INDIA
Civil Society Groups and Activists Release "Chargesheet" Against Modi Government's Parliamentary Practices
Among the key points raised in the document is the unprecedented vacancy of the Deputy Speaker's position in the Lok Sabha, contrary to the constitutional mandate
New Delhi:
Civil society groups and activists have issued a scathing "chargesheet" against the Narendra Modi government, alleging violations of parliamentary norms and principles. Released on Friday, the document outlines a series of grievances, including the absence of a Deputy Speaker in the Lok Sabha, minimal parliamentary sittings, reliance on ordinances, and insufficient discussion on crucial bills.
According to The Telegraph, Ahmedabad-based Jesuit activist Cedric Prakash, speaking during the online release of the chargesheet, emphasised the importance of bringing these concerns to light, stating, "We need to take this chargesheet to the rest of India…. Fear has prevented lots of people from speaking out."
Among the key points raised in the document is the unprecedented vacancy of the Deputy Speaker's position in the Lok Sabha, contrary to the constitutional mandate outlined in Article 93. The tradition of appointing an opposition nominee to this role has been flouted, marking a departure from established parliamentary practices. The document said: “This is the first time since Independence that the term of a Lok Sabha will complete with the post of Deputy Speaker remaining vacant despite the mandate of Article 93 of the Constitution that stipulates that Lok Sabha ‘shall’ choose a Speaker and a Deputy Speaker as soon as may be. Since the Speaker is usually a nominee of the government, the Deputy Speaker has conventionally been a nominee of the Opposition.”
Moreover, the chargesheet highlights the significant decrease in the number of parliamentary sittings under the current administration, with the 17th Lok Sabha recording the lowest number of sessions in recent history. “Approximately 278 (including the scheduled Budget Session of 2024). This is markedly lower (approx. 34% lesser sittings) compared to even the NDA’s own first full term — 423 sittings during the 13th Lok Sabha (1999-2004),” the document stated. This decline is particularly stark when compared to previous terms, raising concerns about the adequacy of legislative scrutiny and debate.
The overreliance on ordinances, passage of bills with minimal discussion time, and manipulation of parliamentary agendas have also come under scrutiny. The document notes a concerning trend of pushing through legislation without adequate deliberation, depriving lawmakers of the opportunity for thorough scrutiny and public consultation.
The chargesheet explained that in the last Parliament session, the government's originally proposed agenda mentioned only three bills, "but not only did Govt introduce 3 more new Bills not originally included in agenda, but pushed at least two more Bills pending from previous sessions which were also not part of its agenda…"
“From 71% of all bills being referred to the Standing Committees between 2009-2014, since 2019, only 16% of bills have been referred to the Standing Committees.
“Only 74 out of 301, i.e. 24.5% of Bills introduced in Parliament, were circulated for consultation between 2014 and 2021. Of these 74 Bills, at least 40 were not circulated for 30 days, as specified in the Pre-Legislative Consultative Policy… The Standing Committee on Home Affairs, chaired by a BJP MP who was studying the three criminal Bills, did not invite comments from the public. Several Opposition MPs submitted dissent notes alleging that the Committee rushed with the process and only invited selected people to depose before the Committee.”
According to the report, since 2014, only five bills have gone to joint parliamentary committees.
“Between 2016 and 2023, on average, 79% of the budget has been passed without discussion… The Budget Session has a recess in between to enable Standing Committees to scrutinise the Budget of each Ministry in detail… From a 40-day recess in 2016, the recess came down to only 20 days in 2021.”
Furthermore, the chargesheet condemns the suspension of MPs during the winter session, which led to the deletion of nearly 290 questions raised by opposition members. This suppression of parliamentary oversight, coupled with the rushed passage of critical bills, undermines the democratic process and accountability mechanisms. “This time, the Opposition’s protest demanding a debate on the Parliament security breach led to an unprecedented 146 MPs... being suspended. This is the highest number of MPs to have been suspended ever… After the suspension of MPs, several crucial Bills were pushed through both Houses including the three criminal Bills, the Telecommunication Bill, the Bill for appointment of Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners,” it added.
It said, “Close to 290 Questions asked by Opposition MPs were deleted after they were suspended from the House during the Winter Session of 2023. There are no rules which provide for Questions of suspended MPs to be deleted.”
It concluded, “This was not the first time this has been done. There are media reports of this happening in 2015 and since then there are records of this happening in 2020, 2021 and again in 2023.”
LOK SABHA IS THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
New Delhi:
Civil society groups and activists have issued a scathing "chargesheet" against the Narendra Modi government, alleging violations of parliamentary norms and principles. Released on Friday, the document outlines a series of grievances, including the absence of a Deputy Speaker in the Lok Sabha, minimal parliamentary sittings, reliance on ordinances, and insufficient discussion on crucial bills.
According to The Telegraph, Ahmedabad-based Jesuit activist Cedric Prakash, speaking during the online release of the chargesheet, emphasised the importance of bringing these concerns to light, stating, "We need to take this chargesheet to the rest of India…. Fear has prevented lots of people from speaking out."
Among the key points raised in the document is the unprecedented vacancy of the Deputy Speaker's position in the Lok Sabha, contrary to the constitutional mandate outlined in Article 93. The tradition of appointing an opposition nominee to this role has been flouted, marking a departure from established parliamentary practices. The document said: “This is the first time since Independence that the term of a Lok Sabha will complete with the post of Deputy Speaker remaining vacant despite the mandate of Article 93 of the Constitution that stipulates that Lok Sabha ‘shall’ choose a Speaker and a Deputy Speaker as soon as may be. Since the Speaker is usually a nominee of the government, the Deputy Speaker has conventionally been a nominee of the Opposition.”
Moreover, the chargesheet highlights the significant decrease in the number of parliamentary sittings under the current administration, with the 17th Lok Sabha recording the lowest number of sessions in recent history. “Approximately 278 (including the scheduled Budget Session of 2024). This is markedly lower (approx. 34% lesser sittings) compared to even the NDA’s own first full term — 423 sittings during the 13th Lok Sabha (1999-2004),” the document stated. This decline is particularly stark when compared to previous terms, raising concerns about the adequacy of legislative scrutiny and debate.
The overreliance on ordinances, passage of bills with minimal discussion time, and manipulation of parliamentary agendas have also come under scrutiny. The document notes a concerning trend of pushing through legislation without adequate deliberation, depriving lawmakers of the opportunity for thorough scrutiny and public consultation.
The chargesheet explained that in the last Parliament session, the government's originally proposed agenda mentioned only three bills, "but not only did Govt introduce 3 more new Bills not originally included in agenda, but pushed at least two more Bills pending from previous sessions which were also not part of its agenda…"
“From 71% of all bills being referred to the Standing Committees between 2009-2014, since 2019, only 16% of bills have been referred to the Standing Committees.
“Only 74 out of 301, i.e. 24.5% of Bills introduced in Parliament, were circulated for consultation between 2014 and 2021. Of these 74 Bills, at least 40 were not circulated for 30 days, as specified in the Pre-Legislative Consultative Policy… The Standing Committee on Home Affairs, chaired by a BJP MP who was studying the three criminal Bills, did not invite comments from the public. Several Opposition MPs submitted dissent notes alleging that the Committee rushed with the process and only invited selected people to depose before the Committee.”
According to the report, since 2014, only five bills have gone to joint parliamentary committees.
“Between 2016 and 2023, on average, 79% of the budget has been passed without discussion… The Budget Session has a recess in between to enable Standing Committees to scrutinise the Budget of each Ministry in detail… From a 40-day recess in 2016, the recess came down to only 20 days in 2021.”
Furthermore, the chargesheet condemns the suspension of MPs during the winter session, which led to the deletion of nearly 290 questions raised by opposition members. This suppression of parliamentary oversight, coupled with the rushed passage of critical bills, undermines the democratic process and accountability mechanisms. “This time, the Opposition’s protest demanding a debate on the Parliament security breach led to an unprecedented 146 MPs... being suspended. This is the highest number of MPs to have been suspended ever… After the suspension of MPs, several crucial Bills were pushed through both Houses including the three criminal Bills, the Telecommunication Bill, the Bill for appointment of Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners,” it added.
It said, “Close to 290 Questions asked by Opposition MPs were deleted after they were suspended from the House during the Winter Session of 2023. There are no rules which provide for Questions of suspended MPs to be deleted.”
It concluded, “This was not the first time this has been done. There are media reports of this happening in 2015 and since then there are records of this happening in 2020, 2021 and again in 2023.”
LOK SABHA IS THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
Former Civil Servants Feel ‘Deep Disquiet’ over State’s Involvement in Ram Temple
Consecration
Image for representational purpose. Credit: Twitter.com/@narendramodi
A group of former civil servants from the Constitutional Conduct Group has expressed “deep disquiet” about the manner in which the Indian State was involved in the Ram Temple’s opening ceremony on January 22.
In a statement, the 65 signatories said: “[I]t is imperative for public officials to be mindful to carefully separate their religious beliefs and practices from their official duties. This is especially important for a person holding the high constitutional office of Prime Minister, as the leader not just of people of one religious identity but of all people of India of diverse religious beliefs.”
The signatories include A S Dulat, M G Devasahayam, K Sujatha Rao, Rana Banerji, and others.
“As a multicultural society which has absorbed people from so many other lands over millennia, it ill behoves us as a nation for its citizens to adopt a narrow, xenophobic approach towards those who have different religious beliefs or belong to other ethnic communities,” the statement read.
Please see the full text of the statement below:
1. As a group of former civil servants deeply committed to the Constitution of India and its morality, we issue this open statement to express our deep disquiet about the manner in which the Indian state was closely associated with the consecration ceremony of the Shri Ram Temple in Ayodhya on 22 January 2024.
2. Religion is a private matter according to India’s constitutional arrangements. All persons, including public officials, are free to follow their religious beliefs. However, it is imperative for public officials to be mindful to carefully separate their religious beliefs and practices from their official duties. This is especially important for a person holding the high constitutional office of Prime Minister, as the leader not just of people of one religious identity but of all people of India of diverse religious beliefs.
3. This separation between personal religious belief and practice and official duties was breached on 22 January 2024 when, in the presence of the Prime Minister, the statue of Shri Ram was installed and consecrated in the Ram Temple in Ayodhya. The event brings to our mind the advice given by India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru to President Rajendra Prasad at the inauguration of the reconstructed Somnath Temple in Gujarat at a juncture when the wounds of Partition were still healing in the subcontinent: “This is not merely visiting a temple, which can certainly be done by you or anyone else, but rather participating in a significant function which unfortunately has some implications.”
4. In the present case, the consecration of the idol of Shri Ram was undertaken at a site where, while granting the right to construct the temple at the site, the Supreme Court had clearly observed in its judgment of 9 November 2019:
“The exclusion of the Muslims from worship and possession took place on the intervening night between 22/23 December 1949 when the mosque was desecrated by the installation of Hindu idols. The ouster of the Muslims on that occasion was not through any lawful authority but through an act which was calculated to deprive them of their place of worship. After the proceedings under Section 145 of CrPC 1898 were initiated and a receiver was appointed following the attachment of the inner courtyard, worship of the Hindu idols was permitted. During the pendency of the suits, the entire structure of the mosque was brought down in a calculated act of destroying a place of public worship. The Muslims have been wrongly deprived of a mosque which had been constructed well over 450 years ago.”
5. Despite its above observations, the Supreme Court permitted the construction of the temple by a trust set up under Section 6 of the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act 1993. Given the troubled history of the last three decades, it would have been in the fitness of things if the consecration of the temple had been undertaken by heads of the Hindu religious faith rather than by a constitutional functionary, which goes against the basic credo of secularism enshrined in the Preamble to the Constitution of India.
6. Of even greater concern to us are the developments in the last month before and after the consecration of the temple. In the Prime Minister’s speech at Ayodhya on 22 January 2024, he affirmed that the Ram temple construction reflected Indian society’s maturity. Further, he stated that the consecration was an occasion of not merely triumph but humility too. However, the incidents at Mira Road in Maharashtra and some other places in the country have witnessed a wholly unnecessary show of triumphalism by certain elements from the Hindu community leading to reactions from elements from the Muslim community. At times like these, it behoves the majority community to show restraint and maintain dignity, especially when a fractious issue has finally reached resolution. On the contrary, the efforts over the past few days to raise fresh issues concerning the religious faith of the two communities – Gyan Vapi mosque at Varanasi, Krishna Janmabhoomi at Mathura, the conduct of the Shah Jahan Urs at the Taj Mahal and the Haji Malang dargah at Kalyan (Maharashtra) – are unnecessary irritants to social peace and harmony at a time when so many more important issues confront the nation. Nor have matters been helped by the unnecessary haste shown by the authorities in Delhi in demolishing the Mehrauli dargah and madarsa and raising the issue of the removal of the Sunehri Bagh Masjid in the heart of New Delhi ostensibly on grounds of streamlining traffic flow. Surely, government agencies should have a sense of propriety to know when to bring up contentious issues.
7. As a multicultural society which has absorbed people from so many other lands over millennia, it ill behoves us as a nation for its citizens to adopt a narrow, xenophobic approach towards those who have different religious beliefs or belong to other ethnic communities. India’s status in the world since 1947 has been, to a considerable extent, founded on its ability to successfully run a country of so many diverse groups and faiths on democratic principles. It is the primary responsibility of the Union Government and the State Governments to maintain an equal distance from all religions, inculcate in their citizens the principle of fraternity enjoined by the Preamble to the Constitution of India and apply strictly the rule of law in ensuring that all citizens conduct their day to day affairs as laid down by the Constitution of India and the laws thereunder.
SATYAMEVA JAYATE
Constitutional Conduct Group (65 signatories)
LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for HINDUISM IS FASCISM
No comments:
Post a Comment