Retail FDI not to be problematic for majority govt: Expert

As the much anticipated multi-brand retail FDI reform is set to gather votes at the winter session of parliament, the opposition is up in arms and is ready to play spoilsport. While the BJP is trying to corner the government over FDI in retail, the Communist party yesterday gave a notice demanding a debate followed by a vote on the issue.

The BJP and Trinamool Congress are likely to back the move. UPA ally DMK is sitting on the fence and party supremo Karunanidhi was non-committal on backing the government over FDI in retail. Subhash Kashyap, constitutional expert believes as long as the matter is not tabled at the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, the situation is quite hypothetical and an outcome cannot be predicted. According to him, so long as the government enjoys a majority hold at the parliament, passing a motion in their favour should not be a cause of concern. Here is the edited transcript of the interview on CNBC-TV18 Q: Government seems to be finding itself on a sticky wicket. Rules have been invoked for discussion and voting on the multi-brand retail FDI policy. Let's take into account a hypothetical situation where both the houses vote against multi-brand retail FDI policy. If this happens, are we to understand that the government will have to retract the multi-brand retail FDI reform, what really could happen if both houses vote against it?
A: It is very hypothetical and even a hypothetical question can be answered if you precisely frame it in a particular form. Supposing the motion says this house is of the opinion that the government should reconsider the policy with regard to FDI and supposing it is passed by the house, it means that the government is required to reconsider its decision. If the motion is worded that the house totally disapproves of the policy of FDI and the government must not enter into it, then it would mean something different.
It depends upon how the motion is worded. It can also be worded that this house takes note of the announcement and views it with great anguish. So, it will depend upon how it is worded and if it is passed it would amount to expression of the view of the house. Q: Now that notices have been served, can you briefly tell us the parliamentary process that gets followed? What really is going to happen next?
A: Notices have been given. It is entirely upto the speaker to admit one of the notices. If there are several notices on the same subject, then only one is to be admitted and the speaker is guided by the rules of admissibility. On the basis of those rules, the speaker will consider the motions which have to be admitted. If all the three are in acceptable form, whichever has been received earlier will be considered. Q: If the speaker decides to allow the notices, will it not set a precedent of sorts? Will it then not lead to political parties dragging executive decisions to the floor of the parliament, opening up a whole host of issues to deal with?
A: Parliament is supreme, parliament is above the executive. In fact, in a parliamentary system, the executive is part of parliament. There is nothing wrong in the parliament taking a decision or giving a directive to the government so far as the theory goes.
So long as the government has majority support in the house you would not normally think of a decision which is against the government. So long as the government of the day commands clear majority support in the house, it is not conceivable that the house will take a decision which is entirely against the government.