Political Diary
New Delhi, 8 October 2011
Speaker’s Role
SERVANT NOT MASTER
OF HOUSE
By Poonam I Kaushish
The theatre of the absurd or the comedy of errors? How
should one describe the shameful, unparallel and violence witnessed last week
in the J&K Assembly. All over the Speaker disallowing the Opposition PDP’s
adjournment motion on an NC worker’s “mysterious death” resulting in senior PDP
leaders hurling abuses and a pedestal fan at the Speaker. Worse, an angry
Speaker retaliated by accusing the Opposition leader of being a traitor and
hurling invectives, only to apologies later. But the damage was done.
The Goa Assembly too witnessed unsavory scenes when the
Speaker refused to allow table the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) report on
the Rs 4000 crore illegal mining scam in the Assembly on the facetious plea, “I
have not read it.” The report indicts several Congress MLAs’ including the
Chief Minister.
Importantly, these incidents once again highlight falling
standards in conducting legislative business in Assemblies and portray a
serious danger to the future of the Parliamentary democracy in the country.
They also bring into sharp focus the Speaker’s role and powers both in the Lok
Sabha and Assemblies. And, the need to clearly define these.
Especially against the backdrop that these occurrences are
nothing new. Times out of number over the past six decades instances of a
Speaker being deeply involved in active and playing partisan politics is more a
rule rather than an exception. In 1975, Mrs. Gandhi brought the Lok Sabha
stature down by appointing Speaker G.S. Dhillon, a Minister in her Cabinet,
undermining both the prestige and the independence of the Chair.
Today, no eyebrows are raised at the Centre and States when
MP-MLAs-Speaker roles are inter-changed at a drop of a hat. Whereby, ruling
Party Ministers and MPs accept Speakership only to exploit the office for
richer political dividends. Think. The present Lok Sabha Speaker Meira Kumar
was a Congress MP and Minister in UPA I. As were her erstwhile predecessors,
Shivraj Patil, Sangma, Balram Jhakar et al.
More scandalous is the situation in the States. Whereby, it
is increasingly difficult to keep track of Minister’s becoming Speaker’s and
vice versa. In Goa former Chief Minister
Pratap Rane is the Speaker and in J&K Lone, a confidant of Chief Minister
Omar Abdullah presides over the Assembly.
Confided a former Lok Sabha Speaker: “We are elected on
Party tickets with Party funds. How can we claim independence? Moreover, even
if we resign on becoming the Speaker, we would still have to go back to the
same Party for sponsorship for the next election.” The recent exception being
Somnath Chatterjee. After the CPM withdrew support to the Congress-led UPA I
over the Indo-US nuclear deal, Chatterjee refused to vacate the Speaker’s chair
and vote against the Government.
Bringing things to such a pass that the Speaker seems to
have acquired a “larger than life image and role”, so like a school teacher
whereby he has become the primus entre
peri. A kind of a demi-God who can do no wrong, and whose actions are
unquestionable. Forgotten in the quintessential position, is the fact that the
Speaker who is essentially the servant of the House has fast become its master,
thanks to the rules of procedure.
True, the rules of procedure give the Speaker absolute
discretion to decide on all issues, be it deciding the admissibility of a
question, admitting an adjournment motion, deciding on Committee reports or
mundane things like who should speak and for how long etc. In fact, he enjoys
greater power than any other Speaker world-wide.
Sadly, the Speakers’ approach to important issues ignores
much that is expected of him in accordance with time-honoured conventions.
Recall, his extraordinary power was given by the founding fathers of the
Constitution to guide the proceedings of the House effectively in the formative
period and to help build healthy conventions and a strong Opposition in the
best national interest without whom, according to Erskine May, “the House has
no Constitutional existence.”
Added Nehru in 1958: “The Speaker represents the House, its
dignity and freedom….because the House represents the nation, in a particular
way the Speaker becomes the symbol of the nation’s freedom and liberty. …his
should be an honoured and free position occupied always by men of outstanding
ability and impartiality.”
India’s first Speaker Mavalankar set the
tone. He not only was strict in admitting adjournment motions but he once
allowed an adjournment motion against then Home Minister Sardar Patel to
discuss Hyderabad Prime Minister Mir Naik Ali’s escape from India. Unimaginable
today.
If truth be told, we have not understood the basic concept
of Parliamentary democracy which is Government by discussion in Parliament to
serve the best interest of the nation, not any one Party. Whereby, both
Government and Opposition have to compromise and accommodate. The Government’s
prerogative is to bring legislation but the Opposition has the right to
initiate discussions of its choice and forward bills. In UK, this right
is conceded fully to the Opposition and exercised by it.
Pertinently, the power of adjournment vests in the House of
Commons and not in the Speaker as in India who enjoys total discretion
to admit a motion. The Commons consequently adjourns on a formal motion at the
end of each sitting. This provides the Opposition an opportunity to bring
forward an adjournment motion every day, if it so chooses, through a simple
motion to the effect: “The House adjourns to discuss… Indeed, it was viewed as
an effective device for the Opposition to raise discussions on urgent issues
agitating the public.
Interestingly, the Commons chequered history is a saga of
struggle between the House and the Speaker, once the nominee of the King, who
went all out to oblige his Lord and master. As far back in 1642, the Commons
witnessed extraordinary scenes which settled once and for all the supremacy of
the House.
When King Charles I entered the House to search and arrest
five members for high treason he asked the Speaker if he knew of the location
of these members, the Speaker, William Lenthall, replied: "May it please
your Majesty, I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place but
as the House is pleased to direct me, whose servant I am here."
Clearly, as India’s
Parliamentary system is based on the Westminster
model our Speakers need to learn a lesson and adopt the Commons approach.
Unquestionably, the House is the master of its own procedure and the Speaker no
more than its spokesman subject to its control. Article 212 provides: “The
validity of any proceedings in the legislature shall not be called in question
on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure. In the absence of the
Speaker, business could always be transacted either with the Deputy Speaker in
the Chair or by electing a Chairman.”
Undeniably, this leads to physical violence especially when
the ruling Party Assembly backs the Speaker. But there appears to be no
alternative, so long as the Speaker’s powers are not strictly defined and no
scope left for any illusion on the part of the Presiding officers.
Where does one go from here? Time to look afresh at the
Speaker’s powers establish the supremacy of the House. Not many are aware the Speaker has “no right”
to expunge anything other than what is unparliamentary or to direct that “this
will not go on record”. As it strikes at the freedom of speech guaranteed to
members. The Speaker is the servant of the House not its master! After all.
---INFA
(Copyright,
India News and Feature Alliance)
|