- When the Rajya Sabha passes a resolution with a two-thirds majority, stating it’s in the national interest for Parliament to legislate on goods and services tax or State List matters.
- During a proclamation of national emergency.
- When the legislatures of two or more states pass resolutions requesting Parliament to enact laws on a matter in the State List.
- For implementing international treaties, agreements, or conventions, such as the Geneva Convention Act, 1960, the Anti-Hijacking Act, 1982, and legislation relating to the environment.
- During the President’s Rule in a state.
- The rule states that a party should have at least 10% of the members of the House for the Speaker to recognise someone as the Leader of Opposition.
- Direction 121(1)(c) under Rule 389 of the “Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the House of People”.
- Formulated by Mr. Ganesh Vasudev Mavalankar, the first Speaker of Lok Sabha.
Rule 267 allows a Rajya Sabha member to move a motion, with the Chairman’s consent, to suspend the day’s listed business and discuss an urgent matter of national importance.
Significance of Rule 267:
- Prioritizes Urgent Issues: It enables the suspension of all scheduled business to focus on critical national concerns, highlighting their importance.
- Government Accountability: Requires the government to respond during the discussion, ensuring accountability on pressing matters.
- Rare Invocation: Used sparingly (e.g., 11 times since 1990, last in 2016 for demonetization), making its use significant for extraordinary situations.
- Chairman’s Discretion: The Chairman’s approval is crucial, and frequent rejections have made it a point of contention, reflecting its political weight.
The Rajya Sabha has been given four exclusive or special powers that are not enjoyed by the Lok Sabha:
- It can authorise the Parliament to make a law on a subject enumerated in the State List (Article 249)
- It can authorise the Parliament to create new All-India Services common to both the Centre and states (Article 312)
- A resolution for the removal of the vice president can be introduced only in the Rajya Sabha and not in the Lok Sabha (Article 67)
- If any type of emergency is proclaimed by president and approved by Rajya sabha, it remains effective even if it approved alone by Rajya sabha (If LS is dissolved or going to be dissolved within period)
The position of Rajya sabha is not as weak as the House of Lords in Britain nor as strong as Senate in America.
Aspect | Money Bill | Ordinary Bill |
Purpose | Defined by Article 110 : contains only provisions that deal with the following: Imposition or regulation of tax; Regulation of government borrowing; Custody of Consolidated Fund of India etc | According to Article 107 and Article 108, this bill is concerned with any matter other than financial subjects. |
Introduction in Parliament | Only Lok Sabha | Both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha |
President’s Recommendation | Mandatory before Lok Sabha introduction | Not necessary |
Introduction by | Minister | Minister or Private Member |
LS Speaker’s Certification | Necessary | Not needed |
Rajya Sabha’s Authority |
|
|
President’s Options on Bill | Can be rejected or approved but cannot be returned for reconsideration | Can be rejected , approved or returned for reconsideration |
Deadlock Resolution | No provision for joint sitting | Joint sitting presided by Lok Sabha Speaker |
A joint session of Parliament (Art. 108) is a special mechanism to resolve legislative deadlocks between the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha. It is convened by the President and presided over by the Speaker.
{The bills that have been passed at joint sittings are the following: 1)Dowry Prohibition Bill, 1960. 2) Banking Service Commission (Repeal) Bill, 1977. 3)Prevention of Terrorism Bill, 2002. }
Normal Occasions for Joint Sessions:
- Deadlock on Non-Money Bills: When one house passes a non-money bill and the other rejects it or fails to agree on amendments, a joint session can be called by the President.
- Bill Pending for Six Months: If a bill passed by one house remains pending for more than six months in the other house, the President can convene a joint session.
Occasions when a joint session cannot be held:
- Money bills (art 110): as the Rajya Sabha’s powers are limited in this context.
- Constitutional amendment bills (art 368): need to be separately passed by both houses with a special majority.
- Impeachment proceedings: against the President of India
- No-confidence motion: this motion applies only to the Lok Sabha.
- Approval of ordinances: Ordinances must be separately approved by both houses within six weeks of the Parliament’s reassembly.
- If he holds any office of profit under the Union or state government (except that of a minister or any other office exempted by Parliament).
- If he is of unsound mind and stands so declared by a court.
- If he is an undischarged insolvent.
- If he is not a citizen of India or has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of a foreign state or is under any acknowledgement of allegiance to a foreign state; and
- If he is so disqualified under any law made by Parliament.
Disqualification on Ground of Defection: a person shall be disqualified from being a member of Parliament if he is so disqualified on the ground of defection under the provisions of the Tenth Schedule.
Under the provision of The Representation of the People Act, 1951:
- Section 8 deals with disqualification for conviction of certain offenses.
- Section 8(1) → promoting enmity between two groups, bribery, and undue influence.
- Section 8(2) → deals with hoarding, adulteration of food or drugs, and an offense under the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
- Section 8(3) → disqualifies a convicted person who has been sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years.
- Section 9 → disqualification for dismissal for corruption or disloyalty.
- Section 10 → defines disqualification of office under Government company.
To ensure the stability of elected governments, the 52nd constitutional amendment introduced the ‘anti-defection’ law through the Tenth Schedule in 1985.
Legislators lose their seat if they:
- Voluntarily give up party membership.
- Vote/abstain contrary to party directive.
- Independent members lose seats if they join a party.
- Nominated members lose seats if they join a party after 6 months.
- Exceptions for splits/mergers if faction has 2/3 support.
The continued practice of politicians deserting parties just ahead of elections highlights the defection law’s limitations in achieving its objectives.
- Ambiguity over Merger Clause: The confusion is about the use of terms ‘Political Party’ and ‘Legislature Party’.
- Partisan actions by Speakers: Due to no time limit to decide on disqualification, delays or rushes in deciding disqualification petitions are observed. (Recent rebuke by the SC to the Maharashtra Assembly Speaker)
While the law allows wholesale defection (two-thirds party defection), retail defection is not allowed. - Exploitable loopholes:
- The defector treats disqualification as a mere detour before they return to the house by re-contesting.
- Members opt for resigning and switch parties without any penalty. → Karnataka Political Controversy
- Law infringes on the freedom of legislators to follow their conscience and stand up for the interests of their constituents.
- It does not make a differentiation between dissent and defection.
(Conclusion: As defections persist and Speakers show reluctance to act impartially, reforming the anti-defection law is imperative. Suggestions include: Redefining the merger clause, Transferring adjudicatory power from the Speaker to a credible authority, Reconsidering the clause related to the whip to safeguard the Right to Freedom of Speech of Legislators.)
Article 93 and Article 178 of the Constitution establish the office of the Speaker in Parliament and state assemblies, respectively, as the presiding officer. The Speaker serves as the guardian of the powers and privileges of members, ensuring the smooth functioning of the House and its committees.
Issues with the office of speaker
- Impartiality : In parliamentary democracies, the Speaker’s office should remain fair and impartial. However, since Speakers are usually elected to the House on a political party’s ticket, they often display bias towards their own party.
- Authority to label a bill as a Money Bill : It empowers them to exclude the Rajya Sabha/Legislative Council from scrutinizing it entirely. E.g. approval of the Aadhaar Bill, 2016 as a Money Bill
- Inability to uphold decorum : Declining productivity in Budget Sessions and the anticipation of the 17th Lok Sabha having the fewest sitting days since 1952 raise concerns about the Speaker’s ability to uphold House decorum.
- Bias in handling anti-defection cases : Speakers have the authority to disqualify MPs or MLAs on grounds of defection, but their role has been criticized for being partisan due to the lack of a time limit for action, allowing for significant discretion. Instances of delayed or rushed decisions on disqualification petitions are evident, as seen in recent cases in Maharashtra and Manipur.
- Suspension of MPs : The suspension of a substantial number of Opposition MPs casts a shadow over democratic values, raising concerns about the fair representation of diverse voices within the legislative process.
- Review of the Speaker’s Decisions : The Speaker’s decisions, governed by the Rules, are final and not open to review or appeal (except in anti-defection cases as established in the Kihoto Hollohan cases)
Suggestions to reform office of Speaker →
- Follow Britain’s model: the Speaker maintains political impartiality by resigning from their party upon election and refraining from involvement in political matters. The principle of “Once a Speaker always a Speaker” allows them to continue in office through repeated uncontested re-elections.
- Limiting the Speaker’s Role in Anti-defection Law:
- In Keisham Meghachandra Singh case, Supreme Court proposed replacing the Speaker’s role in handling disqualification petitions with a permanent Tribunal
- NCRWC: The power of disqualification of the legislators on ground of defection should lie with the Election commission and not the speaker.
- Time-bound Decisions: Implement a strict deadline for resolving defection cases to avoid undue delays.
- Declaring Money Bills : UK’s model of appointing a committee of two senior legislators to assist the speaker over the question of a money bill can be considered.
- Suspension Should be Considered as a Last Resort: The provision for suspension should adhere to the principles of fairness, due process, and the rule of law.
Jawaharlal Nehru emphasized that the Speaker embodies the dignity and freedom of the House, serving as the guardian of parliamentary democracy’s traditions. Hence, Speakers must rise above party loyalties, with the Constitution as their guiding light.
Representative democracy and parliamentary institutions have endured in India for more than seven decades. It is a great tribute to India’s democratic framework. However, in recent years there is a debate regarding the declining standards of the Indian Parliament.
Challenges | Measures Suggested |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other issues:
| Other Reforms Needed:
|
These reforms are crucial for the functioning of Parliament, allowing MPs to embrace their roles as custodians of democracy, remain accountable to their constituents, and work collectively to shape a brighter future for India.
The recent delimitation in Jammu & Kashmir (2022), under the J&K Reorganisation Act, revived the national debate on the fairness and timing of delimitation exercises, especially with a freeze on nationwide delimitation until after 2026.
Constitutional Rationale for Delimitation:
- Ensures Equitable Representation– Based on “one person, one vote” to prevent over- or under-representation in the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies.
- Mandated by the Constitution– Articles 82 & 170(3) provide for periodic delimitation after each census through a Delimitation Act passed by Parliament.
- Role of the Delimitation Commission– An independent authority headed by a retired SC judge ensures transparency and non-partisanship (Acts in 1952, 1962, 1972, 2002).
- Balance between Growth and Governance– The 42nd and 84th Amendments sought to freeze seat allocation to promote family planning and prevent punishing states with better governance.
- Upholds Electoral Federalism– Delimitation ensures a balance in representation among states, preserving the spirit of cooperative federalism.
- Protects Marginalized Groups’ Representation– Adjustments to SC/ST seats maintain proportional affirmative representation as required under Articles 330 and 332.
Practical Hurdles in Execution:
- Political Sensitivities– Southern states oppose delimitation based on the latest population data due to fears of losing representation for controlling the population effectively.
- Distorted Representation– Constituency sizes remain based on the 1971 census, leading to severe inequities in voter-to-representative ratios.
- Census Delays– With the 2021 Census postponed, the base data for delimitation is outdated, delaying execution beyond the 2026 timeline.
- Threat to Federal Balance– Delimitation could empower populous northern states, altering the federal equilibrium in Parliament.
- Electoral Uncertainty for Political Parties– Redrawing boundaries reshapes constituencies and may displace vote banks, prompting resistance from incumbents.
- Administrative Burden and Legal Disputes– Delimitation requires extensive voter list revision, polling station reallocation, and often faces legal challenges from affected regions.
Way Forward:
- Post-2026 Balanced Delimitation Framework- Ensure fair representation by adopting a weighted formula balancing population size and governance efficiency.
- Timely Census & Use of Technology- Conduct the pending Census swiftly and employ GIS-based mapping for accurate, transparent boundary demarcation.
- Federal Consultations & Legal Safeguards- Build political consensus through inter-state dialogue and strengthen the legal independence of the Delimitation Commission.
