New Delhi 28 December 2004   

Drifting Towards Disaster

IS PARLIAMENT BECOMING IRRELEVANT?

By Poonam I Kaushish

We have been through all this before. Of how India’s Parliament is increasingly being devalued. Virtually becoming into a tamasha. That the very protectors of this high temple of Parliamentary democracy have become its denigrators and destroyers. And how in their “collective wisdom” our Right Honourables, have been spewing sheer contempt on Parliament, wittingly or unwittingly. Reducing the grand red stone building into an akhara, where politically motivated bashing is the order of the day and agenda a luxury to be taken up when the lung power is exhausted.

If proof was needed, the shortest ever17-day winter session was testimony to this fast decline. Instead of reasoned debate on issues concerning the aam aadmi, our Right Honourables concentrated on raising “hot” items. For the Opposition charge of gross misuse of the CBI by the PMO concerning Advani in the Ayodhya case and of Railway Minister Laloo Yadav’s “contempt” of Parliament in not making a statement in the House on a major rail accident in Punjab and instead flying off to Patna, the Congress-led UPA Government created “tehelka” with media reports of a Gujarat BJP MLA bribing Zahira, key witness in the Best Bakery case, with Rs 18 lakhs to change her stand. Not to mention the absurd sight of two senior Cabinet Ministers trading mutual charges of corruption et al.

Clearly, this has been a lose-lose session. The Government lost out as it was unable to transact scheduled business. The Opposition adopted a posture of hostility and disruption, making reasoned debate impossible. With the result that Parliament loses its credibility and prestige when crores of public money goes down the drain. That we are slowly but surely heading towards disaster is obvious. Notwithstanding the valiant efforts of Rajya Sabha Chairman Shekhawat and Lok Sabha Speaker Chatterjee to arrest the decline. Raising a moot point: Is Parliament becoming irrelevant?   

The amount of legislative business transacted during the session illustrates how “powerless” Parliament has become in stemming the mounting rot. Of the 43 important Bills scheduled to be debated and voted, only half were passed. Of the 19 new Bills introduced in the Lok Sabha, 11 were voted.  Justified the Parliamentary Affairs Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad: “The last Budget session lasted three months but transacted only 10 per cent of the business. Whereas in the 17-day session it was 100 per cent business.” Really?

His next sentence exposed its hollowness. “All laws which the Government thought were important were passed…. Where is the need for a longer session?” Aren’t all laws important? If not, then why the laws? And why list them in the list of business. Are they just gap fillers, to inflate the quantum of business to score brownie points? Sadly, making a mockery of Parliament’s primary responsibility of enacting legislation.

A case in point: the scandalous treatment of the important National Commission for Minorities Educational Institutions Bill. This highly sensitive Bill was hurriedly introduced, debated and passed virtually with empty benches in both the Houses. Over 74 reservations were voiced by the MPs in the Rajya Sabha, cutting across Party lines on certain crucial Clauses of the Bill. Even by members who generally support Government legislations. The BJP wanted it referred to the Select Committee to fine tune the Bill and report back on the first day of the next session. Alas, to no avail.

Nominated Rajya Sabha member Fali S. Nariman raised some vital issues of far-reaching consequence as a leading legal luminary since he did not wish “the Bill to be declared unconstitutional.” Article 30 of the Constitution, he told the Human Resources Minister, Arjun Singh, undoubtedly gave the minorities the right to administer and maintain educational institutions of their choice, but it did not empower the Government “to define who are the minorities?” What is more, the Supreme Court was still grappling with an appropriate definition of minority. Two views had been expressed before the Apex Court. One that religious minorities were, perhaps the national minorities whereas linguistic minorities were State-based minorities.

More. He warned the House against “a good legislation sometimes going awry.” Therefore, the clause defining minority “should be deleted or it should be prescribed by rules that ‘all minorities’ is meant by the word ‘minority’, wherever they are. Otherwise, there is going to be a lot of problems between minorities, between linguistic minorities and religious minorities.” However, all he pleaded powerfully was like water off a duck’s back.

Another crucial legislation, the Patent Bill failed to get Parliament’s approval, despite its serious economic ramifications for the country vis-à-vis the World Trade Organization. It needed to be passed before the next budget session. Yet the Government dilly-dallied, presumably because it preferred the convenient Ordinance route which enables it to present Parliament with a fait accompli. Two Appropriation Bills, the Supplementary Demands for Grants General and Railways were passed in the Lok Sabha with only about 60 MPs present.

Issues of vital national interest, like India’s foreign policy and internal security fared even worse, notwithstanding the fact that these were being discussed by Parliament after a long time. Only a smattering of MPs were present in both Houses when these were debated. Repeated ringing of the quorum bell failed to get them to give up their gupshup in the Central Hall. Unlike in the past, even the presence of the Prime Minister failed to ensure a sizable attendance. On Monday last, when Manmohan Singh eventually made his much-needed statement on his visits abroad and his meetings with top foreign leaders during the intersession period in the Lok Sabha barely 75 MPs were present.

With the numbers game becoming the sole criteria of a successful session, members are increasingly showing less and less interest in their main job of law making. This has come down to barely 16 per cent. Maximum time is spent on other matters or unlisted issues, 50 per cent. During this session, a lot of time was wasted on insignificant issues during the Zero Hour. In the Eleventh Lok Sabha, 5.28 per cent of time was lost in disruptions. This climbed to 10.66 in the next House and has soared to 22.40 per cent in the Thirteenth Lok Sabha.

Tragically, our legislators seem to suffer no sense of guilt or qualms of conscience. The time has come to hold them accountable. They have been elected to delve on issues vital to the people. They are paid hefty salaries, perks and innumerable freebies. They should be held accountable for their actions in Parliament and should face recall if they fail to deliver, as advocated by Loknayak JP. The onus lies on all sides of the House. It is the job of the Opposition to keep the Government on its toes. But it is the responsibility of the Treasury Benches to ensure the smooth running of both the Houses and conduct of Government business. Remember Parliamentary democracy can succeed only when the rules of the game are followed honestly. Else it will become redundant and irrelevant. ----- INFA

(Copyright India News and Feature Alliance)

New Delhi, 14 December 2004

 MPs Violating Oath

TREATING PARLIAMENT CALLOUSLY

By Poonam I Kaushish

 “Order, Order, Order. I said sit down. Do you have no respect for the Chair? You should be ashamed of yourself. If you don’t behave I will name you”. Admonishments that are heard daily that they cease to shock. In fact, they have become meaningless. No, we are not talking about errant school children being rebuked by their teacher. Nor a Judge trying to control a defiant lawyer. We are talking about our Parliament, India’s high temple of democracy. So what if the Speaker even laments that the whole country is watching. Our Hon’ble MPs have no sense of shame. Worse, they don’t care a damn.

Alas, the short ongoing winter session has touched a new low, breaking every record. How callously Parliament is now treated can be gauged from the fact that this is the shortest ever winter session with just 17 sittings. Against a normal session of well over a month. Especially when some 43 important Bills are due to be debated. Near impossible. Scandalously, MPs routinely absent themselves from the Houses, preferring cups of tea, coffee and gup shup in the Central Hall. The “sanctum sanctorum” of today’s rajniti.  To network, make and unmake reputations and strike deals. Refusing even to heed the pleas of their party whips to return to the chamber and help make the quorum. Politricking is the name of their game.

Even the Question Hour, which is the sacred hyphen that links Government to Parliament is treated most casually. Remember, it provides for the accountability of the Executive to the Legislature. Wherein the Government through its Ministers is required to answer questions. It is the most powerful weapon available to the Opposition to keep the Government on a tight leash -- and serves as a barometer of governmental performance at the macro level and a minister’s effectiveness at the micro level. In fact, India’s first Prime Minister Nehru made it a point to be present invariably. Not only on the day when questions were listed against his name.

Today, the obverse holds true. This important hour is now treated with contempt by both the Treasury and the Opposition. Ministers come without doing homework, to be reprimanded at times by the presiding officers. Invariably their facetious reply is: “Information is being collected.” On occasions, they even give a wrong reply to a right question. The less said about their goof-ups in answering supplementaries, the better. Worse, time is wasted in frivolous interruptions with the result that hardly three or four questions are adequately replied. Clearly, politically motivated bashing has become the raging cult. And agreed agenda a luxury.

If this spells disaster, one is at a loss of words at what follows during the Zero Hour. The Lok Sabha was witness the other day to an unprecedented spectacle when the Opposition demanded from the Prime Minister a statement on the mutual charges of corruption hurled against each other by the Railway Minister Lalu Yadav and Chemicals and Fertiliser Minister Ram Vilas Paswan. An embarrassed Parliamentary Affairs Minister lamely pleaded that the charges did not merit a reply as these had been made outside Parliament. Furious RJD MPs retaliated by asking Leader of the Opposition Advani to explain the charges of “abuse” by his former daughter-in-law Gauri. Predictably, all hell broke loose and the Speaker was forced to adjourn the House.

The only silver lining at present is the patient and determined effort of Speaker Somnath Chatterjee to salvage the Lok Sabha from the abyss of increasing irrelevance. He has decided to be “stern” and not “tolerate indiscipline any more” to restore Parliament to its long lost glory, drowned in the cacophony of petty foggers, one-upmanship and conmanship. That he will brook no nonsense is evident by his warning that no MP will be allowed to cross the Lakshman Rekha and rush into the well of the House. What is more, MPs who defy him have their ravings and rantings expunged from the record.

Somnathda, as he is affectionately called, should not hesitate to use his “Brahmastra” --- the rule that provides for automatic suspension of MPs who move into the well of the House. No MP worth his salt would want to get suspended. He should enforce the rule and not allow errant MPs to get away as during the past decade. Every minute lost means lakhs of rupees of public money going down the drain.  The last Budget Session cost the nation over Rs 17 crores. Of its total time of 185 hours about 90 hours were lost in pandemonium and adjournments. In the Rajya Sabha, of 150 hours over 60 hours met the same fate. This figure was barely 5 per cent for the 11^th Lok Sabha less than 10 years ago. It costs the tax payer between 20 and 25 lakh per hour.  

The new Speaker deserves credit for allowing live telecast of the Zero Hour to enable the public to gauge the true worth or should one say, antics of their representatives. Delhi Doordarshan has planned to start a separate Parliament channel, which will telecast Parliamentary proceedings live from 14 December. Importantly, he also intends opening the meetings of Parliament’s Standing Committees to the Press. This will go a long way in making the decision- making process not only transparent but also more accountable. Ministers are now required to report to the House within six months action taken on various proposals. He also wants the law changed to provide for a body to fix the pay and perks of MPs, instead of leaving it to their whims, fancies and inflated egos.

However, these by themselves will not be enough to discipline our recalcitrant MPs and get them down to good, honest work. The figures speak for themselves. Over the years, Parliament has whittled down the number of days on which it meets every year. In 1952, the Lok Sabha met for 123 days. In 1953 it rose to 138. For the last 15 years it has fallen below 100. The last time the House sat for more than 100 days in a year was in 1988. Since then, the average has slumped to 80. In sharp contrast, the House of Commons in England is in session for close to 170 days in a year and the US Congress close to 150 days.   

Also, while a good day in Parliament counts for five to six hours of work, the average duration per sitting for the House of the Common is 9 hours for the last 25 years. On the quorum front too there is a vast difference. In the US the figure is 50 per cent while in India it is a measly 10 per cent. Even then the MPs absent themselves. When the Lok Sabha passed the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets Bill in 2002, only 38 MPs (less than the 55 required for a quorum )out of 542 were present in the House.

Tragically, instead of putting their heads together to rectify the ills that plague the country our MPs are more interested in protecting themselves. Ironic, isn’t it, that for many of our law-breakers turned law-makers, security has turned into an obsession. Today, Parliament has become an impregnable fortress. Silly, not for the terrorists but for the aam aadmi who elects his representative. The flashing lights and shrieking sirens atop expensive chauffeur-driven cars and obtrusive security personnel highlight their power, wealth and self-importance. Ever at war with the general public which greets this with cynicism and increasing despair.

Imagine over Rs 108 crore worth of security paraphernalia has been installed to protect our netagan (sic). This includes radio frequency identity tags, road blockers, boom barriers from US, close circuit TVs, tyre killers and active ballards. Gadgets to guard against a nuclear, biological and chemical attack. Never mind that not a few criminals adorn the Parliamentary benches. Even as two law makers are behind bars in Bihar on charges of murder and kidnapping. What to say of five allegedly tainted Ministers who strut around unconcerned dispensing favours.

All seem to have forgotten that Parliament’s primary task is to legislate. The Government is answerable to the people. Rajya Sabha MP Fali Nariman has mooted a “no work, no pay” principle. One that is worth adopting A MP who disrupts the proceedings of either House should be barred from drawing his daily stipend and his salary should be deducted for non-productive work. In an extreme case the right to recall should be invoked. Not only that. The MPs should be enjoined to spend a minimum amount of time in the House, just as other office goers. To enforce this, they should perhaps be required to sign their attendance at least twice a day, if not hourly.

Thus, as the Fourteenth Lok Sabha drifts along, it is time for our aaj ke MPs to spare a thought for the country’s future, instead of indulging in petty politics and violating their oath. If the sacred temple of democracy crumbles the consequences will be disastrous. It is imperative that our jan sevaks cooperate with the Speaker to rectify the flaws that have crept into the system, and put Parliament back on the rails Parliament as the bulwark of democracy should not be treated casually – or callously. – INFA

 (Copyright India News and Feature Alliance)

New Delhi, 23 December 2003

Government Plays Truant

PARLIAMENT STUCK IN COLONIAL GROOVE

By Poonam I. Kaushish

New Delhi is suffering from an avoidable hangover. While we commoners pop pills and coffee to recover, there is alas no remedy for a democratic bastion. Which continues to reel under a stupor of casualness, neglect and decay. You guessed right. It is Parliament once again. Tragically, our Parliamentarians are still stuck in the old colonial groove. Merry Christmas (sic). Just not interested in doing a spot of good honest work! Like their counterparts at Westminster.

Nothing illustrates this better than the winter session of Parliament. It will go down in history as the shortest session ever – a grand total of 16 days, of which three were lost to lung power. All thanks to slavish mentality – and Santa Claus. Winter sessions normally begin mid-November and continue till about December 23. This year its opening was justifiably delayed because of the Assembly polls which concluded on December 1. Thus Parliament met on December 2.

Questionably, did it have to adjourn sine die prior to Christmas on 23 December? What is sacrosanct about concluding the session before December 25? Nothing except a hangover of our British past. True the Central Assembly, as Parliament was called, ended its winter session under the Raj latest by December 23 to enable the rulers to celebrate Christmas. But one did not have to follow it slavishly. Succinctly quipped a leader: “Hum abhi bhi angrezi lakir ke fakir hain.”

By all means let us celebrate Christmas. But why adjourn Parliament sine die on December 23. It could have adjourned for Yuletide that day and met again thereafter to complete the pending agenda, cut short due to the delayed start of the session. Worse, some of the important legislative business, even constitutional amendments, were mindlessly rushed through as a ritual.

Take the Constitution (97 Amendment) Bill banning defections and limiting the size of the Council of Ministers at the Centre and in the States. It was debated and adopted in no more than three hours. Barely 50 members were present in the Lok Sabha during the discussion. Even at the voting stage, only 424 MPs out of 545 were present in the House and 167 of 242 in the Rajya Sabha. Worse was the fate of the POTA Bill. The quorum bell had to be rung time and again as MPs made merry in the Central Hall. A harassed Parliamentary Affairs Minister, Sushma Swaraj, was seen repeatedly pleading with MPs to return to the House.

Not only that. Shockingly, the debate on both these Bills even failed to meet the conventional parliamentary requirement of three readings. The first reading is done when the Minister moves for the bill consideration and explains its philosophy and its broad parameters. Thereafter, the bill is thrashed out clause by clause in the second reading. The third, final reading is done when all the clauses and schedules, if any, have been considered and voted by the House and the Minister moves that the Bill be passed. Veterans recall Nehru’s time when battles royal were fought during the second reading even over the placement of comma! 

Sadly, form not substance is now paramount. With political compulsions dominating political discourse, discussion and debate has largely lost its meaning. The numbers game has become the sole criteria of success. Gone are the days when the sittings were orderly and members would ponder hard and long before raising issues. When interventions were meticulous and clarifications were sought. But all this largely ended with Nehru. Then came the shouting brigade, no holds-barred politics and the crude practice of rushing into the well. Holding Parliament and through it the country to ransom. Bringing things to a pass where might becomes right and brute force replaces debate and discussion. Spotlighting the basic contempt of our politicians for democracy and its high temple.

Parliament is spending less and less time on its primary task: law making. Legislative agenda has become a luxury to be taken up only when the lung power is exhausted. Single-minded pursuit of power, pelf and patronage is all that matters. Political polarization is measured through the prism of power glass politics. Whereby all outbursts are weighted on the voters scale. Never mind, if it sounds like flogging a dead horse. The figures speak for themselves. Members are today showing less and less interests in their main job. Only 16 per cent of their time is spent on lawmaking. The first Lok Sabha spent 49.80 per cent of its time on enacting legislation.

The maximum time, 50 per cent, is spent on other matters or unlisted issues. It was a mere four per cent in the first Lok Sabha. The tragedy becomes stark when one realizes that every minute lost in Parliament costs the taxpayer Rs 2 lakhs.What is more, the duration of Parliament sessions has slumped from an average of 200 days a year to barely 75 days. True, what is important is not the total time that Parliament meets, but the use to which it is put. But if the purpose is drowned by lung-power, what’s the use.

Significantly, the Question Hour, rightly described as the hyphen which links Parliament to Government and ensures ministerial accountability, is no longer sacred, as it should be. Remember, the hour belongs to the private members and empowers them to push the Government and even its Prime Minister into the dock. Any member can ask any question within the framework of the rules. But time and again rules are waived to dispense with it. On Thursday, horror of horrors, Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, Najma Heptulla, even permitted the “dream girl” Hema Malini to fulfil her dream and make her maiden speech as a nominated member at the start of the Question Hour, losing all sense of proportion and violating the sacredness of the hour. 

Come 12 noon and the Zero Hour the benches no doubt fill up. Time to take up “hot” issues and, hopefully, hit the headlines. But once the Zero Hour is over, most MPs depart for the day. Some to the Central Hall to eat and gossip, others to firm up the evening round of parties. Only a handful remain to attend the post lunch session. The infamous mother of all scams, the Telgi scandal involving over Rs 30,000 crore, is a case in point. Only some 30 MPs were present in the Lok Sabha during the discussion under Rule 193. So much for the interest our jan sevaks in unmasking the fraud which involves 19 States and several top politicians and bureaucrats.

Such a state of affairs leads me to ask one question: why do we not adopt the Westminster system of functioning. The Commons meets at 2 p.m, and sits till the day’s agenda is completed, even if this means sitting past midnight. The morning is kept free for the Ministers to attend to their offices and the MPs to prepare for the sitting. The wife of a visiting British Minister once asked her Indian counterpart, “How often do you get to see your husband in the evening when Parliament is in session?” “Of course, everyday”, she replied. “Lucky you,” shot back the Brit. “I don’t get to see him at all during the session. He returns late, very late…”

What about the Rajya Sabha? The less said about its recent vandalisation the better. Yet, incredibly enough, the Right Honourables of the essentially nominated Council of States, erroneously described as the House of Elders, celebrated last week over a royal dinner its 200^th session. Instead members should have been mourning the demise of the Rajya Sabha as originally conceived. The basic character of the Council of States has been wholly destroyed by providing for open voting and removing the basic qualification requiring an aspirant to be “ordinarily resident” of a State. If truth be told, the doors of the House have been flung open to money bags. If the Central Hall gossip is to be believed, the going rate for membership is Rs 5 crore.

What then should be our basic approach to this distressing and disgraceful spectacle? Must we stand as mute spectators while Parliament gets vandalized by our jan sevaks. Clearly, it is time to give serious thought to rectifying the flaws in our system and urgently overhauling. If necessary, rules should be drastically changed to put Parliament back on the rails. Indira Gandhi once wisely said: “Parliament is a bulwark of democracy… It has also a very heavy task of keeping an image that will gain it the faith and respect of the people. Because, if that is lost, then I don’t know what could happen later.” Time to heed her words and stop the drift towards disaster.—INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

New Delhi, 7 January 2003

Summon Attorney General

CAN PARLIAMENT BE BYPASSED

By Poonam I. Kaushish

New Year. New Hope.  Colourful banners streaked the labyrinth called the Government of India.  Specially after the much-hyped Right to Information Bill became a reality. If one looked forward to transparency.  Sprinkled with some honesty, no matter how minute, in the normally obfuscate administration, it was best to forget it.  Tall promises and even taller claims, notwithstanding.  The GOI continues to be as dense as the heavy fog which has embraced northern India in a bear hug, which delayed the PM’s return from Goa by three hours.  Indeed, it must have been a wise man who stated that a leopard never changes its spots!

Just see how the powers that-be poured cold water on the janta’s expectations, businessmen’s glee and journalists’ voyeuristic delight.  Accosted with the demand to make public its “transparent (sic) disinvestments policy,” specially in the Petroleum sector, the GOI went scurrying for cover.

The eagerly-awaited hiving off of oil majors, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd (HPCL) and Bharat Petroleum Ltd. (BPL) was once again put on the back-burner.  The reason?  “We are awaiting the Attorney General’s opinion” said Disinvestments Minister Arun Shourie.  On two scores.  Could the two profitable oil giants be sold by an executive decision or would their sale require to be first cleared by Parliament, which had brought them into existence by Acts of Parliament.  Remember, both Esso and Caltex first and Burmah Shell subsequently were nationalized in 1974 and 1976 by the late Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.  To be re-christened by Parliament as BPL and HPCL.

However, what was left unsaid was more important than what Shourie cared to state.  Would the Government make public in full the opinion of the country’s first law officer on a crucial matter involving Parliament and the Executive?  Certainly not.  Making available only as much of information as would fit into its scheme of things. Conveniently brushing under the carpet the fact that the Attorney General, who is an independent statutory authority, is expected  in every sense of the Constitutional term to express himself forthrightly without fear or favour.

Not only does he give his opinion to the Government on file.  But he also has the right to address and thereby make himself available to the MPs to clarify his advice or interpretation of the Constitution in regard to a particular matter.  The important thing to note is that by coming to Parliament, he leaves no scope for any doubt or wrong interpretation or for any false claim by the Government. After all, Parliament represents the people and is ultimately answerable as the sovereign watchdog of the national interest. 

Sadly, in this raging controversy this crucial aspect of the Attorney Generals’ role and powers has not got the attention it deserves from our Right Honourables.  Who, today, seem to have little knowledge or interest about the functioning of the sovereign Parliament and even  less about the Constitution.  Specially the Opposition which is not as vigilant, as it ought to be, leaving the field wide open for the Government to ride rough shod over healthy conventions and do as it pleases.  Good or bad for the country, does not seem to matter.  Distressingly Parliament today has been largely reduced to being sovereign only in name.

For starters, are our Right Honourables, including those who adorn the front benches, aware that Article 88 of the Constitution confers on the Attorney General the same rights as a Minister to speak in Parliament.  Article 88 states:  “Every Minister and the Attorney-General, of India shall have the right to speak in, and otherwise to take part in the proceedings of either House, any joint sitting of the Houses, and any committee of Parliament of which he may be named a member, but shall not by virtue of this Article be entitled to vote.”

In other words, the AG’s right to speak confers on him the suo moto right to address Parliament and give his opinion directly (and transparently) to members. Our Constitution makers obviously took a leaf from the Westminster model.  In the UK, the Attorney General is the Chief Law Officer of the Crown and the Chief Legal Adviser to the Houses of Parliament.  Usually he is a member of Parliament and invariably a member of the Cabinet.

However, the fathers of India’s Constitution chose to depart from the English model in divorcing the office of the AG from the Government but retained the presence of the AG  in Parliament to give it his independent opinion and advice in person.  It was felt that by making the AG’s office independent he would be enabled to render his honest advice to Parliament, uninfluenced by political considerations.  Also a non-political AG could advise not only the Government but various other departments without coming into conflict with either.

Significantly, it was also felt that the absence of the AG from Parliament, would be to the disadvantage of MPs and indeed, of the country.  It would bar the Attorney-General from placing his candid opinion or point of view before either House when some matter under his charge was before the House and through it the country.

So far so good.  Surprisingly, however, no AG has till date in free India exercised his suo moto right to speak.  Perhaps other considerations have out-weighed his Constitutional obligations.  In practice, successive AG’s have gone to Parliament only at the request of the Government on a motion passed by the House. Or in response to a request by the Speaker if he wishes to hear him on any matter before the House, to give his opinion on the Constitutionality of a Bill or to give a legal interpretation. However, the Speaker does not seek the advice of the AG with regard to the vires of a Bill; it has been left to the Government, to bring in the AG whenever its wants to.

According to Kaul and Shakdher, members may give notice of motion asking the Attorney-General to be present in the House in connection with a certain Bill or business before the House.  Such notices are duly admitted and it is for the House to take a decision thereon.  Where the opinion of the AG has been circulated to the members in advance of his taking part in the proceedings, members may give advance notice of questions which they wish to ask of him and the same may be forwarded to the AG and the concerned Minister.  When taking part in the proceedings of the House, the AG cannot be cross-examined on the views expressed by him.  However, members may be permitted to ask a few questions to seek clarification on some points.  No discussion is permissible on the statement made by the AG in the House.

On behalf of the Speaker, references have also been made to the AG with a view to seeking his advice on procedural matters or constitutional provisions.  Such references are made direct and the AG gives his opinion direct.  The Speaker is not bound to follow that opinion but he takes it into consideration before arriving at his decision.

The AG has come to the Lok Sabha to give his opinion on as many as ten occasions – four times each in the 1950s and the 60s and once each in the 80s and 90s.  Among the famous cases for which he was called in to give his advice were the Mudgal and Bofors cases.

In 1957, the AG was directed by the Speaker to open the proceedings in the Mudgal Case (Committee on the Conduct of a Member 1951) and be present in the course of inquiry. In 1988 the AG addressed the Joint Committee to probe the Bofors Contract and clarified important legal issues, involved in the enquiry twice.  On 5 May 1988 when the Minister of Defence, during his reply to the discussion on the JPC Report on the Bofors contract, referred to the opinion of the AG, some members rose on points of order, to demand that the AG be summoned to come to the House to clarify the position.

The Speaker thereupon ruled that members could give notice of a motion asking the AG to be present in the House in connection with a Bill or other business before the House and if such motion was admitted the House could take a decision thereon.  Notices received subsequently were disallowed as discussion on the JPC Report had already concluded. The Bofors controversy continues to date.

What now? It is high time the Government came transparently clean on the disinvestments of the oil giants.  It is just not enough for the Government to secure the opinion of the AG on a file. The Opposition must, therefore, demand and insist that the AG comes before the Lok Sabha and expresses himself on the controversial issue posed by  Parliament: Can the HPCL and BPL be disinvested by an executive order or does it require the clearance of Parliament. It must then seek such clarifications as are deemed necessary.  Finally, it must ensure that India’s sovereign Parliament is not bypassed by the Executive. The basic structure of our Constitution is at stake. -- INFA

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)