The brand-new Parliament building was inaugurated with a lot of ceremony and fanfare inviting a lot of media attention. A large chunk of the opposition boycotted the event as they felt that the President and Vice President of India should have been part of the grand inauguration ceremony.
Three important implications of the unveiling of a new platform for deliberations of the most authentic chambers that represent the popular will of the people of the country, merit elaboration. Firstly, this important landmark in the history of Indian democracy is truly a moment of celebration. It was aimed at representing the dawn of a new phase of India’s democratic politics.
The Importance Of Consensus
Ideally, this celebration should have been marked by a consensus across the political spectrum. Such a consensus could well have been possible if a core philosophical underpinning of democratic politics – consultation rather than information, had been practised in both letter and more importantly, in spirit.
As a nation, we have been consistently maintaining that our historical roots and philosophy have been rooted in an approach of "taking along all sections of society and opinion". This has been our cultural heritage and legacy. One would have hoped that in organising an event of this significance, a process of consultation among all stake-holders had been initiated so that a sense of “ownership” for a decision on the way forward for inaugurating a new “platform for democratic deliberations” was truly in place.
The Numbers Anxieties
Secondly, the new-grand chambers for the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha provide for an expanded capacity for seating. The Lok Sabha can accommodate 888 members (its current strength is 545) and the Rajya Sabha can seat 384 members (its present strength being 250). This permits just over a one-thirds increase in the strength of the two houses of Parliament.
For quite some time now, there has been a debate on the need to increase the strength of the two houses. If this was to be taken forward there would be a major challenge that awaits us. The 84th Amendment to the Constitution mandates that this exercise could be done after 2026 based on the population figures as per the latest Census.
If the distribution of seats across the country were to be done on the basis of the latest Census figures, it would have important implications. The proportion of seats that have been reasonably successful in population control measures through the 1980s and 1990s would see a drop in their share of seats.
On the other hand, those states which have been less successful in limiting population growth would be assigned a larger proportion of seats. An important consequence would be the proportion of seats for states in South India may actually reduce and the states of North and Central India would be the key beneficiaries. Strictly going by the logic of numbers, this would be a fair requirement in a democratic polity.
Prudence On Delimitation
Yet, democracies also need to take into account political realities and their implications. Is the better route to follow the one adopted in the last delimitation exercise? The proportion of seats allotted to every state remained the same while the internal boundaries of Lok Sabha seats in each state underwent a change to ensure that there was parity in numbers within a state though there were differences across states.
As this decision on increasing the number of seats is made, would it be prudent to maintain the equilibrium across states by retaining the current percentage share of seats of each state? This would be an important decision that needs to be made and is best resolved if decisions were made on the basis of consultation, deliberation and arriving at a consensus.
No Debate, Only Disruption
Thirdly, with a new and modern Parliament building, the question arises whether the spotlight of attention should also be on the nature and quality of deliberations of the two houses. How important do members of the two houses see their role within the House in terms of participating in its deliberations?
A few facts merit attention here. For the past two years, all the sessions of the Lok Sabha have been adjourned much in advance of the scheduled day that the sessions were to conclude. In the last two years (2021 and 2022), save for the budget session, the other sessions have seen the Lok Sabha deliberating for much shorter periods of time, thanks to the repeated adjournment of the house.
In 2023, even the budget session saw a curtailment of the deliberations on account of protests and frequent disruptions of proceedings. The monsoon sessions have been the most badly hit in 2021 and 2022 with the Lok Sabha meeting for only 21 percent of the scheduled time in 2021 and 47 percent in 2022. The winter session of the Lok Sabha also saw close to one fourth of its time being lost in disruptions in 2021.
Given the above facts, the question that arises is whether the highest deliberative bodies of people’s representatives are actually making full use of the time available to them for discussing issues of concern of the electorate that they represent? A modern sophisticated chamber with state-of-the-art facilities is very much needed for the highest deliberating body of the people’s representatives. Yet, the question needs to be asked – have past records indicated that Parliament has put its time for deliberations to the best use?
If the seat of deliberative democracy is to function with vigour and vitality, we would need to address the above three questions and arrive at a meaningful and fair consensus. That would truly do justice to the new structure we have created and represents the `peak of deliberations` in our democratic polity.
Sandeep Shastri is Director, NITTE Education Trusts, Bengaluru, and National Coordinator, Lokniti Network. Views are personal, and do not represent the stand of this publication.
Discover the latest Business News, Sensex, and Nifty updates. Obtain Personal Finance insights, tax queries, and expert opinions on Moneycontrol or download the Moneycontrol App to stay updated!
