• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Law Breaking News

Latest law breaking news from around the world

  • Home
  • News
  • Business
  • Politics
  • Opinion

The Speaker who stifled debate

December 16, 2021 by www.thehindu.com

November 29, 2021, will be remembered as a black day in the history of India's parliamentary democracy. On that day, by a fell blow, the custodian of the Lok Sabha's rights, its Speaker Om Birla, struck at the very raison d'etre of the House. Historically and constitutionally Parliament is no legislature machine. It is the grand inquest of the nation.

In Britain and in India, debates long preceded legislation. What is particularly repulsive is that the outrage was orchestrated. Hours before the House met, Prime Minister Narendra Modi laid down the law in the very terms that the Speaker used in his ruling. At the Business Advisory Committee, which met shortly before the House, BJP members dutifully said ditto.

Holding the House to ransom

The Farm Laws Repeal Bill, 2021, sought to repeal three contentious farm laws. The Agriculture Minister, Narendra Singh Tomar, introduced the Bill for "consideration" and adoption, which implies after debate. This was fortified by his attacks on the Opposition's "hypocritical attitude". The Opposition had a right to rebut this but this right was denied to it.

The Speaker ruled, "I will allow the discussion only when the House is in order". The Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha give him no right or power to hold the House to ransom unless such assurances are given in advice. No self-respecting Opposition will submit to this. The Rules give him ample power to enforce order after it has been disrupted.

The Minister arrogated to himself the right to decide that there was no need for a debate because there was a consensus on the repeal of the three Acts. This is disingenuous. The Acts remained to be discussed. As the All India Kisan Sabha pointed out, the three Acts did not include safeguards to prevent profiteering and monopoly by corporates and private entities. The Opposition was denied the right to move amendments to the repealing Bill. The Minister went further still. He said that a debate would have no tangible results. Why then hold debates on foreign policy, for instance? Was the House not entitled to move an amendment to legal guarantees for Minimum Support Price?

The Rules of Procedure are drafted to ensure a free debate, not to stifle it. There is not a single Rule or Standing Order which empowers the Speaker to act as Mr. Birla did. Consider Rule 362(1) to begin with: "At any time after a motion has been made, any member may move that the question be now put, and unless it appears to the Speaker that the motion is an abuse of these rules or an infringement of the right of reasonable debate, the Speaker shall then put the motion that the question be now put." Closure cannot be imposed without a prior debate.

Rule 363(1) says: "Whenever the debate on any motion in connection with a Bill or on any other motion becomes unduly protracted, the Speaker may, after taking the sense of the House, fix a time limit for the conclusion of discussion on any stage or all stages of the Bill or the motion, as the case may be". It is the "sense of the House", not the Speaker's opinion, which governs.

The Speaker's powers

The Speaker has ample power to quell disorderly behaviour. But thereafter, the House is the master. It can overrule the Speaker (Rule 374A). The Speaker can adjourn the House or suspend a sitting. The Speaker has no power to refuse a debate unless an undertaking is given for good conduct in future.

Debates are meant for the edification of the people and are, in turn, influenced by public opinion. As Ivor Jennings wrote in his classic on Parliament, "It is not the control of the Government by the House but the fact that its dislikes are often a representation of electoral dislikes that makes debate important."

Jennings wrote, "Obstruction is an ordinary part of parliamentary procedure". The Rules of Procedure provide precisely what Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice prescribes. In the event of grave disorder, the Speaker may adjourn the House or suspend the sittings. He cannot stipulate good behaviour as condition for debate.

What happens in our Parliament is nothing compared to the "rowdyism" in the House of Commons which Philip Norton specified in The Times of July 7, 1990. Yet, he warned that "to limit the capacity of the House to debate is to frustrate the very purpose of the institution, and so undermine support for the system of government."

MPs must draw up a documented statement on the matter, based on India's Rules of Procedure and those of the U.K., Canada and Australia, in assertion of their rights and those of the people they represent. In fairness, the Speaker should be invited, most respectfully, to indicate the Rule under which he acted on November 29, 2021.

  • Job prospects for Hindi speakers weak; in Tamil Nadu, they sell pani-puris: Minister
  • Why Paul Ryan is the Speaker of the House (of cards)
  • Gotabaya Rajapaksa-led government defeats Opposition bid to urgently debate censure motion
  • US abortion debate promises a noisy and divisive road ahead
  • Freedom to protest at Korean president's door is debated
  • Akbaruddin Owaisi faces flak for visiting Aurangzeb tomb in Aurangabad
  • Parliament suspension: Queen approves PM's plan
  • 'Go faster' to tackle cost-of-living crisis, Boris Johnson orders ministers
  • How to build an American majority, not a Republican majority – lessons from the Contract with America
  • “Women of color lead and it’s a problem”: How Colorado’s last bill of 2022 died
  • Draft budget bill gets govt nod
  • Supreme Court Decision on Sedition Law is Pragmatic but Many Questions Remain Unanswered
  • USB-C makes sense for iPhone, does it finally make sense for Apple?
  • Why Sebastian Vettel is the voice the world needs
  • Let us work at home! House of Commons staff fear for safety working in parliament
  • Articles of impeachment delivered to Senate, triggering historic trial of President Trump
  • Foreign aid: No plans to give MPs vote on cuts, says No 10
  • Parliament must not be divided by relocation, peers argue
  • Let’s support Russian scientists - at the expense of Russian science
  • Subpoenas to GOP members marks escalation in 1/6 committee probe
The Speaker who stifled debate have 1043 words, post on www.thehindu.com at December 16, 2021. This is cached page on Law Breaking News. If you want remove this page, please contact us.

Filed Under: Opinion Lok Sabha, democracy, Om Birla, Comment

Primary Sidebar

RSS Recent Stories

  • A player of 60s vintage who showed us what 2020s might be like
  • 75th Cannes Film Festival kicks off
  • U.S. COVID-19 death toll tops 1 mln: Johns Hopkins University
  • Germany pushes towards energy independence from Russia
  • Britain’s unemployment rate drops to 3.7 pct, lowest since 1974
  • Turkey’s house sales surge 38.8 pct in April as foreign buyers inflowing
  • African countries report more newly confirmed COVID-19 cases as tally passes 11.56 mln: Africa CDC
  • Ghanaian gov’t urges heightened vigilance against terrorism
  • Africities Summit kicks off amid call to accelerate urban renewal
  • Feature: Chinese company wins acclaim for technology transfer endeavors to drive Ethiopia’s fight against COVID-19

Sponsored Links

  • Peter Molyneux’s NFT game Legacy has already sold $50m of “land”
  • Cyberpunk 2077 developer settles disgruntled investors for just $1.85m
  • Bungie’s head of HR steps down
  • Animal Crossing nudist glitch reportedly removed
  • Final Fantasy 14 is so popular it’s been pulled from sale
Copyright © 2022 Law Breaking News. Power by Wordpress.
Home - About Us - Contact Us - Disclaimers - DMCA - Privacy Policy - Submit your story