REWIND
New Delhi, 26 October
2023
The People’s Right To Information
By Inder Jit
(Released on 7 August 1984)
Ignorance continues to abound in
regard to Parliament, its constitution, practices, procedures and privileges.
Thirty-four years as a sovereign democratic Republic seem to have failed to
inform and educate our leaders and public adequately. Even members of
Parliament have of late spoken in astonishing terms. Not a few inside
Parliament and outside have described the current session of the Lok Sabha as “the
last session of Parliament.” True, the present Lok Sabha is now approaching the
close of its five-year term meet for its winter session in November. (Contrary
to reports, no firm decision has yet been taken about the date of the next
general election. Mrs Gandhi, it appears, prefers to play it by the ear.) But
the Lok Sabha is not Parliament, notwithstanding the fact that it is directly
elected. Parliament is also not the two Houses -- the Lok Sabha and the Rajya
Sabha. Parliament, according to the Constitution, consists of three elements:
the President, the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha. No single entity, by itself,
is Parliament.
Equally, the basic concept of a
parliamentary form of Government is still not understood, even among our
parliamentarians. The system provides for an orderly form of government by
discussion and debate. As Leo Amery wrote in Thoughts on the Constitution, “the
main task of Parliament is still what it was when first summoned, not to
legislate or govern but to secure full discussion and ventilation of all
matters.” Parliament is essentially a critical forum or, as described by Lloyd
George, “the sounding board of the nation” which derives its influence from its
ability to speak to and to speak for the people. Yet, thanks to an unfortunate
failure of leadership on both sides of the two Houses --- the Lok Sabha and the
Rajya Sabha - parliamentary form of Government in India is fast becoming a
Government not by debate and discussion in the true sense of the term but a Government
by speeches or, more appropriately, a government by “bhashans”. There is
less and less of orderly give and take. Even accepted norms of conduct and
parliamentary niceties patiently sought to be promoted by Nehru -- have fallen
by the wayside.
Most discussions in the Lok Sabha
and with speeches from the two sides with little of the cut and thrust of a
vigorous debate, except on rare occasions. Nehru graciously yielded whenever
any Opposition member sought to interrupt him in the course of his reply to a
debate to elicit a clarification or information. No MP of the ruling party was
permitted, much less encouraged, by Nehru, who spent long hours in the House,
to heckle or shout down Opposition members. Nothing of the kind happens any
more, especially where the Prime Minister is concerned. Mrs Gandhi appears less
and less inclined to be interrupted to offer explanations or clarifications as
at her Press conferences. (Remember, Mrs Gandhi, at her Press conferences,
allows one question one person to give an opportunity to the largest number of
newsmen. This procedure, however, bars alert and probing newsmen from following
up with searching supplementaries.) The “halla” (shouting) groups Congress-I
members make things easier for Mrs Gandhi, even before she has time to say “no”.
Parliament and through it the
country stand to gain in any give and take in a debate. The MPs themselves
benefit, as in the recent stage case involving Prof Madhu Dandwate and Mr Rajiv
Gandhi at one stage and Mr Indrajit Gupta and Mr Rajiv Gandhi at another in the
Lok Sabha discussion on Punjab. Both Prof Dandwate and Mr Gupta gracefully
yielded to Mr Rajiv Gandhi when the latter sought an opportunity to clarify
that he had never described Bhindranwale as a religious leader and had, in
fact, strongly criticised him. Dandwate and Mr Gupta added to their
parliamentary stature by upholding the best parliamentary norm and yielding to
Mr Gandhi. And Rajiv Gandhi, for his part, not only set the record straight but
impressed one and all with his unsuspected ability to cross swords with
seasoned parliamentarians tactfully ---reminding many Parliament watchers of
his father, the late Feroze Gandhi, one of free India’s most effective
parliamentarians. Interestingly, Mr. Rajiv Gandhi, who has a rich voice like
his father’s, sits close to where Feroze Gandhi adorned the non-official
benches.
Alas, the Opposition is even more at
fault. It often fails to play its role and, in the bargain, makes things easier
for the Treasury benches. Nothing illustrates this more than the debate on the
scandalous and painful happenings in Kashmir. Both Mr George Fernandez, Janata,
and Mr Ram Jethmalani, Bharatiya Janata Party, made powerful speeches and
blasted both the Centre and the Governor for the havoc played in Srinagar.
Unfortunately, however, both were missing when the new Home Minister, Mr P.V.
Narasimha Rao, wound up the discussion even if he did so late in the evening in
a debate which seemed to go on interminably. With what result? Mr Narasimha Rao
was able to get away with blue murder on some basic issues through a slick
impressive presentation. In fact, Mr Narasimha Rao was even able to say that
the Opposition had little interest in principles. Said he: “Mr Nar Bahadur
Bhandari, Congress- I Chief Minister in Sikkim, was dismissed. But he went
unwept and unhonoured”. None from the Opposition challenged his tongue-in-the-cheek
statement.
That, however, is only one bit. The
Opposition has been behaving astonishingly even otherwise against its own
interest. It has, at least, twice in the current session demanded suspension of
the Question Hour. Mercifully, the Speaker, Mr Bal Ram Jakhar, overruled the
demand. Clearly, the Opposition wanted to emphasize the importance it gave to
the Kashmir developments in proposing a virtual adjournment motion on the
opening day. But in doing so they allowed their better judgment to run away
with their anger over the happenings --- and their desire to demonstrate their
support for Dr Farooq Abdullah. The Question Hour is in
many ways the most important hour for the Opposition and the back-benchers on
both sides of the House and has even been described by some experts as the “sacred
hour”. The Government under the Constitution, as we all know, is responsible to
Parliament. The Question Hour translates this to reality in practice and
ensures the Government’s accountability. It has also been described as the
hyphen that links Parliament to the Government.
Undoubtedly, the Question Hour is
the most powerful instrument available to the Opposition and, indeed, to all
private members belonging to the ruling party. It enshrines Parliament’s right
to know and through it the people’s right to information. The Question Hour in
its present form is unique and is practised at present only in Britain and
India. It is a part of the daily sittings of the House. Yet it is set apart as
an hour itself because Parliament’s first prerogative is to get information. It
is held from 11 to 12 noon and precedes the “zero hour” -- or what is called
the Public Business in Commons. Since the Question Hour entitles the private
members to put questions on anything which comes within the framework of
Government or national activities, the rules of the House ensure that the
Government does not find an excuse to avoid questions or to conveniently slip
out of the dock. The rules provide that there “shall’ be a Question Hour. In
Britain, too, it comes right at the beginning.
The Question Hour serves two other
purposes. It provides back-benchers with an opportunity to probe the
intelligence and honesty of senior Ministers, even the Prime Minister. It is an
occasion which all members may enjoy and benefit from. There is likely to be
something for everyone without having to listen to long speeches. It also needs
to be remembered that a Minster personally handles very few of the day-to-day
decisions which are taken by his civil servants in his name. These decisions
are, of course, made in a way which the official thinks conforms to ministerial
policy. A question about one of these decisions brings the case on to the
Minister’s desk. The decision may have been taken at quite a low level in the
department. It now is looked at by the senior members of the department -- the
Secretary as well as the Minister. But the fact that the Minister has to give
the answer in a full House and to be prepared for supplementaries helps in
keeping him on his toes.
The crucial importance of the right
to information is not adequately appreciated. The right to information carries
the right to question and, by implication, to control and direct. An interesting story comes to mind
and deserves to be retold. Winston Churchill is said to have asked Lord
Mountbatten only one question when the latter sought his advice about whether
or not he should accept Governor-Generalship of India following independence: “Would
you have the right to information?” When Mountbatten replied yes, Churchill
said; “Fine. Go ahead.” India’s President enjoys the same right. Alas, however,
it has seldom been exercised. Rajen Babu, India’s first President, is known to
have exercised it. But he ceased to do so when he discovered that it was
beginning to sour his relations with Nehru. Mr B.D. Jatti, as Acting President,
exercised it in 1978 and created a sensation and a major problem for the Janata
Government which then wanted him to sign an ordinance to dismiss nine State
Governments.
Parliament’s right to information
has enabled members over the years to bring to light through questions some
sensational scandals in Government’s functioning. Prominent among these have
been the Jeep scandal, the Mundhra affair which led to the resignation of T.T.
Krishnamachari as Finance Minister, the Serajuddin case which led to the exit
of K.D. Malaviya from the Cabinet, the Tulmohan Ram affair and, lately, the Kuo
oil deal. During the British regime, S. Satyamurthi of the Congress Party, for
instance, became a terror through his probing questions. All in all, both the
Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha may not have the power to bend or break the Government,
especially where it has a two-thirds majority. But it has the power to
influence the Government by exposing its weaknesses and acts of omission and
commission. This is vital if one remembers that the ultimate power in our
democratic system rests with the people through the ballot box. Parliament has a key role. But this role needs to be fully
grasped and exploited.---INFA
(Copyright, India News & Feature
Alliance)
|