12 Jan 2024 : The Hindu Editorial

Topic 1 : The Speaker’s court: On the Maharashtra Assembly Speaker’s ruling

Context: Maharashtra example shows why power to disqualify should be in independent hands

Introduction

• The Maharashtra Assembly Speaker Rahul Narwekar’s ruling on the disqualification petitions filed by rival factions of the Shiv Sena demonstrates why the adjudicatory function under the anti-defection law should not be in the hands of Presiding Officers in the legislature.

‘No case to disqualify members.’

• In a matter that many thought would decide the survival of the Eknath Shinde regime, the Speaker has ruled that there was no case to disqualify members of the Eknath Shinde faction, or 14 members in the Uddhav B. Thackeray (UBT) group.
• The ruling is based mainly on the finding that loyalists of Eknath Shinde, the Chief Minister now, constituted the ‘real political party’ when rival Shiv Sena factions emerged on June 21, 2022.
• Mr. Narwekar’s verdict conveniently draws upon some aspects of the Supreme Court’s final verdict of May 11, 2023, in which a Constitution Bench ruled that the Governor was wrong in asking the then Chief Minister, Uddhav Thackeray, to undergo a floor test and that the Speaker was wrong in recognising the Shinde faction’s appointee as the party’s whip.
• In contrast to the Court ruling, the Speaker has declared that Sunil Prabhu, an appointee of the UBT faction, ‘ceased to be the duly authorised whip’ from June 21, 2022, and that Bharat Gogawale of the Shinde group was “validly appointed” as the whip.
• As a result, Mr. Narwekar found no reason to sustain the charge that the Shinde loyalists violated any whip. He also ruled that there was no proof that the UBT group violated the other side’s whip as no such whip was served on them.

Approaching the supreme court again!

• The Uddhav Thackeray group may approach the Supreme Court again, possibly on the ground that the Speaker’s ruling contradicts key conclusions of the Bench.
• While acknowledging the split in the Shiv Sena Legislature Party, the Court had said: “... no faction or group can argue that they constitute the original political party as a defence against disqualification on the ground of defection”.
• The Speaker has also referred to the Shinde faction’s “overwhelming majority” (37 out of 55 MLAs of the original party). On the other hand, the Court had observed that the percentage of members in each faction is irrelevant to the determination whether a defence to disqualification is made out.
• However, the Court had conceded that the Speaker may have to decide on which faction is the real party when adjudicating a question of defection.
• It favoured reliance on a version of the party constitution and leadership structure submitted to the Election Commission before rival groups emerged. It is these observations that the Speaker has utilised to determine which group is the real party.

Conclusion

As long as defection disputes are in the hands of Speakers, and not any independent authority, political considerations will undoubtedly cast a shadow on such rulings.

Topic 2 : The Indian Parliament, a promise spurned.

Context: The state of Parliament today marks a decline, where a dispensation that has found endorsement from the citizen community, hardly exerts itself to ensure that the political opposition is the voice of the nation

Introduction

• The relative distance from the din and dust that the lamentable turn Indian Parliament took in December 2023, gives us a vantage point to review the state of this foundational institution of public life of the most populous country in the world today.
• It was one of the gravest security lapses the House has witnessed in its history when two young men with gas canisters jumped on to the floor of the Lok Sabha from its gallery and spread pandemonium there for reasons little known so far.
• The incident led to a stand-off between the Opposition and ruling party, eventually leading to the suspension of 146 members of both Houses of Parliament, from different Opposition parties.

Having a Parliamentary form of Government.

• The choice of parliamentary form of government in India was a closely deliberated process, with debates within and outside the Constituent Assembly over four stances: presidential, Indian orthodoxy, Swarajist, and parliamentary.
• The presidential system was argued for its stability, unity, centralization, and religious and social majoritarianism. The Indian orthodoxy model, on the other hand, emphasized the establishment of a regime based on Indian classical and institutional wisdom.
• The Swarajist model, defended by Gandhi, sought a regime based on village panchayats with maximum powers and autonomy.
• The parliamentary model was decisively won by those who argued for a decisive authority that could claim itself as the voice of the citizen community and guard its mandate.
• The executive must be collectively responsive to this representative authority, and losing the trust of the popularly elected House would result in the executive's inability to continue in office.
• An additional argument for the parliamentary model was that it provides a better space for minorities to make their case in the political arena, as it does not assume what is good for the citizen community in advance.
• Additionally, it has better capacity to reach out to ethnic and cultural differences, as they can effectively rally in the choice of representatives.

Parliamentary system and opposition

• The parliamentary system requires stable support for a regime to be effective, but it must be constantly challenged to maintain its loyalty to the common good.
• This paradoxical demand is due to the fact that a majority that is elected acknowledges its endorsement from the citizen community, but it must be constantly and critically validated by considering the common good.
• The term "political party" was not mentioned in the Indian Constitution until the Tenth Schedule, but the dialectics of stable support and effective opposition can only be institutionally operated through a competitive party system.
• Jawaharlal Nehru was sensitive to the absence of an effective opposition, but was uncomfortable with it when it took shape in Parliament. Once the Opposition found its voice, radical voices were largely absorbed within the House.

The ruling party at the Centre and in States has struggled to face a sustained opposition, using subterfuges to limit its space.

The present state

• Given the centrality of Parliament to India’s chosen public life, its security breach is a breach inflicted on the nation as a whole. The demand of the Opposition to make this issue central in Parliament is, therefore, understandable.
• In this context, it was the duty of the leadership of both Houses to ensure necessary assurances and explain the lapses. It did not seem that the present leadership exerted itself in that direction.
• On the contrary, they converted the insistent demand of the Opposition, however excessive it might have been, as an affront to the working of the Parliament.
• There are a range of parliamentary committees. The presiding officers could have taken the Opposition into confidence to form a committee on security, at the least. Was the leadership of the Houses kowtowing to the executive at the expense of their dignity?
• Madhu Dandavate recounts an incident where Jawaharlal Nehru sent a note to Speaker Mavalankar, asking for his presence in his chamber due to urgent work.  Mavalankar replied that a Speaker does not visit the chamber of an executive, including the Prime Minister, but if Nehru had any work, he would be welcome.

Conclusion

• While the Opposition in the present Parliament is not a paragon of parliamentary virtue, it is the responsibility of the leadership of the House, including its presiding officers, that it becomes the voice of the nation.
• The suspension of almost the entire Opposition from both the Houses, can hardly meet this test. It is also important to restate the principle that it is not the truth that a ruling dispensation upholds that serves its claim to rule but its ability to defend the course that it pursues as the truth.