REWIND
New Delhi, 21 July
2022
SERVANT OF
THE HOUSE, NOT MASTER
By Inder
Jit
(Released
on 25 August 1981)
Parliament's
eagerly-awaited monsoon session got off expectedly to a stormy start, Visitors
who crowded the public galleries in the Lok Sabha got their money's-worth, so
to say, on the opening day and during the week. The Treasury benches and the
Opposition clashed repeatedly amid tumult and shouting. At one stage, even Mr
Jagjivan Ram was provoked to jump to his feet and protest. Interestingly, both
sides of the House appear to be quite pleased with the outcome of the first
week. The government is happy that the Opposition failed to come together in
time and push it into the dock through a motion of no confidence. The
Opposition is pleased with the headlines it was able to catch by its walk-out
on Ordinance Raj and on the Garhwal poll. But veteran observers and some
thinking MPs are far from happy. They see the Lok Sabha facing a new challenge
to its supremacy -- this time from within the House itself. The Speaker is
essentially the servant of the House. But he is fast becoming its master,
thanks to the rules of procedure.
Expectedly, the
Opposition came forward on the opening day with adjournment motions reflecting
strong public feeling over spiralling prices, the recent hike in the rates of
petroleum products and the scandalous happenings in the Garhwal by-election to
the Lok Sabha. However, all these motions were summarily rejected by the
Speaker, Mr Bal Ram Jakhar, barring one which related to railway accidents. An
adjournment motion is intended to enable the Opposition to raise a matter of
urgent public importance by interrupting the regular business of the House. But
the Speaker ignored all pleadings of the Opposition and firmly ruled:
"Adjournment motions are going to be disallowed or accepted by me. That is
my discretion and I am going to use it." On Tuesday, the Speaker again
asserted his right to sit in judgement over adjournment motions and said:
"I know my job." When Mr Jyotirmoy Bosu referred to the practice in
the Commons and argued that the Speaker was forcibly shutting out a discussion
on the Garhwal poll, Mr Jakhar rule: "You may say the rule is like this. I
say the rule is like this."
There is no
gainsaying the fact that the rules of procedure give the Speaker absolute
discretion to admit an adjournment motion or not. However, experts feel that
the speaker's approach during the past week ignores much that is expected of
him in accordance with time-honoured conventions. The Speaker in India enjoys
under the rules greater power than any other Speaker. But this extraordinary
power was given to him by Nehru and other founding fathers of the Constitution
for a purpose: 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. In particular, they wanted the Speaker to be
able to protect the minority in the House from being steam-rollered by the
brute majority. Mavalankar as the first
Speaker was strict in admitting adjournment motions. But incredible as may seem
in today's India he allowed once an adjournment motion against Sardar Patel,
then Home Minister, to discuss the escape of Mir Laik Ali, Prime Minister of
Hyderabad, from India.
Thirty-four years
have rolled by since India attained freedom, sadly, however, the basic concept
of Parliamentary democracy is still not adequately understood. Parliamentary democracy is Government by discussion
and Parliament is there to serve the best interest of the nation, not of any
one party. Both the Government and the Opposition have equally important roles
to play --- and to show a certain willingness to compromise and accommodate. It
is undoubtedly the Government’s prerogative to initiate legislation and other
official business. But the Opposition also has the right to initiate
discussions of its choice and also bring forward bills. This right is not only
conceded fully to the Opposition in Britain but actively exercised by it. The
power of adjournment vests in the House of Commons and not in the Speaker as in
India. 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….”
Unlike in India, the
Commons is not at the mercy of the Speaker for the admission of such motions.
These are admitted when a minimum number of members ask for a discussion. In
India too, an adjournment motion has to have the support of at least fifty MPs
to get the leave of the House. But the Speaker enjoys the discretion initially
to admit the motion or not. This right has often been exercised arbitrarily as
the adjournment motions have over the years come to be viewed as some kind of a
houaa to be shunned. True, adjournment motions acquired an inbuilt
element of censure in the Central Assembly in the pre-independence days since
there was no scope then for a motion of no-confidence. But these motions need
not be viewed so any more. Instead, they should be seen as an effective device
for the Opposition to raise discussions on urgent issues agitating the public.
The Government may have a two-thirds majority in the Lok Sabha today. But let
it be remembered that the Opposition together polled over 56 per cent of the
votes cast in the last general election.
The House enjoys
supremacy over the Speaker and there is no scope for any confusion in the
matter. In 1967, the Speaker of the West Bengal Assembly, Mr Bijoy Bannerji,
paralysed the State legislature by arbitrarily adjourning the House. Not long
thereafter in 1968, the Speaker of the Puniab Assembly, Mr Joginder Singh Mann,
too created an unprecedented situation by adjourning the House, taking
advantage of the rules. Both, however, went beyond the established conventions
under which the House and not the Speaker is the master. This is borne out by
the long and chequered history of the Commons which in many ways is a saga of
the struggle between the House and the Speaker, once the nominee of the King,
who went all out to oblige his lord and master. India's Parliamentary system is
based on the British pattern and there is, Indeed, hardly a situation which is
without a parallel in the history of the Commons. In fact, as far back as March
2, 1629, the Commons witnessed some extraordinary scenes, which settled once
and for all the supremacy of the House.
These happenings
deserve to be recalled in the light of what transpired in West Bengal and in
Punjab --- or might come to pass again in some states or at the centre.
According to the Office of Speaker, when the Commons reassembled after the
recess, the Speaker rose to his feet immediately after prayers had been read
and informed the members that His Majesty had ordered a further adjournment until
March 10. There were cries of 'No' from all sides of the House and Sir John
Eliot rose to speak. But the Speaker, remaining on his feet, informed the House
that the King ‘had laid an absolute command upon him, that the House should be
presently adjourned without any speech or other proceedings, and that if any
House did offer to speak after the message was delivered, he should instantly
leave the Chair.’ The Speaker then made to move away from the Chair, but for
the long suffering Commons, this was too much. Holles and valentine jumped up,
grabbed him and thrust him back into the Chair, remaining at his side for the
remainder proceedings, Holles swearing that ‘by God's wounds he should still
until they pleased to rise.’
Eliot then spoke,
asserted the right of the House to adjourn itself, and tendered a declaration
which he had prepared with the request that it be bread. The Speaker again
tried to leave the Chair, pointing out that the Commons had in the past always
obeyed a Royal Command that they should adjourn, which was quite true. But
Valentine and Holles held him down and insisted that Eliot's Declaration should
be read. Abjectly the Speaker pleaded with the House not to press him…. But all
that this plea induced was a torrent of censure. One member proposed that Finch
(Speaker) should be replaced... Eliot asserted that he was in contempt of the
House and threatened to bring him to the Bar and have him judged a delinquent.
Eventually, “Holles, determined that members should not disperse before the
resolutions contained in Elliot’s declaration had been put to them, delivered
them from memory and put them to the vote. They were carried by the House which
then voted its own adjournment."
The House is
unquestionably the master of its own procedure and the Speaker is no more than
its spokesman and subject to its control. Our Constitution recognizes this and
Article 212 provides that "the validity of any proceedings in the
Legislature shall not be called in question on the ground of any alleged
irregularity of procedure." Thus both in West Bengal and in Punjab the
Assembly members would have been within their right to stay put in the House'
(or to break into the locked chamber) and physically hold the Speaker in the
Chair. In the absence of the Speaker, business could always be transacted
either with the Deputy Speaker in the Chair or by electing a Chairman. There is
no doubt a danger of physical violence in this procedure -- especially where a
section of the 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. (The week
also witnessed protests in the Rajya Sabha against certain decisions of the
Deputy Chairman.)
Where does one go
from here? Experts are agreed that a fresh look needs to be taken at the powers
of the Speaker in the light of experience and supremacy of the House
established. An acknowledged authority asserts that the Speaker has "no
right" to Expunge anything other than what is unparliamentary or to direct
that this will not go on record." This, he adds strikes at the freedom of
speech guaranteed to members. Some of these matters are not new and were once
considered by the All India Whips' Conference. In fact, according to experts,
there should be no difficulty in amending the rules appropriately and among
other things, to provide for a weekly allotment of time for the Opposition.
(The latter almost came to be accepted in 1974.) Ultimately, two things must be
assured. First, the Opposition must have adequate opportunity to initiate
discussions on subjects of its choice. Second, the position of the House vis a
vis the Speaker must be made clear once and for all, as was sought to be done
by the All India Speakers’ Conference in April 1968. The Speaker is the servant
of the House, not its master!
(Copyright, India
News and Feature Alliance)
|