A strong, centralised govt like this one wants to enjoy unbridled powers to legislate at will. But making standing committees defunct is moving back in time.
Last week, the BJP government took a last-minute decision to refer the National Medical Commission Bill to the standing committee, while this week, the Congress-led opposition tried to force the government to refer the triple talaq bill to a select committee of the Rajya Sabha. These committees, which were effective tools for intense legislative scrutiny, appear to have been reduced to being mere instruments for political refuge and safe exit.
Ordinarily, reference of a bill to a standing committee should not make news. In 1993, when the system of standing committees was introduced, it was envisaged that every bill shall be studied before it is taken up for consideration and passing by Parliament. It was a practice which was duly followed by all governments, and also forcefully defended by opposition parties. When the UPA government even suggested bypassing the standing committee citing some urgency, BJP leaders would vehemently oppose it. In fact, they would quote the guiding principle that even if a comma or a full stop is changed in a bill, its implication must be studied in detail by the standing committee.
But that was then. In last three and a half years, that system of standing committees has quietly been made defunct. Only seven out of 72 bills were referred to the standing committees for legislative scrutiny.
Curiously, the opposition has remained a mute spectator and the media not vigilant enough.
As democracy matures in a country, its parliament becomes more and more participative in nature. Elected representatives deliberate and decide on behalf of ‘We, the People’. As democracy takes root, public aspirations rise. People are no longer satisfied in letting the elected representatives deliberate and decide on their behalf. They demand structured public consultations of stakeholders. This was precisely the argument of the medical fraternity when it opposed the National Medical Commission Bill and observed a one-day nationwide strike in protest. Its primary objection was that the bill was prepared without any consultation with the medical fraternity.
The same is the argument of the Muslim community in the case of the triple talaq bill.
The institution of standing committees is a platform for citizens and advocacy groups to provide their inputs. Committees are also empowered to summon government officials and directly ask them any questions related to the bill.
The standing committees break the monopoly of the government leadership and bureaucracy on the law-making process. When the committee system is bypassed, MPs have to mandatorily express their views as per the official line of the party and vote as per the whip. At no stage do they have the benefit of alternative viewpoints and inputs of stakeholders. They have no avenues to improve upon the bill. The leadership of the majority has its way, regardless of the merits of the bill.
Unsurprisingly, a strong, centralised government like the current one would like to enjoy unbridled powers to legislate at will. It is no coincidence that it has systematically undone the system of committees, which bring a check on its legislative designs.
It has been the experience that in standing committees, more often than not, members rise above party affiliations and study the bills thoroughly. Since the deliberations of the committees are neither televised nor made public, an individual member is in a position to freely air views and opinions on policy issues and bills, even if these views are not in consonance with those of the MP’s party.
The committee suggestions on a bill are generally based on consensus. In the current government, where on ten occasions, the government has been forced to refer contentious bills to the select committee of the Rajya Sabha, all the reports have been adopted by consensus. The very government which bypassed the standing committee initially and later opposed the select committee vehemently, adopted the bills as modified by the select committees and had them passed. It was the government which benefitted from the consultative process by evolving a consensus even on controversial subjects. Improved legislation is in national interest.
Obviously, the issue is not the merits of contribution by the committee system, but ceding the powers of legislative intervention to individual MPs and opening up the legislative system to independent experts, stakeholders and private citizens. Any centralised governance structure will be averse to cede such powers to any institution outside its domain. But the bureaucracy or the PMO, howsoever efficient, cannot be the sole repository of knowledge and public good. Democracy demands decision making ‘by the people’ and not ‘on behalf of the people’.
The Modi government has often attributed the delayed legislation to the time taken by the standing committees. But hurried legislation cannot be anyone’s argument. Legislation is serious business and detailed study by the committees ensures inclusive, scrutinised and error-free delivery.
It is imperative that standing committees don’t shrink to merely being the instrument of political refuge. It took 15 years to introduce the system of standing committees, after it was first raised in the Conference of Presiding Officers in 1978. It was honed over a period of another two decades, a majority of which were ruled by the Congress. It’s unfortunate that the party has remained a mute spectator to the quiet burial of the system. Had it been vigilant enough, its demand of in-depth study of the ultra-sensitive triple talaq bill by a committee would have been a legitimate right and an automatic consequence, and the demand wouldn’t be seen as political brinksmanship.
The sanctity of the temple of Parliament, which Prime Minister Modi bowed to on his first visit, must be upheld by him.
Gurdeep Singh Sappal was the OSD to former Vice President Hamid Ansari