The recently concluded Monsoon Session once again highlighted the Narendra Modi government’s disregard for parliament and everything it stands for. It again refused to honour the time-tested tradition pithily summarised by my Congress colleague Jairam Ramesh: “The basis of parliament is that the opposition has to have its say and the government has to have its way”.

As a result, parliament was disrupted.

The government must understand that the role of the opposition in a democracy is not merely symbolic. The opposition is a watchdog to hold the government accountable and to safeguard the constitution. Through constructive criticism, it helps improve legislation and also voice the opinions of people that the government may otherwise overlook.

The productivity of the Rajya Sabha and the Lok Sabha during the monsoon session 2021 stood at 28% and 22% respectively. The government’s definition of a “productive” session seems to be about bulldozing bills into laws and refusing debates on crucial issues, followed by counterattacks on the opposition for “disrupting” proceedings. Its hypocrisy on this front is amazing. After all, the BJP pioneered disruption as “legitimate” parliamentary strategy. The master practitioners were the Late Arun Jaitley and Sushma Swaraj during UPA-II.

Parliamentarians voice the needs and aspirations of their constituents. Multiple members, cutting across party lines, wanted to discuss the three farm laws. They were denied the opportunity. Multiple members wanted to discuss the Pegasus expose, where, reportedly, the government has used military-grade software against its citizens, senior opposition leaders, judges, journalists and lawyers. This is prima facie illegal and criminal. The people and their representatives have a right to know if and why such sophisticated weaponry was deployed against Indian citizens.

Yet, the government evaded all accountability.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi speaks in the Rajya Sabha during the Budget Session of Parliament in New Delhi, February 8, 2021. 

The past seven years have taught us that constitutional obligations are not a priority for this government. Here are the ways that the government has bypassed legislative scrutiny and debate.

1. Misuse of the Ordinance Route. Article 123 of the constitution empowers the President to promulgate an ordinance when one house of Parliament is not in session, and when circumstances require “immediate action”. However, the present government has set a new record for the number of ordinances. While the UPA government promulgated 61 ordinances in 10 years, the Modi government promulgated 76 in the seven years between May 2014-April 2021; 10 of them right before the 2019 Lok Sabha elections.

The use of ordinances and their authority can be legitimate, but the circumstances under which they are promulgated reveal the government’s true intentions. The government took advantage of the COVID-19 pandemic to push through the three controversial farm ordinances in 2020, despite the absence of circumstances requiring immediate action. 

2. Bypassing Parliamentary Committees: Committees offer an opportunity for the in-depth, clause-by-clause study of legislative bills. Committees are empowered to summon government officials and subject experts. Their reports are publicly available and provide citizens with insights into deliberations that they otherwise are not privy to. During this monsoon session, The General Insurance Business Nationalisation (Amendment) Bill, 2021 was passed despite opposition demands for its referral to a parliamentary committee. The Bill paves the way for privatisation of the insurance sector. Thus, such a radical departure from longstanding policy went through without committee scrutiny.

During UPA-I, 60% of bills were sent to Standing or Select Committees. During UPA-II, this rose to 71%. Under Modi-I, the number stands at 27% and during Modi-II, a mere 12%. Clearly, the BJP has disregarded parliamentary committees.

Worse, it has actively colluded to hamper committees in their work. A meeting of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Information Technology on July 28, 2021 had to be called off due to lack of quorum when 15 BJP members refused to sign the attendance register. Why? Because the Pegasus snoopgate controversy was on the agenda.

This unprecedented move has weakened the convention whereby committees function substantially in a non-partisan manner, as I have myself experienced. Emboldened by such brazen politicking, several government officials too refused to appear before the Committee. This is an unprecedented and extraordinary blow to Parliamentary authority.

3. Curtailing Question Hour: The Modi government used the COVID-19 pandemic as an excuse to curtail parliamentary accountability by attempting to cancel Question Hour during the monsoon 2020 session of parliament. In the face of strong backlash from the opposition, the government eventually permitted unstarred questions, i.e., those requiring written answers. The government would do well to heed the pronouncement on the Lok Sabha’s official website that MPs have an “inherent and unfettered parliamentary right” to question the government.

Even when questions are permitted, the government provides evasive answers. The most glaring example is the government’s response to a question on the acute shortage of oxygen during the COVID-19 pandemic. By stating that “no deaths due to lack of oxygen has been specifically reported by states/UTs”, the government tried to pass the buck on to states, and failed to accord any dignity to the people who lost their lives through the government’s ill-planned management of COVID-19.

Another telling example of the government’s attempts to evade accountability through questions is its effective refusal, through seeking more time, to provide information on electoral bonds. Activists have pointed out that they had received the same information already in response to Right to Information applications. When such is the case, clearly parliament’s authority is being undermined.

This time the government initially refused answering questions on Pegasus claiming the matter was sub-judice. This argument again weakens parliamentary sovereignty. Sub-judice matters have never been a bar on information sharing or discussion on the floor of the House.

As if these actions were not enough, the government has also resorted to selectively censoring the live broadcast of parliamentary proceedings to ensure that viewers do not witness the Opposition’s protests. 

After all these efforts of avoiding transparent and participatory discussions, of shirking its duty to ensure deliberative lawmaking, the government attempted to shift accountability to the Opposition. At the dawn of India’s 75th year of Independence, it is unfortunate that the Modi government has presided over the erosion of democratic institutions that our freedom fighters sacrificed so much to create.