Pay heed to CJI’s criticism

Chief Justice of India N V Ramana’s critical observations about the functioning of Parliament are very relevant and have a special significance, coming as they do from the country’s top judge. They are as true about the legislatures at the state level as about the two Houses of Parliament. Justice Ramana was unhappy about the lack of debate and deliberation over bills, which often meant that they were passed in a perfunctory manner. Very often, bills are poorly drafted, and because of the lack of scrutiny by members, the intent of the legislation often remains vague. The CJI recalled that in the past, discussions and debates in the House by legislators helped courts to comprehend the intent and objects of the laws better. So, the burden of the courts while interpreting the laws used to be less. The CJI said that it is a sorry state of affairs now, as there is no clarity regarding the laws passed by legislatures.

Justice Ramana has raised an important issue, and it goes beyond the courts’ difficulty in interpreting legislation and his observation about the absence of lawyers in Parliament. Many parliamentarians who studied and scrutinised legislation and contributed to debates in the past were not lawyers, and lawyer members of the present-day Parliament do not make any greater contribution than others. The issue is not the composition of Parliament but the attitude of governments and MPs. Bills are passed without debate and sometimes even without following rules and procedures. This was the case in the monsoon session of Parliament, which concluded last week, and in many earlier sessions. It is not just the legislative functions of Parliament that are adversely affected. Parliament is the forum where matters of national importance and issues that affect the people should be discussed. This also does not take place. In the last session, the government was obstinate in its position that it would not allow discussion on some issues that the Opposition wanted to raise. The Opposition was equally obstinate in its position that it would not allow Parliament to function without the government agreeing to its demands.

Even when Parliament functions normally, many members do not attend it. Sometimes, discussions are paused for lack of quorum. Ministers, including the Prime Minister, are not known for their keenness to attend Parliament. The duration of sessions has progressively decreased over the years. Parliamentary committees are not working the way they should. So, while Justice Ramana’s observations are true, they have highlighted only one part of the problem. Most aspects of the functioning of Parliament and state Assemblies have been affected and the inadequacies and failures go to the very heart of the democratic system.