Reimagining Parliamentary Democracy in India | P. Sakthivel

The idea of a vibrant, independent, and accountable Parliament is central to making democracy work more meaningfully and purposefully. In a parliamentary democracy like India, the responsibilities, roles, and functions of Parliament increase manifold. One of the biggest achievements in India, immediately after attaining independence, was the establishment and institutionalisation of Parliament and other State legislative bodies.
In a parliamentary democracy, the executive derives its legitimacy from the legislative body, such as the Parliament or State Assembly and remains accountable to it. The government is composed of elected officials, with the Prime Minister generally selected from the majority party within Parliament. This system guarantees that the executive is accountable to the legislature and, by extension, to the citizens. The Parliament holds the responsibility of being answerable and accountable to the citizens for its operations, decision-making processes, and the governance of the country. It is obligated to maintain transparency, uphold democratic principles, and address public concerns through well-informed discussions, legislative measures, and policies that reflect the will of the people.

IN INDIA, THE parliamentary democratic system was adopted after a comprehensive debate among our visionary and sagacious national leaders, who were at the forefront of our long-drawn struggle for freedom. The members of the Constituent Assembly adopted the Constitution with the conviction that it best suited Indian ethos, culture, and the specificities of our nation, while the world around us expressed skepticism about our ability to operate a democratic system successfully. [1] The decision to adopt a parliamentary system of government for free India was a well-considered one. The makers of the Indian Constitution were convinced that, given India’s pluralism and heterogeneity, only the parliamentary system could hold the country together while allowing its diverse communities to coexist harmoniously.

The Lok Sabha has been one of the most important pillars of Indian democracy and is a a key institution for holding the government accountable and to provide a progressive legislative framework. [2] The responsibility for providing direction, momentum, and institutions for social engineering has rested with India’s Parliament. [3]

Constitutional authorities, for instance Sir William Blackstone, consider the law-making powers of Parliament as the true index of parliamentary sovereignty. Furthermore, he states that Parliament has ‘sovereign and uncontrollable authority in making, confirming, enlarging, restraining, abrogating, repealing, reviving, and expounding laws concerning matters of all possible denominations – ecclesiastical or temporal, civil, military, maritime, or criminal.’ [4]

India’s Constitution provides a strong institutional foundation for democracy by defining the distribution of powers among the three branches of government. Among these, Parliament has played the most significant role in strengthening and consolidating democracy, as noted by former Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee. Notably, independent India’s first Parliament dedicated the highest proportion of its sittings to legislative work. In its early years, Parliament carried out its responsibility of shaping social policies with great diligence, gaining public trust and respect.

Since 1978 however, forced adjournments, deadlocks in parliamentary proceedings and the loss of valuable time in Parliament caused by interruptions, Bills, including financial bills, are often passed without proper debate and discussion. Several bills have been pending before the Parliament and State legislatures for more than ten years, awaiting approval. Over the years, there has also been a drastic decline in the number of sittings of both houses of Parliament. Fewer private member bills have been introduced, debated, and passed in Parliament. The suspension of opposition MPs and the hijacking of entire parliamentary sessions by one or two issues, often insignificant to the general public, have once again sparked public debate on the need to revisit and restore the glory of parliamentary democracy in India.

The Data Speaks Volumes

Before the 1990s, each Lok Sabha typically convened for over 550 days on an average, totaling around 3,500 hours. However, in the post-1990 period, an average Lok Sabha has met for only 245 days, spanning less than 1,800 hours, almost half the time needed for deliberations. The 17th Lok Sabha (2019-2024) had the dubious distinction of holding the fewest sittings. [5] A similar trend can be observed in State legislatures. The average number of sittings of State legislative houses have also gradually declined. For instance, the Uttar Pradesh Assembly met for an average of 47 days from the 1960s to the mid-1980s; saw a decline to about 30 days by the turn of the century and is now just 22 days. However, in the case of Punjab, the number of sittings has been low since 1966, when the State was formed. The highest number of sittings was 42 in 1967, while the lowest, just 11 sittings, occurred in 1971, 1985, and 2021. In the last decade, the average number of sittings was just 15. The average number of sittings of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly during the period 2012–2021 was only 32 days. In Tamil Nadu, during the periods 1955 to 1975, the average number of annual sitting of the houses was about 56 days; in the 1975-1999 period it declined to 51 days and in the period since 2000 it has fallen to 37 days per year .As for Andhra Pradesh, it was 21.5 days during the same period. The averages for some other States were as follows: Jharkhand – 22.7 days, Rajasthan – 27.2 days, Gujarat – 31.2 days, Chhattisgarh – 31.3 days, and Bihar – 33.7 days. Odisha had the highest number of sittings among all State legislatures, with an average of 46 days during the same period. [6]

The available data show, there has also been a substantial decline in the time spent on discussing the Union Budget, Ministry-wise demands, and the Finance Bills, from around 120 hours annually before 1990 to a mere 35 hours post-1990. Notably, ministry-wise demands have been passed without discussion only five times since 1952 –- and all of them after 1999.

Global Democratic Benchmarks

While analysing the sessions of various parliaments across the world, it is evident that they meet for an average of at least 150 days over their tenure. The US House of Representatives was in session for 163 days in 2020 and 166 days in 2021, while the Senate, the upper house of the US Congress, sat for 192 days in both years. Similarly, the UK House of Commons had 147 sittings in 2020, in line with its yearly average of about 155 over the previous decade. Japan’s Diet, or House of Representatives, meets for 150 days a year, apart from any extraordinary or special sessions. It is also worth mentioning Germany’s Bundestag, where it was mandatory for members to attend the sessions of the House for at least 104 days in 2022.

As far India is concerned, the Constitution does not prescribe a minimum number of sittings. [7] According to article 174 of Indian Constitution, ‘the Governor shall from time to time summon the House or each House of the Legislature of the State to meet at such time and place as he thinks fit, but six months shall not intervene between its last sitting in one session and the date appointed for its first sitting in the next session’.

Decreasing Debates and Questions

Raising questions in Parliament and State Legislatures is both a right and a paramount duty of elected representatives. One of the most interesting aspects of parliamentary democracy is the Question Hour and Zero Hour, during which questions are raised by members, debated, discussed and draw the attention of the members of the house and it helps in creating public opinion in favour of various laws and regulations and issues that impact the public. However, during the rule of the present government, this option is not widely utilised by Members of Parliament. Except for a very few MPs and MLAs, the majority do not raise questions or actively participate in debates and discussions in the House and their contribution to further strengthening parliamentary democracy in India is not heard. This has happened only once before, in the mid 1970s.

Many of the Opposition MPs who have been expelled or suspended from Parliament on several occasions since 2014, have had a strong track record of raising quality questions and meaningfully participating in debates and discussions. Some of them have had more than 90 per cent attendance in the House and actively participated in debates, exceeding the national average of members’ participation in house activities. They have addressed vital national issues, including unemployment, social welfare schemes, inflation, national security issues, amendments, budget discussions, infrastructure development, communal situation, federalism related issues, flood relief etc. The Hindu, dated 26 January 2024 (p.10), reported that a MP from Bihar, who was expelled from the house, had 97 per cent attendance in the House, raised 347 questions and introduced six private member bills. These included legislative reforms such as the Prevention of Torture Bill, 2022, and the Right to Health Bill, 2021. If the MPs with the best track record in Parliament are expelled, it will reflect on the quality of the Parliament’s functioning.

Due to acrimonious exchanges, uproar, conflicts of interest and no-confidence motion against the chairman of Council of States, the winter session (2024) of the Parliament witnessed abysmally low productivity, with only four Bills passed in the House of People and three Bills in the Council of States. The Lok Sabha was just 54.5 per cent functional and the Rajya Sabha 40 per cent functional. According to the PRS Legislative Research, with only one Bill passed in the first six months of the term, it is the lowest performance in comparison to the last six Lok Sabhas. The analysis further reveals that, Question Hour did not function in the upper house for 15 out of 19 days. Similarly, in the lower house,e Question Hour did not function for more than 10 minutes in 12 out of 20 days. No private member’s business was transacted in the House of People and only one resolution was discussed in the Council of States. The recent Budget session of Parliament (2025) also witnessed walkouts and pandemonium in the House over the Joint Parliamentary Committee Report on the Waqf Board, budget provisions, border issue etc.

Conclusion

Among the factors responsible for the current decline in the performance of both the legislatures and the Indian Parliament is the one glaring fact – Members of legislatures are often deeply divided along party lines rather than focusing on people’s issues. A significant number of lawmakers, both in Parliament and State legislatures, are not adequately aware of or do not fully realise the reputation, glorious record of achievements, and the role of the Indian Parliament in ensuring socio-economic and political growth of the nation.

The performance of Parliament and state legislatures is measured based on the number of sittings, bills introduced and passed, the quality of debates and discussions, the number of questions raised during Question Hour, the implementation of pathbreaking legislations etc. The reluctant functioning of legislatures across the country is also largely due to the entry of tainted MLAs and MPs into the Houses of Parliament and State Legislatures. It is an undeniable fact that legislators with a criminal background may not be effective lawmakers and cannot contribute significantly to improving the quality of legislative functioning. Governments must understand that today, the public perception of the functioning of Parliament and State legislatures is not very positive. In other words, the legislative branch of the government has failed to secure the confidence of the people due to its malfunctioning in recent years and public discontent with these august institutions is growing. To restore the reputation of parliamentary democracy in India, some remedial measures are needed:

1. A working relationship between the Ruling and Opposition members of parliament is essential for the smooth conduct of business in the parliament. Furthermore, both the Ruling and Opposition parties should allow Parliament and State legislatures to address vital national issues such as inflation, farmers’ issues, rural job issues, migrant workers issues, violence against marginalised communities and environment and other vital issues without obstruction. Members of Parliament, regardless of their party affiliation, should rise above ‘political differences’ or party affiliation, reflect on the past glory of parliamentary democracy, and contribute meaningfully to restoring the sanctity of parliamentary discourse.

2. Members should effectively utilise parliamentary devices such as Calling Attention notices, Short-duration discussions, Cut motions, Censure motions, No-confidence motions, Half an Hour Discussion, Adjournment motion, Question Hour, Zero Hour, etc., to enhance and restore the parliament’s response.

3. The legislative institutions should adequately deliberate and devote sufficient time to their official business. Parliament must meet for at least 150 days on average over five years, similar to the practice in the houses of Parliament in developed countries. They should strictly adhere to their official calendar, usually prepared well before the commencement of the sessions, to conduct their official business more efficiently and responsibly. Any stagnation in parliamentary proceedings will result in a loss of public confidence in parliamentary democracy in India.

4. There is a need to initiate a nationwide debate on the need to restore the spirit and reputation of parliamentary democracy in India. In this context, the role of civil society organizations, NGOs, social media etc., in creating public awareness about the functioning of parliamentary democracy is crucial.

5. Urgent and comprehensive parliamentary reforms are imperative at this juncture to make Parliament and State Legislatures accountable to the people for whom they were established in independent India.

6. As suggested by the constitutional expert Subash Kashyap, a Parliamentary Reforms Commission to study the functioning of the Indian Parliament may also be appointed, and its recommendations should be presented for public discourse. Viable measures may then be implemented to make these institutions more accountable and responsive to the people.

Stringent action needs to be taken against the unruly behavior of Members of Parliament and State Legislatures, who frequently stage demonstrations and dharnas in the well of the House, disrupting the functioning of these institutions. The media and civil society watchdogs should actively monitor Parliament’s proceedings, assess its productivity after each session, and evaluate its impact on national development. Now, the time has come to genuinely take stock of the functioning of these institutions, including the number of sittings, the number of bills passed in each session, and how Parliament and other legislative bodies transacted their business and its genuine contributions to the nation’s development. We should realise that no alternative to parliamentary democracy exists in the world that would be better suited to the Indian context, considering the country’s pluralistic and heterogeneous character.

(Author: Dr. P. Sakthivel, Professor of Political Science and Public Administration, Annamalai University, Tamil Nadu Email: sakthiraji[at]rediffmail.com)

o o

Edited by Papri Sri Raman