliament has 130 pending Bills, and the failure to legislate ensures the continued stagnation and maladministration of the country with almost no recourse available to its people. The incalculable loss and harm done to the country can be illustrated through the potential loss of not enacting even two of the 74 pending Bills that would lapse at the end of this Lok Sabha — the grievance redress, and whistleblower protection Bills.

For decades, Indian citizens have suffered the denial of basic services. Chronic inefficiency and petty corruption have taken away even the most basic human rights such as food, water, electricity, to name a few. The experience of attempting to file or chase a complaint has only added insult to injury as an insensitive bureaucracy has been able to ignore complaints with impunity. \

During the height of the Lokpal debate, a group of young people fighting Dalit atrocities in their villages in Bhilwara district provided a five-point set of principles that powerfully defines what a citizen-centric accountability law should contain:

1) Jankari (information) People must know everything

. 2) Sunwai (hearing) because the first step of demanding accountability is to get a hearing and an acknowledgment.

3) Karyavahi (time-bound action) because most complaints go unaddressed in the absence of a mandatory time limit.

4) Bhagidari (participation) because the process is important, and most investigations or inquiries take place far removed from the complainant, and finally

 5) Suraksha (protection) because most complainants fighting injustice are vulnerable, and are often the first to be attacked. Many in this group had used the RTI, and they understood that like with the RTI law, people must be empowered in accountability laws as well.

The grievance redress (GR) Bill is a step in that direction. It identifies the roles and responsibilities of every public functionary. It creates mechanisms to file complaints and procure dated receipts, through proximate physical offices at the panchayat level, and alternative remote mechanisms like helplines and web-based portals. It holds supervisors responsible for conducting a participatory inquiry, giving a written answer in time, and ensuring redress to anyone denied an entitlement.

Accountability is fixed through an RTI like architecture with penalties and compensation for non-compliance. The GR Bill is RTI part 2, which could help us improve delivery, demand accountability, and provide a platform through which citizens can gain citizenship.

People fighting ethical battles from within, and outside the system need protection. It has become a question of life and death. RTI users have formulated questions that have so fundamentally undermined vested interests, that more than 30 of them have been killed since 2011. Even this has not deterred others from continuing to demand a more transparent and accountable system. Some public officials have also shown that they will not allow the law to be twisted, and will expose any wrongdoing, even at great risk to themselves. Many continue to be harassed, transferred, attacked, and even killed while the whistleblower protection Bill awaits passage.

Ten years ago Satyendra Dubey was killed after writing a classic whistleblower letter to the prime minister. His family asks for justice through passage of a law that is 10 years delayed. It will not bring Dubey back, but they hope the law will help in saving the lives of others like him.
These are only two of the 130 pending legislations. Some of them are admittedly contentious. But there are many others for which all political parties have expressed their support. Some relate to empowering the most marginalised sections of our society and economy. A ‘Lok Sansad’ coalition has been formed asking Parliament to function and pass consensus Bills such as the street vendors Bill, the disability rights Bill, the SC/ST atrocities Act amendment Bill, the grievance redress Bill, and the whistleblower protection Bill.


SEC O N D O P I N I O N

The 70-year solution

Our politicians should become anti-corruption ombudsmen after they retire

Jug Suraiya 


Should our politicians retire when they reach the age of 70? That’s the question posed to his Congress party colleagues by Jairam Ramesh, who is believed to be close to Rahul Gandhi. 
    Ramesh’s question seems to be very relevant, and not just in the context of the upcoming elections. All others who have jobs – bureaucrats, executives, CEOs, teachers, defence personnel – have mandatory retirement ages. The unique exceptions to this rule are politicians, who can hang on to their jobs ad infinitum, age no bar. There are several political figures in India who, now in their 80s, not only hold on to their gaddis but aspire to even higher public office. Indeed, even comparatively young politicians – the so-called youth brigade – are getting to be if not exactly long in the tooth at least not short in it either. For instance, if Rahul had worked in the corporate world, and not in the political realm, at 43 he would have been closer to retirement (60), than to recruitment (say 20, at the earliest). 
    The Indian polity is often described as a gerontocracy, a rule by the elderly, a tag that is a total mismatch with the country’s increasingly youthful demographic profile, which has a growing number of 18-year-olds who will be exercising their franchise for the first time in coming polls. 
    Urging Congress members to quit party posts at 70 so that from being mentors they don’t turn into ‘tormentors’ and act as a drag on progress, Ramesh said that it was high time for the old guard to make way for ‘youngsters’. He did not name names, but at 59 Ramesh himself has by his own yardstick more than a decade of political life left in him yet. 
    This old-versus-young debate is reportedly also taking place in the BJP, where party elders like L K Advani (86) are said to be given short shrift in preference to relatively younger contenders, like PM-nominee Narendra Modi (63) and Arun Jaitley (61). 
    Interestingly, however, records of 2004 and 2009 elections show that the older the poll contestants the better their chances of winning seats compared with their younger counterparts. For instance, in the previous election 22.8% of the contestants in the +75 age group proved successful as against only 1.3% in the 25-29 bracket. 
    Does this suggest that the electorate values age – and consequent experience – over new faces and, hopefully, new ideas? Perhaps. But if politicians were made to retire at a given age, more youthful contestants would have better chances of winning. 
    But that would leave unresolved the problem as to what to do with our retired politicians. After a professional lifetime spent in plotting and scheming, most if not all of them are far too Chanakyan, too wily and cunning at behind-the-scenes manipulation, to be left to their own devices. An idle mind is said to be the devil’s workshop, and a retired politician’s idle mind is likely to be more devil-friendly than most. 
    Should our retired politicians be sent as India’s ambassadors to foreign shores? If they start playing politics there, a sizeable number of countries so honoured by their presence might well end up breaking off diplomatic relations with us. 
    Maybe the best job for laid-off politicians would be to turn them into anti-corruption ombudsmen, on the principle that the person best qualified to catch a thief is another thief. Perhaps that’s what we should have: not a Lok Pal Bill but a Lok Pol Bill, with Pol as in a politico put out to pasture.

U.K. Minister quits over expenses scandal

Britain’s Culture Secretary Maria Miller resigned from the government of Prime Minister David Cameron on Wednesday, stating that the controversy over her parliamentary expense claims had become a “distraction” to the “vital work” of the government.
She had been forced to repay £5,800 in mortgage payments she over-claimed on her parliamentary expenses.
Responding to Members of Parliament during question hour, Mr. Cameron, who had stood by his minister and party colleague while the pressure on her to resign built up over the last week, defended his decision not to sack her. He said that she “did do something wrong,” but had apologised to the House of Commons.
In the House, Labour Party leader Ed Miliband accused the Prime Minister of a “terrible error of judgment” in handling the row, which had “undermined trust in politics.”
Sajid Javid, Conservative MP, has been named the new culture secretary, a promotion from his current position as Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
Following a complaint by Labour MP John Mann that Ms. Miller had claimed expenses towards mortgage expenses in breach of the existing rules, the Parliamentary Commissioner for standards Kathryn Hudson opened an investigation into her expense claims last year.
Ms. Hudson concluded that Ms. Miller over-claimed expenses towards mortgage interest payments and council tax by £45,000, and recommended that she repay the amount. Ms. Hudson also criticised the cavalier and uncooperative attitude of Ms. Miller towards the investigation.
Token apology
The Commissioner’s recommendation went before the Commons Committee on Standards, which comprises members of Parliament.
After considering the matter, the Committee recalculated Ms. Miller’s dues at the considerably reduced figure of £5,800. The Committee also said that Ms. Miller should apologise to the House of Commons because her “attitude” towards the inquiry had breached the parliamentary code of conduct.
Ms. Miller’s perfunctory 32-second apology to the House only fuelled the demands from her detractors for her resignation.
Political implications
In Britain, the expenses scandal of 2009 that engulfed all sections of the political establishment has left a bitter aftertaste, with the public intolerant of even a whiff of corruption at the tax-payers’ expense.
Ms. Miller’s resignation was not unexpected. With elections to the European Parliament due next month, and general elections next year, the Conservative Party could not afford to be seen as condoning irregular conduct by its ministers, especially when it relates to fudging expense claims.

‘Sonia chose FM without consulting PM, gave instructions on key files’

Manmohan Had Little Hold Over Cabinet, Claims Book

TIMES NEWS NETWORK 


 After the Congress’s electoral victory in 2009, PM Manmohan Singh made “the cardinal mistake of imagining the victory was his. Bit by bit, in the space of a few weeks he was defanged. He thought he could induct the ministers he wanted. Sonia nipped that hope in the bud by offering the finance portfolio to Pranab (Mukherjee), without even consulting him,” reveals a new book by Sanjaya Baru, who was media adviser to the PM in UPA-1. Singh had apparently been keen to appoint his principal economic adviser C Rangarajan, “the comrade with whom he had battled the balance of payments crisis of 1991-92”, as finance minister. 
    Baru claims that when it seemed the Congress would cave in to the Left on the nuclear deal with the US, a dejected Singh told a couple of confidants, “She (Sonia) has let me down.” And he adds that Pulok Chatterjee, who served in the PMO in UPA-1 and is now principal secretary to the PM, would have “regular, almost daily meetings with Sonia Gandhi in which he was said to brief her... and seek her instructions on the important files to be cleared by the PM.” 
    The PM seemed to have had little authority over his own Cabinet. “No one in Singh’s council of ministers seemed to feel that he owed his position, rank or portfolio to him. The final word always was that of leaders of the parties constituting the UPA,” says the book. 
    It adds that Singh often faced challenges while dealing with senior Congress ministers like Arjun Singh, A K Antony and the “presumed PM-in-waiting” Pranab Mukherjee. “Each had a mind of his own and each was conscious of his political status and rank”. 
Cong uses Atal to target Modi 
    Congress has turned to Atal Bihari Vajpayee to target Narendra Modi, wondering if people could trust a man whom NDA’s tallest leader had reprimanded for not following ‘raj dharma’ during the 2002 Gujarat riots. The party put up a photo of Vajpayee on its website, with accompanying text saying the former PM did not trust Modi as his attitude to minorities was suspect. The move seems surprising, given that it was Vajpayee who rallied regional forces against Congress to form NDA. P 10

  CONG PRESIDENT ‘DEFANGED’ MANMOHAN 
Manmohan Singh said, “She (Sonia) has let me down” over the India-US nuclear deal. Later, he offered to quit Singh told Sanjaya Baru he accepted “the party president is the centre of power” Congress made sure all credit for initiatives like NREGA went to the Gandhis Singh had opposed A Raja’s induction in the Cabinet, but caved in after 24 hours ” 
  
    Baru’s book, ‘The Accidental Prime Minister’ paints a picture of a PM who decided to “surrender” to the party boss and the UPA allies. According to Baru, Sonia’s “renunciation of power was more a political tactic than a response to a higher calling”. 
    
    Much of what Baru — who served between 2004 and 2008 — has written has been long heard on the Capital’s political grapevine, but this is the first time an insider has spilled the beans quite so candidly. On the question of a ‘diarchy’ or two power centres, Baru says there was no such confusion in Singh’s mind. He quotes Singh as having told him, “I have to accept that the party president is the centre of power. The government is answerable to the party.” 
    According to Baru, Singh shared a good working equation with finance minister P Chidambaram in UPA-I. He would insist that Chidambaram sit with him and finalize the budget speech. In contrast, his relationship with Pranab Mukherjee was far more formal. Mukherjee would apparently not even show Singh the draft of the budget speech till he had finished writing it. When he was external affairs minister, he would also ‘forget’ to brief the PM on important meetings with US President George W Bush and then secretary of state Condoleezza Rice. 
    The book also claims that Singh had tried to resist the induction of DMK's A Raja well before the 2G scam became public knowledge. “But after asserting himself for a full twenty-four hours, (he) caved in to pressure from both his own party and the DMK.” 
    Baru claims that there was an eagerness to claim all social development programmes as the Sonia Gandhi-chaired National Advisory Council's initiatives, even though the Bharat Nirman programme came out of the PMO -- drafted by the late R Gopalakrishnan, who was joint secretary. 
    
    The book also reveals that Singh had threatened to quit if the UPA buckled under Left pressure and had told Sonia Gandhi to look for his replacement. Even as rumours circulated that Pranab Mukherjee or Sushil Kumar Shinde might be considered as his replacement, the NCP backed him, with Praful Patel telling Baru they would not support anyone but “Doctor Saheb”. 
    Sonia reportedly asked Montek Singh Ahluwalia, deputy chairman of the Planning Commission, to convince the PM not to resign. She also visited Singh at his residence with Pranab Mukherjee. The government was then allowed to proceed with the deal. 
    Interestingly, Baru claims that Sitaram Yechury was supportive of the amended version of the nuclear deal but was helpless in the face of Prakash Karat’s refusal to budge accept the deal. When the PM was informed that the Left would not back the agreement, he was furious. 
    
WHEN SONIA CALLED THE SHOTS TKA NAIR WAS NOT SINGH’S FIRST CHOICE (TKA) Nair was not Dr Singh’s first choice for the allimportant post of principal secretary. He had hoped to induct NN Vohra, who had given me the news of my job... Vohra even cancelled a scheduled visit to London to be able to join the PMO. Sonia Gandhi had another retired IAS officer, a Tamilian whose name I am not at liberty to disclose, in mind for the job. He had worked with Rajiv Gandhi and was regarded as a capable and honest official. However, he declined Sonia’s invitation to rejoin government on a matter of principle—he had promised his father that he would never seek a government job after retirement... Always impeccably attired, Nair, small-built and short, lacked the presence of Brajesh Mishra, whose striking demeanour commanded attention. He rarely gave expression to a clear or bold expression on file, always signing off with a ‘please discuss’ and preferring to give oral instructions to junior officials such as joint secretaries and deputy secretaries 
Modi signals women's quota in Parl, zero tolerance for riots
Himanshi Dhawan
New Delhi
TNN



BJP Has Numbers To Push Through 33% Reservation
Pushed to the backburner for the last four years, the women's reservation bill appears closest now to being passed with the Modi government expressing its commitment for 33% reservation for women in Parliament and state assemblies.Spelling out the Centre's agenda in his address to the joint sitting of Parliament, President Pranab Mukherjee said on Monday , “My government recognizes the important role our women play in the development of our society and growth of the na tion. It is committed to providing 33% reservation to them in Parliament and state assemblies.“
While similar resolves were expressed in the past, the fresh pledge sounds credible both because of BJP's absolute majority in the Lok Sabha as well as the near-rout of SP, BSP, JD(U) and RJD who had vetoed its implementation.
The President also put communal violence on the same footing as terrorism, extremism and crime, stressing that the government would follow a “zero tolerance“ approach towards them all. The President said, “A national plan will be chalked out in consultation with the state governments to effectively curb incidents of communal violence and the challenges posed by left wing extremism.“
Stressing that women's welfare will be a thrust area for the new government, Mukherjee announced the launch of a country-wide `Beti Bachao-Beti Padhao' (save girl child, teach girl child) campaign to save the girl child and enable her education and prevent crimes against women by strengthening the criminal justice system in the country .
BJP, Congress and Left had joined hands to get the women's reservation bill passed in March 2010 but it has since languished because the UPA government could not get past the resistance of SP, BSP, JD(U) and RJD who insisted on reservation for OBCs and Muslims within the larger gender quota.
Though the Modi government can get the bill through the Lok Sabha on its own steam, its task will be made that much easier because of the support from Congress and Left. In fact, Congress chief Sonia Gandhi thumped her desk in approval when the President listed protection of women among priorities of the new government. About the `Beti Bachao-Beti Padhao' campaign, the President said, “It will structure a comprehensive scheme, incorporating the best practices from various states in this regard.“
For the full report, log on to http://www.timesofindia.com
As the dust settles around the 16th Lok Sabha, attention must now shift to the state assemblies, some of which have been newly constituted like Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, Andhra Pradesh and the few that will go into elections in the next few months like Maharashtra and Haryana. There are 30 state legislative assemblies not including the newly formed state of Seemandhara. In our federal structure, laws framed by the state assemblies are no less important and deserve the same diligence and debate as laws made by Parliament.
A brief look in to the performance of some of our state assemblies reveals that these institutions which form the cornerstones of our democracy need some serious attention.
State Assemblies: business hours
The current Haryana Legislative Assembly that comes to the end of its five year term in October this year has held 10 sessions since 2009 till March 2014, meeting for a total of 54 days – an average of 11 days per year.
In comparison, the Lok Sabha sat for an average of 69 days each year from 2009 to 2014. Among state assemblies, only Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh sat for fewer days than Haryana. In the same period the Kerala Assembly sat for an average of 50 days per year, while Tamil Nadu Assembly sat for 44 days.
In its previous term, the Gujarat Legislative Assembly sat for a total of 157 days – an average of 31 days each year. Similarly, the current Goa Legislative Assembly sat for 24 days in 2012 and for 39 days in 2013. Over the last 10 years, the Assembly sat for an average of 26 days a year.  It recorded the highest number of sitting days in the last 10 years, at 39 days.
Law making in the states
In most states, Bills are passed with little or no discussion. Most Bills are introduced and passed on the last day of each session, which gives Members hardly any opportunity to examine or discuss legislation in detail. Unlike Parliament, where most Bills are referred to a department related standing committee which studies the Bill in greater detail, in most states such committees are non-existent.  The exceptions are Kerala which has constituted subject committees for this purpose and states like Goa and Himachal Pradesh where Select Committees are constituted for important Bills.
The current Haryana Assembly has passed 129 Bills, all of which were passed on the same day as they were introduced. Upto 23 Bills were passed on a single day, which left hardly any time for substantial discussion.
In the twelfth Gujarat Assembly, over 90% of all Bills were passed on the same day as they were introduced. In the Budget Session of 2011, 31 Bills were passed of which 21 were introduced and passed within three sitting days.
Of the 40 Bills passed by the Goa Assembly till May 2013, three Bills were referred to Select Committees. Excluding Appropriation Bills, the Assembly passed 32 Bills, which were taken up together for discussion and passing in five days. Almost all Bills were passed within three days of introduction. On average, each Bill was discussed for four minutes.
In 2012, the West Bengal Legislative Assembly passed a total of 39 Bills, including Appropriation Bills.  Most Bills were passed on the same day they were introduced in the Assembly.  In 2011, a total of 23 Bills were passed. On average, five Members participated in the discussions on each Bill. In 2012, the Delhi Legislative Assembly passed 11 Bills. Only one of the 11 Bills was discussed for more than 10 minutes. The performance of the Chhattisgarhand Bihar Vidhan Sabhas follow the same pattern.
Over the last few years, some assemblies such as Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan and Haryana have taken some positive steps which include setting up subject committees and permitting live telecast of Assembly proceedings.
Every legislator- in Parliament and the states – is accountable to his voter. Weak democratic institutions deprive legislators of their right to oversee the government as enshrined in the Constitution. Inadequate number of sitting days, lack of discussion on Bills, and passing of the Budget and demands for grants without discussion are symptoms of institutional ennui and do not do justice to the enormous import of these legislative bodies.
Serious thought and public debate is needed to reinvigorate these ‘temples of democracy’ and provide elected representatives with the opportunity to exercise their right to legislative scrutiny, hold government to account, and represent their constituents.

Ordinance making powers of the Executive in India

In light of the decision of the union cabinet to promulgate an Ordinance to uphold provisions of the Representation of People Act, 1951, this blog examines the Ordinance making power of the Executive in India.  The Ordinance allows legislators (Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assemblies) to retain membership of the legislature even after conviction, if
(a)     an appeal against the conviction is filed before a court within 90 days and
(b)     the appeal is stayed by the court.
However, the Ordinance will only be promulgated after it receives the assent of the President.
I. Separation of powers between the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary
In India, the central and state legislatures are responsible for law making, the central and state governments are responsible for the implementation of laws and the judiciary (Supreme Court, High Courts and lower courts) interprets these laws.
However, there are several overlaps in the functions and powers of the three institutions.  For example, the President has certain legislative and judicial functions and the legislature can delegate some of its functions to the executive in the form of subordinate legislation.
II. Ordinance making powers of the President
Article 123 of the Constitution grants the President certain law making powers to promulgate Ordinances when either of the two Houses of Parliament is not in session and hence it is not possible to enact laws in the Parliament.[i]
An Ordinance may relate to any subject that the Parliament has the power to legislate on. Conversely, it has the same limitations as the Parliament to legislate, given the distribution of powers between the Union, State and Concurrent Lists. Thus, the following limitations exist with regard to the Ordinance making power of the executive:
i.   Legislature is not in session: The President can only promulgate an Ordinance when either of the two Houses of Parliament is not in session.
ii.   Immediate action is required: The President cannot promulgate an Ordinance unless he is satisfied that there are circumstances that require taking ‘immediate action’[ii].
iii.   Parliamentary approval during session: Ordinances must be approved by Parliament within six weeks of reassembling or they shall cease to operate.  They will also cease to operate in case resolutions disapproving the Ordinance are passed by both the Houses.  
Figure 1 shows the number of Ordinances that have been promulgated in India since 1990.  The largest number of Ordinances was promulgated in 1993, and there has been a decline in the number of Ordinance promulgated since then.  However, the past year has seen a rise in the number of Ordinances promulgated.
           Figure 1: Number of national Ordinances promulgated in India since 1990
Ordinances PromulgatedSource: Ministry of Law and Justice; Agnihotri, VK (2009) ‘The Ordinance: Legislation by the Executive in India when the Parliament is not in Session’; PRS Legislative Research
III. Ordinance making powers of the Governor
Just as the President of India is constitutionally mandated to issue Ordinances under Article 123, the Governor of a state can issue Ordinances under Article 213, when the state legislative assembly (or either of the two Houses in states with bicameral legislatures) is not in session.  The powers of the President and the Governor are broadly comparable with respect to Ordinance making.  However, the Governor cannot issue an Ordinance without instructions from the President in three cases where the assent of the President would have been required to pass a similar Bill.[iii]
IV. Key debates relating to the Ordinance making powers of the Executive
There has been significant debate surrounding the Ordinance making power of the President (and Governor).  Constitutionally, important issues that have been raised include judicial review of the Ordinance making powers of the executive; the necessity for ‘immediate action’ while promulgating an Ordinance; and the granting of Ordinance making powers to the executive, given the principle of separation of powers.
Table 1 provides a brief historical overview of the manner in which the debate on the Ordinance making powers of the executive has evolved in India post independence.
Table 1: Key debates on the President’s Ordinance making power
Year
Legislative development
Key arguments
1970RC Coopervs. Union of IndiaIn RC Cooper vs. Union of India (1970) the Supreme Court, while examining the constitutionality of the Banking Companies (Acquisition of Undertakings) Ordinance, 1969 which sought to nationalise 14 of India’s largest commercial banks, held that the President’s decision could be challenged on the grounds that ‘immediate action’ was not required; and the Ordinance had been passed primarily to by-pass debate and discussion in the legislature.
197538thConstitutional Amendment ActInserted a new clause (4) in Article 123 stating that the President’s satisfaction while promulgating an Ordinance was final and could not be questioned in any court on any ground.
197844thConstitutional Amendment ActDeleted clause (4) inserted by the 38th CAA and therefore reopened the possibility for the judicial review of the President’s decision to promulgate an Ordinance.
1980AK Roy vs.Union of IndiaIn AK Roy vs. Union of India (1982) while examining the constitutionality of the National Security Ordinance, 1980, which sought to provide for preventive detention in certain cases, the Court argued that the President’s Ordinance making power is not beyond the scope of judicial review. However, it did not explore the issue further as there was insufficient evidence before it and the Ordinance was replaced by an Act. It also pointed out the need to exercise judicial review over the President’s decision only when there were substantial grounds to challenge the decision, and not at “every casual and passing challenge”.
1985T Venkata Reddy vs.State of Andhra PradeshIn T Venkata Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1985), while deliberating on the promulgation of the Andhra Pradesh Abolition of Posts of Part-time Village Officers Ordinance, 1984 which abolished certain village level posts, the Court reiterated that the Ordinance making power of the President and the Governor was a legislative power, comparable to the legislative power of the Parliament and state legislatures respectively. This implies that the motives behind the exercise of this power cannot be questioned, just as is the case with legislation by the Parliament and state legislatures.
1987DC Wadhwavs. State of BiharIt was argued in DC Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar (1987) the legislative power of the executive to promulgate Ordinances is to be used in exceptional circumstances and not as a substitute for the law making power of the legislature.  Here, the court was examining a case where a state government (under the authority of the Governor) continued to re-promulgate ordinances, that is, it repeatedly issued new Ordinances to replace the old ones, instead of laying them before the state legislature.  A total of 259 Ordinances were re-promulgated, some of them for as long as 14 years.  The Supreme Court argued that if Ordinance making was made a usual practice, creating an ‘Ordinance raj’ the courts could strike down re-promulgated Ordinances.
Source: Basu, DD (2010) Introduction to the Constitution of India; Singh, Mahendra P. (2008) VN Shukla’s Constitution of India; PRS Legislative Research

This year, the following 9 Ordinances have been promulgated:
  1. The Securities Laws (Amendment) Ordinance, 2013
  2. The Readjustment of Representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies Second Ordinance, 2013
  3. The Securities and Exchange Board of India (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2013
  4. The National Food Security Ordinance, 2013
  5. The Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Ordinance, 2013
  6. The Securities and Exchange Board of India (Amendment) Ordinance, 2013
  7. The Readjustment of Representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies Ordinance, 2013
  8. The Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 2013
  9. The Securities Laws (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2013
Three of these Ordinances have been re-promulgated, i.e., a second Ordinance has been promulgated to replace an existing one.  This seems to be in violation of the Supreme Court’s decision in DC Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar.

Ordinances promulgated during different Lok Sabhas


Recently, the President repromulgated the Securities Laws (Amendment) Ordinance, 2014, which expands the Securities and Exchange Board Act’s (SEBI) powers related to search and seizure and permits SEBI to enter into consent settlements.  The President also promulgated the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Ordinance, 2014, which establishes special courts for the trial of offences against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.  With the promulgation of these two Ordinances, a total of 25 Ordinances have been promulgated during the term of the 15th Lok Sabha so far.
Ordinances are temporary laws which can be issued by the President when Parliament is not in session.  Ordinances are issued by the President based on the advice of the Union Cabinet. The purpose of Ordinances is to allow governments to take immediate legislative action if circumstances make it necessary to do so at a time when Parliament is not in session.
Often though Ordinances are used by governments to pass legislation which is currently pending in Parliament, as was the case with the Food Security Ordinance last year. Governments also take the Ordinance route to address matters of public concern as was the case with the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 2013, which was issued in response to the protests surrounding the Delhi gang rape incident.
Since the beginning of the first Lok Sabha in 1952, 637 Ordinances have been promulgated. The graph below gives a breakdown of the number of Bills passed by each Lok Sabha since 1952, as well as the number of Ordinances promulgated during each Lok Sabha.
Ordinances
Ordinance Making Power of the President
The President has been empowered to promulgate Ordinances based on the advice of the central government under Article 123 of the Constitution. This legislative power is available to the President only when either of the two Houses of Parliament is not in session to enact laws.  Additionally, the President cannot promulgate an Ordinance unless he ‘is satisfied’ that there are circumstances that require taking ‘immediate action’.
Ordinances must be approved by Parliament within six weeks of reassembling or they shall cease to operate. They also cease to operate in case resolutions disapproving the Ordinance are passed by both Houses.
History of Ordinances
Ordinances were incorporated into the Constitution from Section 42 and 43 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which authorised the then Governor General to promulgate Ordinances ‘if circumstances exist which render it necessary for him to take immediate action’. Interestingly, most democracies including Britain, the United States of America, Australia and Canada do not have provisions similar to that of Ordinances in the Indian Constitution. The reason for an absence of such a provision is because legislatures in these countries meet year long.
Ordinances became part of the Indian Constitution after much debate and discussion. Some Members of the Constituent Assembly emphasised that the Ordinance making power of the President was extraordinary and issuing of Ordinances could be interpreted as against constitutional morality. Some Members felt that Ordinances were a hindrance to personal freedom and a relic of foreign rule. Others argued that Ordinances should be left as a provision to be used only in the case of emergencies, for example, in the breakdown of State machinery. As a safeguard, Members argued that the provision that a session of Parliament must be held within 6 months of passing an Ordinance be added.
Repromulgation of Ordinances
Ordinances are only temporary laws as they must be approved by Parliament within six weeks of reassembling or they shall cease to operate. However, governments have promulgated some ordinances multiple times. For example, The Securities Laws (Amendment) Ordinance, 2014 was recently repromulgated for the third time during the term of the 15th Lok Sabha. Repromulgation of Ordinances raises questions about the legislative authority of the Parliament as the highest law making body.
In the 1986 Supreme Court judgment of D.C. Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar, where the court was examining a case where a state government (under the authority of the Governor) continued to re-promulgate Ordinances, the Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice P.N. Bhagwati observed:
“The power to promulgate an Ordinance is essentially a power to be used to meet an extraordinary situation and it cannot be allowed to be “perverted to serve political ends”. It is contrary to all democratic norms that the Executive should have the power to make a law, but in order to meet an emergent situation, this power is conferred on the Governor and an Ordinance issued by the Governor in exercise of this power must, therefore, of necessity be limited in point of time.”
Repromulgation
Ordinances by governments
 

Empowering parliamentarians

The 15th Lok Sabha recently concluded with the worst track record on a number of indicators. In the first of a four part series in Livemint, MR Madhavan of PRS Legislative Research discusses whether one can hope for an improvement in the performance of Parliament once the 16th Lok Sabha assembles in a couple of months.
The recently concluded 15th Lok Sabha performed poorly on many parameters: few sittings, low number of Bills passed and a significant proportion passed without deliberation, the higher proportion of time wasted on disruption etc. As the 16th Lok Sabha assembles in a couple of months, the big question is whether one can hope for an improvement in its performance.
The recently concluded 15th Lok Sabha performed poorly on many parameters: few sittings, low number of Bills passed and a significant proportion passed without deliberation, the higher proportion of time wasted on disruption etc. As the 16th Lok Sabha assembles in a couple of months, the big question is whether one can hope for an improvement in its performance.
Are there structural factors that led to the low effectiveness of Parliament in the last five years? If that is true, one can then look at ways to address these factors. Two aspects come to mind immediately: the anti-defection law and the lack of recorded voting. There are three other, key, functions of Parliament that merit attention: making laws, holding the government to account for its actions and policies, and the power of the purse.
The anti-defection law was made by inserting the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution in 1985 to combat “the evil of political defections”. The provisions require every member of Parliament (MP) and of state legislative assemblies or councils (MLA or MLC) to abide by the party’s command on voting or abstaining on every vote. If a legislator fails to do so, he may be disqualified from his membership to the legislature.
The provisions apply not only to votes that affect the stability of the government, i.e., no-confidence motions and money Bills. They are applicable to all votes. Also, they are applicable to members of Rajya Sabha and legislative councils, who have no say in the formation of the government.
The effect is that each member is converted into a mere number at the beck and call of the party leadership. This goes against the basis of a representative democracy in which the elected representative is expected to act in public interest (as understood by him) which would usually be a combination of his ideology, political party membership and constituency interests. Instead, the current system forces him to blindly obey the instructions of the party leadership.
This system weakens the checks and balances inherent in parliamentary democracy. The government can get any of its policies and Bills approved by issuing a whip to its party members and through backroom deals with the leadership of other political parties. It does not need to convince individual MPs of the merits of the proposals. Thus, our system strips the incentive for an MP to understand and think through any issue, as he has to finally just obey the party. For example, in December 2012, the government had to face a vote on permitting foreign direct investment in the retail sector. The members of all political parties voted (or abstained) on party lines. Contrast this with a system without the anti-defection law such as the British Parliament, in which, the prime minister was unable to win the vote in the House of Commons on going to war in Syria, despite the government having a comfortable majority.
The irony is that the anti-defection law does not appear to be very effective in preventing defections that lead to the fall of the government. During the confidence motion in 2008, about 20 MPs defied the party whip. Also, this provision does not apply when the party leadership decides to change its affiliation—as the Dravida Munnettra Kazhagam (DMK) and Trinamool Congress did in the last two years—for a mass-defection from the coalition. Furthermore, the anti-defection law breaks the link between the elected representative and his electors. Citizens vote for their candidates on a combination of the person and the party—this is evident from the discussions on “winnability” of various candidates and the care with which parties allocate the tickets for elections.
The elected representative is accountable to his voters for his actions, and this accountability is enforced when he contests for re-election from the constituency. However, the anti-defection law provides him with an excuse for his stand on any issue—that he had to obey the party’s diktat. Compare this to the system in other democracies, such as that seen in the electoral debates in the US, where candidates have to justify their past actions on various legislative votes, often those taken decades earlier.
This brings us to a related issue—we do not have records of how MPs voted on most issues. Most motions are decided by a voice vote, with the Speaker determining whether the majority supported or rejected the motion. Though any member can challenge this decision and demand a division (recorded vote), it is rarely done. Of the 175 Bills passed in the 15th Lok Sabha (not counting Constitutional Amendment Bills), only 11 had a recorded vote. This implies that citizens do not know whether their MPs were even present in the House during the vote. This is an easy fix as every seat is provided with a voting machine. Indeed, in the British Parliament, where MPs have to physically walk out into the lobbies for their votes to be recorded, most Bills see such action.
To sum up, we need two reforms urgently: repeal the anti-defection law, and require that all Bills be passed only through recorded voting.


The ongoing Monsoon Session of Parliament is being widely viewed as the ‘make or break’ session for passing legislation before the end of the 15th Lok Sabha in 2014. Hanging in balance are numerous important Bills, which will lapse if not passed before the upcoming 2014 national elections.
Data indicates that the current Lok Sabha has passed the least number of Bills in comparison to other comparable Lok Sabhas. The allocated time to be spent on legislation in the Monsoon Session is also below the time recommended for discussion and passing of Bills by the Business Advisory Committee of the Lok Sabha. Eight out of a total of 16 sittings of the Monsoon Session have finished with only 15 percent of the total time spent productively.
Success rate of the 15th Lok Sabha in passing legislation
India’s first Lok Sabha (1952-1957)  passed a total of 333 Bills in its five year tenure. Since then, every Lok Sabha which has completed over three years of its full term has passed an average of 317 Bills. Where a Lok Sabha has lasted for less than 3 years, it has passed an average of 77 Bills. This includes the 6th, 9th, 11th and 12th Lok Sabhas. The ongoing 15th Lok Sabha, which is in the fifth year of its tenure, has passed only 151 Bills (This includes the two Bills passed in the Monsoon Session as of August 18, 2013).
In terms of parliamentary sessions, Lok Sabhas that have lasted over three years have had an average of fifteen sessions. The 15th Lok Sabha has finished thirteen parliamentary sessions with the fourteenth (Monsoon Session) currently underway.
Bills Passed by Lok Sabhas
Legislative business accomplished in the 15th Lok Sabha
For the 15th Lok Sabha, a comparison of the government’s legislative agenda at the beginning of a parliamentary session with the actual number of Bills introduced and passed at the end of the session shows that: (i) on average, government has a success rate of getting 39 percent of Bills passed; and (ii) on average, 60 percent success rate in getting Bills introduced.
final2.2
final2.3
The Monsoon Session of Parliament was scheduled to have a total of 16 sitting days between August 5-30, 2013. Of the 43 Bills listed for consideration and passage, 32 are Bills pending from previous sessions. As of August 18, 2013, the Rajya Sabha had passed a total of five Bills while the Lok Sabha had passed none. Of the 25 Bills listed for introduction, ten have been introduced so far.
The Budget Session of Parliament earlier this year saw the passage of only two Bills, apart from the appropriation Bills,  of the 38 listed for passing. These were the Protection of Women Against Sexual Harassment at Workplace Bill and the Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill.
Time allocated for legislation in the Monsoon Session
The Lok Sabha is scheduled to meet for six hours and the Rajya Sabha for five hours every day.  Both houses have a question hour and a zero hour at the beginning of the day, which leaves four hours for legislative business in the Lok Sabha and three hours in the Rajya Sabha. However, both Houses can decide to meet for a longer duration. For example, Rajya Sabha has decided to meet till 6:00 PM every day in the Monsoon Session as against the normal working hours of the House until 5:00 PM.
The Business Advisory Committee (BAC) of both Houses recommends the time that should be allocated for discussion on each Bill. This session’s legislative agenda includes a total of 43 Bills to be passed by Parliament.  So far, 30 of the Bills have been allocated time by the BAC, adding up to a total of 78 hours of discussion before passing.
If the Lok Sabha was to discuss and debate the 30 Bills for roughly the same time as was recommended by the BAC, it would need a minimum of 20 working days.  In addition, extra working days would need to be allocated to discuss and debate the remaining 13 Bills.
With eight sitting days left and not a single Bill being passed by the Lok Sabha, it is unclear how the Lok Sabha will be able to make up the time to pass Bills with thorough debate.