Open Forum
New
Delhi, 1 August 2019
Fast-Track Legislations
SPEED NOT HASTE NEEDED
By Dr S. Saraswathi
(Former Director, ICSSR, New Delhi)
A fresh controversy over legislative
procedure has erupted spoiling the joy over a very productive parliamentary
session, but raising an important issue. Seventeen Opposition parties wrote to Rajya
Sabha Chairman M Venkaiah Naidu accusing the government of “hurriedly passing”
legislations without any parliamentary scrutiny by either standing or select
committee. They complained that the voice of the Opposition was being
“smothered”, and pointed out that in the first session of the present Lok
Sabha, 14 Bills were passed in about 50 days without any of these being
referred to House committees.
The RS Chairman rejected the allegation as
far as it pertained to that House. During the last five sessions of his tenure,
eight out of 10 Bills first introduced in the Upper house were referred to
respective departmental committees.
The grievance is that the Opposition parties
are not given sufficient time to study the Bills to be able to suggest
amendments and get clarifications for their questions. It seems to them that
any attempt by the government “to undermine the privileges of members, and the
rules and established conventions will diminish the role of the Council of
States as envisaged by our founding fathers”.
They particularly demand that seven key Bills
presently under the consideration of Parliament should be referred to its select
committee for further scrutiny. The letter has been signed by leaders of the
Congress, TRC, SP, DMK, NCP, CPI (M), CPI, RJD, BSP, TDP, AAP, JD(S), MDMK,
IUML, PDP, and Kerala Congress.
At the background of this demand is the
passing of some crucial Bills introduced by the government. Among them is the Right
to Information (Amendment) Bill 2019, which seeks to bring in changes in the
salaries and tenures of the Chief Information Commissioner and the Information
Commissioners and placing them on a status equal to similar officials of the
Election Commission. The Bill was passed in the Lok Sabha and in the Rajya
Sabha defeating the motion moved by the Opposition to send it to a Select
Committee. Protest by Opposition parties in the well of the House, and the
remark of a Congress leader that the government had “acted in blatant disregard
of the traditions” are mainly against the legislative procedure in the
Parliament.
The Bill to replace the Companies (Amendment)
Ordinance 2019 in the Lok Sabha was opposed by several parties for introducing
the Bill without prior notice or inclusion in the list of business for the day showing
haste in enacting the law.
The Unlawful Activities Prevention
(Amendment) Bill, 2019, which allows the government to declare an individual as
a terrorist was passed in the Lok Sabha with 284 members voting for and eight against.
The Opposition walked out calling the law “draconian”. A global survey may show
that such a legal provision already exists in many countries. Opposition parties,
fearing misuse of the law against them, want its reference to a standing
committee.
Lok Sabha passed the Triple Talaq Bill to
replace the ordinance passed earlier. Suspecting the motive of the government
in introducing the “criminality” clause and pushing the legislation, the Opposition
parties demand reference to a select parliamentary committee. They perceive it
as a hasty legislation though it is being discussed for years throughout the
country.
Departmentally related statutory committees
were constituted in 1993. Their number has grown over years to reach 24 at
present. Composed with 21 Lok Sabha and 10 Rajya Sabha members, and organised
on the lines of ministries and departments like Home Affairs, Finance, Defence,
etc., they examine draft bills referred to them. They are supposed to scrutinise
the details of the contents and effects of the Bills word by word and line by
line to save Parliament’s time. But their recommendations are not binding.
Statutory committees are indispensable aid
for law-making in all democracies. Being small in size with flexible functional
arrangement and assigned a specific purpose, they are able to examine Bills
more minutely than a large assembly. They serve the twin purpose of saving Parliament’s
time and providing thorough scrutiny of issues. The importance of stakeholder
consultation to address all related issues was recently stressed by the
parliamentary committee examining the Land Acquisition Bill. But, laws are part
of politics and very often, reference to committees is a strategy to delay, postpone
and kill legislations.
All Bills undergo three readings in Parliament
as in Britain. In the second reading, a Bill may be referred to a Select
committee of the Rajya Sabha or Joint committee of the two Houses or circulated
to elicit opinion. Clause by clause scrutiny of the Bill follows after the
report of the Committee. It may be passed only on the third reading.
Despite all precautions, our legislative
enactments sometimes betray clear marks of hasty drafting and absence of
parliamentary scrutiny to the annoyance of both implementers and affected
persons. There are several examples of hasty legislations requiring amendments
in quick succession.
In this first session of Modi II government,
15 Bills have been cleared so far without reference to a standing or select
committee. Whether it is a sign of “enhanced” productivity of Parliament or “hasty
legislation” is not difficult to find out and will openly show when the laws
come into force.
Fast-tracking legislative procedure has become
necessary due to obstructive tactics often played by parties in stalling
legislations at various stages and disrupting the proceedings of the Houses for
days at a stretch upsetting the legislative programme of the elected
government.
Fast-tracking does not mean inadequate
consideration and should not be confused with hasty legislation which implies insufficient
scrutiny and indifference to details. It denotes speed, but not haste.
Fast-track legislations are common in other
countries also. The British Parliament passed The Surrogacy Arrangement Act in
1985 in a rush to meet public uproar over commercial surrogacy and made it a
criminal act. The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974,
The Criminal Justice (Terrorism and
Security) Act 1998, Anti-Terrorism,
Crime and Security Act 2001, and Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 may be cited
as fast-track legislations in Britain
necessitated to counter serious national security problems.
However, such legislations are criticised for
various reasons like constrained parliamentary scrutiny and possibility of enacting
bad and unwanted legislation. They cause undue pressure on the process of
legislation and on campaigners to convince the stakeholders. Executive
dominance is seen in fast-track legislations, which is wanted in dealing with
emergencies and long pending problems and when parliamentary Opposition is non-cooperative.
“Parliament
should never legislate at the speed at which I am proposing unless it is
convinced that there are overwhelming reasons for doing so”, said a former Secretary
of State for Justice in Britain questioning the need for speed in a case. The
Organisation for Security and Cooperation (OSCE) noted some years ago that a
good number of countries often were making hasty legislations against the media
in the interest of security.
India presently needs fast-track legislation
to make up for the loss of parliamentary time, but not hasty and half-baked
laws.---INFA
(Copyright, India
News & Feature Alliance)
|