debate speaker

November 29, 2021 will be remembered as a dark day in the history of parliamentary democracy in India. On that day, its Speaker Om Birla, the custodian of the rights of the Lok Sabha, struck the fabric of the House with a major blow. Historically and constitutionally, Parliament is not a legislative machine. This is the great discovery of the nation.

In Britain and India, debate takes place long before the law. The special thing is that the commotion was well planned. Hours before the House meeting, Prime Minister Narendra Modi laid down the law in the same words that the Speaker had used in his rule. The BJP members dutifully said the same thing in the Business Advisory Committee meeting held sometime before the House.

holding the house for ransom

The Agricultural Laws Repeal Bill, 2021, seeks to repeal three controversial agricultural laws. Agriculture Minister Narendra Singh Tomar introduced the bill for “consideration” and adoption, which means after debate. This was corroborated by his attacks on the “hypocritical attitude” of the opposition. The opposition had the right to refute it but it was denied this right.

The Speaker ruled, “I will allow discussion only when the House is in order”. The Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Lok Sabha do not confer on him any right or power to pay ransom to the House unless such assurance is given in the advice. No self respecting opposition will accept it. The rules give him enough power to enforce the order after it has been interrupted.

The Minister empowered himself to decide that there was no need for debate as there was a consensus on repeal of the three Acts. this is absurd. The Acts were yet to be discussed. As pointed out by the All India Kisan Sabha, all three Acts did not include safeguards to prevent profiteering and monopolies by corporates and private entities. The opposition was denied the right to move amendments to the repeal bill. The minister went further. He said a debate would not have any concrete result. For example, why then debate foreign policy? Wasn’t the House entitled to move amendments to the legal guarantee for the minimum support price?

The Rules of Procedure have been drafted to ensure a free debate and not suppress it. There is not a single rule or standing order which empowers the Speaker to act like Mr. Birla. To begin with, consider rule 362(1): “At any time after a motion has been made, any member may move that the question be moved, and unless it appears to the Speaker that the motion is made in these If there is an abuse of rules or infringement of the right of reasonable debate, the Speaker will move that the question should now be put.” Cannot be closed without prior debate.

Rule 363(1) states: “Whenever the debate on a motion in respect of a Bill or any other motion becomes unduly long, the Speaker, after taking the opinion of the House, shall set a time limit for the conclusion of the discussion.” may decide. at any stage or all stages of the Bill or motion, as the case may be”. It is the “spirit of the House”, not the opinion of the Speaker, that governs.

Powers of Speaker

The Speaker has sufficient power to suppress disorderly behaviour. But after that, the house is the master. It can cancel the Speaker (Rule 374A). The Speaker can adjourn the House or adjourn the sitting. The Speaker has no right to refuse debate unless a commitment is made to good conduct in the future.

Debates are for the upliftment of the people and are, in turn, influenced by public opinion. As Ivor Jennings wrote in his classic on Parliament, “It is not the control of government by the House, but the fact that its dislike often represents an electoral dislike that makes the debate important.”

“Disruption is a normal part of the parliamentary process”, Jennings wrote. Rules of Procedure provide exactly what Erskine May’s parliamentary exercise determines. In case of serious disorder, the Speaker can adjourn the House or adjourn the sittings. He cannot stipulate good behavior as a condition of debate.

What happens in our Parliament is nothing compared to the “nuisance” in the House of Commons that Philip Norton referred to many times on 7 July 1990. Nevertheless, he warned that “limiting the debate capacity of the House is to defeat the original purpose of the institution, and therefore undermine support for the system of government.”

Parliamentarians should prepare a documentary statement of their rights and the people they represent, based on India’s rules of procedure on the matter and the UK, Canada and Australia rules. In fairness, the Speaker should most respectfully be invited to indicate the rule under which he acted on November 29, 2021.

AG Noorani is a constitutional expert