Open
Forum
New Delhi, 6 January 2015
Executive
Ordinance
DECLINE
OF PARLIAMENT?
By Dr S
Saraswathi
(Former
Director, ICSSR, New Delhi)
The ordinance route laid by the UPA
governments is being followed by the NDA now, but not without criticism.
Whether the matter is big or small, or it has political implications or not,
the spirit of democracy requires that extraordinary powers are to be exercised
in extraordinary situations only and not for political convenience of the powers
that be.
Since the winter session of Parliament
that ended on 23 December 2014, the NDA Government has issued three ordinances
to push through vital economic reforms. These relate to enhancing FDI in
insurance sector, auction of coal mines, and amendment to land acquisition law.
The last, which has raised protests, is intended to ease procedure so as to
help augment infrastructure building and housing projects. One more is in the
pipeline for auction of iron ore and other minerals.
Coming immediately after the end of Parliament’s
sitting, the ordinance route raises questions over the urgency for the
legislations and the Government’s confidence on the support of Parliament to
regularize these. It also exposes the inability of the Government to conduct Parliament
to take up legislative business and prevent wastage of working time by Opposition
parties blocking proceedings.
The controversy today is a political
one about the use of ordinance-making power and not so much about the contents
of the ordinances! Strange indeed. Any ordinance will remain in force only for
six months and has to undergo the prescribed procedure for legislation in Parliament
within six weeks after convening of the session to become regular law. Otherwise, it will automatically lapse.
The Government justified the ordinance
route on the plea that it was left with no other option owing to the
“obstructionist attitude” of the Opposition defended its stand on grounds of economic
urgency.
While promulgating an ordinance, the
government must be convinced of two primary factors. One, the urgency of the situation; two, is
its confidence to push the legislation in Parliament within the stipulated time.
We can endlessly debate over these two considerations. Since the three
ordinances have come in the early stage of the new government and not at the
fag end, there is reason to believe that it is convinced of their importance
and urgency and sure of its ability to muster support to pass the laws.
But, the political controversy over
ordinance-making power, which strikes at the doctrine of “separation of powers”
– a basic principle of modern democracies – has to be separately addressed.
This power is not found in established democracies – parliamentary or presidential. Our companions in this are only Bangladesh and Pakistan -- countries which by no
stretch of imagination can be held as model democracies for emulation.
Since the constitution of the first
Lok Sabha in 1952, a total of 637 ordinances have been issued by the Union Government.
Analysts are almost unanimous that except in the ordinance on de-monetization
of rupee notes in 1,000, 5,000, and 10,000 denominations by the Congress
government headed by Narasimha Rao in the first half of 1990s, the question of
urgency could not be sustained.
At the State level, Bihar has set a record of 256 ordinances passed in 14-15
years between 1967 and 1981 of which many were re-promulgation cases. In one
instance, 50 ordinances were issued in a single day! Of the total of 256, only
189 were passed by the legislature to become law thus nullifying the validity
of the other ordinances and exposing the undemocratic nature and use of
ordinance-making power.
This power was all along used as a
tool of convenience to bypass parliamentary opposition. It started with the ordinance on
nationalization of life insurance business in 1956 by the Congress government then
headed by Jawaharlal Nehru. The then Speaker GV Mavalankar bitterly opposed it as
“inherently undemocratic”. He was also keen that the young republic should set
sound standards and traditions and not belittle the legislative role of Parliament.
Another controversial use of
ordinance-making power was made in the nationalization of banks in 1969 by the
Congress government headed by Indira Gandhi just two days before convening Parliament.
Its constitutionality was challenged in RC Cooper versus Union of India in
1970. The Supreme Court held that the need for immediate action to bypass Parliamentary
debate could be challenged in a court of law. In the case of bank
nationalization, it was held that no “immediate action” was required.
Ordinance-making power in the
Constitution is a copy of Section 72 of Government of India Act, 1935 and thus
a relic of the British Raj. Considerable protests surfaced in the Constituent
Assembly in retaining this power of the Executive in a parliamentary democracy. It was recalled that this power was
bitterly opposed by the Congress during the freedom struggle and in discussions
on constitutional reforms.
H V Kamath opposed this legislative
power of the Executive in the Constituent Assembly equating it to the
ordinance-making power of the Governor-General in the British rule. There are
two differences between the two. While the Governor-General then could issue
ordinances even when the legislature was in session, the President today cannot
when Parliament is in session. He/she cannot also act independently but is
bound to act on the advice of the Council of Ministers formed by the party or
alliance enjoying majority in Lok Sabha. This situation provides certain
legitimacy to ordinances issued to meet emergencies.
A coalition government depending on
the concurrence of all allies and a minority government carried on with
issue-based support cannot venture on ordinance route as a government of a
party with majority members in the lower House. Such a government lacking
majority in the Rajya Sabha can call a joint session of Parliament to
regularize the ordinance if it commands a majority of total members. The Modi government
has this numerical strength.
In any case, under Article 123 of
the Constitution, ordinances can be issued only during Parliament recess and
only if the President is satisfied that circumstances exist which render it
necessary for him to take immediate action. Similar is the condition for
promulgating an ordinance by States’ Governors.
However, this provision made for
meeting urgency is being used to overcome the failure to conduct Parliament proceedings.
Ordinances are being issued just before or immediately after a session making
mockery of the condition in the term “during recess”. The UPA II government
(2009-14) set a record by promulgating 25 ordinances.
The ordinance amending land
acquisition law, which had the President questioning its urgency, is intended
to balance the interests of farmers and industrial growth and has enormous
social-political implications. But, most of the Opposition parties consider the
ordinance as “anti-farmer” and are organizing protests on roads and planning to
continue agitation within Parliament during Budget session. The deletion of the clause prescribing
consent of predominant proportion of land holders before acquisition of
agricultural land is challenged as detrimental to farmers’ interests.
Ordinance route is rather dangerous
when Opposition presents views that deserve a debate. Parliament couldn’t be conducted peacefully
is no excuse. The nation cannot watch the decline of Parliament. The Party that
has won huge majority by sheer hard work can and must find ways to befriend Opposition
parties to promote national interests and establish a strong culture of running
a government with the consent and support of the Opposition. ---INFA
(Copyright,
India News & Feature Alliance)
.
|