Executive apathy a constitutional affront

Bureaucratic indifference highlights the urgency to uphold the legislature’s constitutional authority.

In a striking inversion of parliamentary convention, even as the Opposition parties in New Delhi moved a no-confidence motion against Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla, accusing him of partisanship, Karnataka witnessed something altogether unprecedented.

U T Khader, the Speaker of the State Legislative Assembly, himself walked out of the House in solidarity with the Opposition and strongly criticised the state government for failing to provide answers to questions that were posed by the legislators.

At the heart of this confrontation is the systematic undermining of Question Hour, the very instrument that holds the executive accountable. What angered the Speaker was that out of 250 unstarred questions, the government replied to barely 90.

That the Question Hour is the first business of every sitting underlines its importance. It allows the members, especially those from distant parts of the state, to bring issues concerning their constituencies directly to the notice of the Chief Minister or ministers, compelling the government to respond.

Equally troubling was the poor attendance of the ministers, reducing the Assembly to a procedural formality. The Speaker’s action might have caused acute embarrassment to the government, but in doing so, he upheld his role as the custodian of the House.

This episode also exposes a malaise that extends beyond Karnataka. Democratic conventions are shaped not only by rules but by example. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has, over time, set a disquieting precedent. His frequent absence during parliamentary debates has signalled a diminished regard for legislative scrutiny.

In contrast, former prime ministers Jawaharlal Nehru and Atal Bihari Vajpayee attached great importance to their presence in the House.

Legislatures are not mere stages for political theatre; they are, in essence, temples of democracy. When the executive treats them with indifference, it weakens the very foundation of representative governance. On the directions of Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, Chief Secretary Shalini Rajneesh has issued notices to senior IAS officers in connection with the Speaker’s grievance.

This is a welcome move that demonstrates intent against administrative lethargy. But this chapter cannot end with internal reprimands. Persistent bureaucratic indifference to legislative questions is not a procedural lapse; it is a constitutional affront.

The Assembly must now assert its supremacy and censure those who are responsible – ministers and officers alike – to send a message in clear terms: in a democracy, the executive is subordinate to the legislature. Disrespect shown to the legislators is, in essence, an affront to the citizens who elect them.