59 short discussions under Vajpayee, 6 in Modi 2.0. Crunching the numbers on Parliament debates

Analysis by PRS Legislative Research highlights that debates and parliamentary sittings have been continuously decreasing over the decades, and there is lesser scrutiny of Bills.

New Delhi: The Modi government has in the past three-and-a-half years allowed only six short-duration discussions on matters of national importance under Rule 193 of the Lok Sabha — down from 33 such debates allowed during its previous tenure (2014-2019) — an analysis by the non-profit PRS Legislative Research has noted.

Prior to that, the Manmohan Singh government allowed 55 such discussions in its first term from 2004 to 2009, and 41 in the second (2009-2014). The Atal Bihari Vajpayee government during 1999-2004 allowed 59 short-duration discussions under the rule.

Rule 193 allows for discussions without the introduction of a formal motion before the House. Hence, no voting can take place after discussions under this rule.

In the recently-concluded winter session of Parliament (7 to 23 December), three debates were held in the Lower House, of which two were on the subjects of promoting sports in India and the problem of drug abuse (under Rule 193).

The PRS analysis states: “The number of short-duration discussions (under Rule 193) initiated in Parliament has decreased over the last few Lok Sabhas… There were 59 such discussions in the 13th Lok Sabha (Vajpayee era), which declined to 55, 41 (Manmohan Singh’s tenures of 2004 to 2009 and 2009-2014) and 33 (2014-19) in the last three Lok Sabhas, and further to six in the three-and-a-half years of the current Lok Sabha (17th).”

Pointing to the low level of debate in Parliament, opposition leaders have alleged that the Centre is avoiding discussions on pressing issues facing the country, such as inflation and unemployment, and using the two Houses only to pass Bills.

One such leader told ThePrint, “declining debate has become the trend under Prime Minister Narendra Modi”.

Congress Lok Sabha MP Hibi Eden from Kerala said to ThePrint: “The government did not have a proper agenda in this winter session, which was curtailed for this reason.” Parliament this session adjourned four days earlier, having met for just 13 days.

Many pointed to the government’s reluctance to hold a discussion on the India-China border row after military clashes between the two in Arunachal Pradesh earlier this month, despite demands by the opposition parties for the same.

TMC’s Rajya Sabha MP Derek O’Brien tweeted: “Every single notice given by the Opposition to discuss an urgent national issue (under Rule 267) in Rajya Sabha has been outright rejected in the last six years.”

Rule 267 of the Rajya Sabha allows for suspension of the day’s business to debate any key issue suggested by a member.

The Rajya Sabha this winter session discussed the subject of global warming, but both Houses did not take up the border row despite the opposition parties staging a walkout.

After defence minister Rajnath Singh’s 13 December statement in Parliament on the skirmish between Indian and Chinese troops, the opposition had sought more clarification on the subject, but queries were shot down by Rajya Sabha deputy chairman Harivansh Singh, who said it was a sensitive issue.

‘Democracy getting weaker’

The last time that business at the Rajya Sabha was adjourned for a discussion under Rule 267 was in 2016, when the matter of demonetisation was taken up.

Speaking to ThePrint, another opposition leader, John Brittas from the CPI(M), said: “The government has put Rule 267 in cold storage as it wants to send the message that everything is fine and there is no such thing as unemployment, inflation and border clash.”

“The government is not interested in debating matters in Parliament as it will expose their shortcomings. It will go against the narrative they want to build,” Brittas added.

Rajya Sabha publication, Rajya Sabha at Work, states that Shankar Dayal Sharma as Chairman of the Upper House had allowed four discussions under Rule 267 between 1990 and 1992, Bhairon Singh Shekhawat had enforced the rule three times in one year in 2004, and from 2013 to 2016, Hamid Ansari had allowed four discussions under the rule.

Prof Jagdeep Chhokar, founding member and trustee of Association of Democratic Reforms, said: “It has become the new normal as the government wants to escape parliamentary scrutiny of bills. Even the number of (House) sittings, which used to be 100 days earlier, has now reduced to 60. Bills are passed in the same session without scrutiny, quality of law-making is affected and democracy is getting weaker by the day.”

Lesser scrutiny of Bills

The PRS Legislative Research analysis has highlighted another fact — fewer bills are being referred to committees for scrutiny.

In the current Lok Sabha, only 23 per cent of Bills introduced were referred to committees for scrutiny, which is lower than that in the last three Lok Sabhas, it notes, adding that in the 14th Lok Sabha, 60 per cent bills were referred to a standing committee, 71 per cent in the 15th and 27 per cent in the 16th Lok Sabha.

It further highlights that in the 17th Lok Sabha, of the 130 Bills passed, 94 were introduced and passed in the same session of Parliament.

According to the analysis, the number of days the Parliament meets has also decreased over the decades, while passage of bills without scrutiny has gone up.

“For the last eight consecutive sessions, Parliament has adjourned ahead of schedule. 36 planned sitting days have been lost due to early adjournment in this Lok Sabha,” notes the analysis.

Congress MP Eden said: “It has become the trend to curtail the number of (parliamentary) sittings. The Centre is avoiding debate so that people don’t come to know of urgent issues.”

(Edited by Nida Fatima Siddiqui)