Big not always better: does India need 1,272 Members of Parliament?

The ground-breaking ceremony of the new “People’s Parliament” building took place with considerable fanfare two weeks ago. Under Article 79 of the Constitution, Parliament consists of the President and its two Houses. But neither the President nor the Vice-President, who is also the chairman of the Rajya Sabha, were invited. The protocol would have required the President to perform the ceremonies.

Three important issues, namely, if we require such a large new Parliament building, population as the basis of increased representation in Parliament and the current functioning of Parliament have however been sidelined so far—either deliberately or conveniently.

After the delimitation of constituencies, Lok Sabha is likely to have 888 members and Rajya Sabha 384 members, a total of 1,272 members. Does India require such an enlarged Parliament?

If parliamentary constituencies are redrawn on the basis of the 2021 Census and the present criteria, representation of states will be so lopsided as to pose a real challenge to India’s federalism. Due to the considerably lower rate of growth of population in the southern states, their representation is likely to go down, while that of the northern states will go up considerably.

This unequal position is unlikely to be acceptable to the southern states and might lead to yet another north-south confrontation, as had happened in the case of the country’s official language. This will also have other political overtones as the BJP has been unable to make inroads in these states, except for Karnataka. As a result, the representation of non-BJP parties will decline significantly. Inevitably, population as the sole basis for deciding representation in Parliament will have to be examined afresh and new criteria will have to be evolved.

The terms of reference of the Fifteenth Finance Commission stipulated that it should use population data of 2011 for allocation of tax revenues among states. This was to replace the compromise formula in place from 1976, which sought to give incentives to states to control their population. The southern states had strongly objected to it. The commission’s view will be known when its report becomes available in the public domain.

India has postponed the consideration of controversial questions—an official language, reservations for Scheduled Castes and delimitation of Parliament constituencies—by extending the relevant time limits. But now, the country will have to face the potentially divisive issue of delimitation of constituencies in just a few years.

The other important question pertains to the functioning of Parliament. Over the years, Parliament has lost its pre-eminent position as a pillar of democracy. In public perception, it has lost credibility. Recommendations made by knowledgeable persons and experts to improve its functioning have not received attention.

With the impending delimitation of constituencies, and the sizeable increase in the size of both Houses, this matter has to be addressed urgently. It will be impossible to conduct any meaningful business, given the proclivity of members for disrupting its working by marching into its well, shouting slogans, exhibiting placards and even approaching the presiding officer in a threatening manner.

The only way to ensure orderly business will be to transact most of the business in committees. During the Emergency, Indira Gandhi attempted to introduce several reforms in the functioning of Parliament. Her attempt to introduce the committee system was not successful because of apprehensions of the Opposition that this system was an attempt to skirt Parliament. Similar apprehensions prevail at present with Narendra Modi as Prime Minister.

If the committee system has to be made effective and credible, several steps need to be taken. These include, among others, making their working non-partisan, opening the deliberations of the committees to the public, giving the committees assistance of NGOs and non-profit organisations in the respective fields, opening the committee meetings to electronic, print, and digital media, and starting a PBS channel as in the UK and USA for wider dissemination of the deliberations of the committees.

Currently, ministers do not appear before the committees. Now if Parliament is to transact its business through the committees, they must have all the rights and privileges of the whole House. The ministers — as well as the Prime Minister — must be encouraged to appear before the committees. It is also imperative to reassert the role of the joint parliamentary committee and to restore its credibility.

India must adopt the best practices of parliamentary democracy in other countries. Legislation must be enacted on matters pertaining to the functioning of Parliament — to lay down an annual calendar for Parliament sessions, minimum duration of sessions in a year etc, as in several countries.

A law should be enacted to regulate administration of Parliament as in the UK, Australia and New Zealand. Steps also need to be taken to create a parliamentary budget office as in the US, UK and Canada for independent scrutiny of the budget proposals and their placement before the committees of Parliament. The oversight of Parliament must be increased to approving international treaties and reviewing the work of intelligence and investigating agencies.

I had made a series of similar suggestions in my book, India’s Parliamentary Democracy on Trial (2011). Suggestions of others, which too have long remained unattended, need to be examined. Decisions on these matters will have to be made by holding nationwide consultations. The government should, therefore, publish a white paper on these issues without loss of time.

(IPA)

(Views expressed are personal)