|
Open Forum
New Delhi, 18 March 2015
Jt Session of Parliament
OF PROVISION & PRACTICE
By Dr S Saraswathi,
(Former Director, ICSSR, New Delhi)
A united front of 14 Opposition
parties took out a march to Rashtrapati Bhavan and presented a memorandum to President
Pranab Mukherjee against the Land Bill, passed by the Lok Sabha. It is intended
to stall the passing of the bill in the Rajya Sabha.
The incident is
noteworthy more for its political significance than for the Bill’s contents. Opposition
parties are not inclined to debate and improve the bill. They want to see it
defeated in the Rajya Sabha, where they have a majority and score a political
victory or force consideration of the bill by a Select Committee. This may
force the Government to seek a constitutional method of pushing the bill.
In its enthusiasm to
march fast in economic reforms that are considered absolutely necessary, the
NDA Government has proclaimed a number of ordinances. It is now facing the
problem of regularizing these by duly passing these in the two Houses of
Parliament else these will lapse at end of Budget session.
The Constitution
provides that except Money Bills, all others can originate in either Houses, but
have to be passed by both. Any amendment should also be passed by both. In the
present Parliament, the NDA has 395 members (including the Speaker) in the
total of 543 in the Lok Sabha, and 59 out of 243 in the Rajya Sabha. Its numerical weakness in the latter is a big
obstacle to its legislative ambitions. Winning Lok Sabha election is not enough
for a party or alliance to carry out its policies, it needs Rajya Sabha support.
Among the ordinances
considered most important for the next stage of economic reforms, the one on amending
the Land Law passed by the previous Government is facing bitter opposition from
many parties and by the public directly.
This law pertains to
compulsory acquisition of land by Central or State governments for government
projects, PPP projects, and private projects taken up for a “public purpose”. When the Land Law was passed in 2013 to
replace the outmoded Act of 1894 – a relic of the British Raj – Congress and
the BJP were able to cooperate. Perhaps, both had to assume people-oriented
posture on the eve of election. Once the elections were over, they have
reverted to normal time non-election politics.
The Bill was passed
with nine amendments by the Lok Sabha on 10th March. Even an ally of
the NDA, Shiv Sena abstained from voting, scared of opposition by farmers in Maharashtra and by Anna Hazare movement. Members of SAD
& LJP, allies of BJP, had some misgivings, but finally extended support. The
BJD MPs did not participate in voting. A total of 52 amendments were defeated
or were not pressed.
Both the supporters and
the opponents stick to their stand while neither is able to convince the other
the validity of their stand. Opposition
parties appear to have more faith in playing street-level politics than in
debating issues in the Parliament.
In the cases of Mines
Development & Regulation Bill and the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Bill
passed by the Lok Sabha, the Government had to concede to the demand of the
Rajya Sabha to constitute Select Committees for “detailed scrutiny” of the bills,
which would lapse by 5th April, if not passed by the Houses.
In the case of
amendment to the Land Law, the Government may consider re-promulgation of the
ordinance so that it gets another six months to obtain the support. It can convene
a Joint Session of Parliament to pass the Bill after its rejection in the Rajya
Sabha. True, the Constitution has deliberately provided for a joint session. It
is a legitimate procedure.
All bicameral Constitutions
face the problem of differences between the two Houses in their legislative
work. A way out is devised in a provision for a joint session, but it is rarely
used as an instrument for enacting a law.
A reference to the
Australian Constitution is unavoidable in discussing about “Joint Session” which
provides for joint sitting of the Senate and the House of Representatives to
overcome their differences. A deadlock is declared if a bill is rejected twice
by the Senate at an interval of at least three months after which what is
called “double dissolution election” can be held. If the new Parliament is also
unable to pass the bill, a joint sitting of the two Houses may be convened and
the bill is declared passed if voted by a majority of the total members.
In 1974, the Australian
Parliament adopted the Health Insurance Bill providing for universal healthcare
at a joint session. It also voted for Commonwealth Electoral Bill introducing
the principle of “one vote, one value”. Thereafter, this parliamentary
instrument has never been used.
In the UK, if a bill
passed by the House of Commons is blocked in the House of Lords, it can be
passed again in the Lower House and sent to Royal assent.
In France, Joint
Committee, a device used often to resolve differences between the two Houses,
can be formed to consider any bill other than constitutional bills. The bill
should have been considered three times or twice if classified as “urgent”
before a Joint Committee is formed. If this
committee also fails to arrive at a compromise, the lower House has the final
say.
So also, in Germany, Joint
Committee has been instrumental in passing many bills. In matters relating to
federal units, the upper House has the power of veto. In Canada, there
is no provision for a joint session.
The Indian Constitution
authorizes the President to call a joint meeting of the two Houses if a bill passed
by one House is rejected by the other, or the two Houses don’t agree on the
amendments proposed, or the Bill lies with the other House without being passed
for more than six months. The fate of the bill is decided by majority of the
members of the two Houses present and voting. No fresh amendments can be
brought in the joint sitting. Constitutional amendments are beyond its purview.
In the history of the
Indian Parliament, three legislations have been passed by Joint Session of Lok
Sabha and Rajya Sabha – law prohibiting dowry in 1961, Banking Commission Act
in 1978, and the POTA in 2002.
The Constituent
Assembly did not regard joint session as an ideal solution to resolve conflict
between the two Houses on any legislation. It did consider other alternatives
like providing for passage in the Lok Sabha a second time, or allowing lapse of
a prescribed time and thereafter approval by the Speaker, but rejected them.
In the present
political scenario, when party animosities overtake public interest, legislations
depend purely on the strength of numbers and not on the concept of national
interest or public good. Sadly, the members of the Rajya Sabha today represent
their parties and not the States. Hence, we face a situation not anticipated by
the authors of the Constitution. Law making has become a political contest. The
merits and de-merits of the legislations are lost in the race for mustering
support. People don’t know the real import of proposed legislations, for there
is no serious debate on the contents. The intention behind the provision for
Joint Session is erased in practice.---INFA
(Copyright, India
News and Feature Alliance)
.
|
Archives 
