Alok thinks that a country needs an efficient government that looks after the welfare of the people. So, if we simply elected our Prime Minister and Ministers and left to them the task of government, we will not need a legislature. Do you agree? Give reasons for your answer.
No, I don’t agree with the statement, because:
A. India is a democratic country where candidates are elected and represent a particular constituency and has the right to present their viewpoint. So, simply by leaving the burden of welfare upon them would hamper the essence of democracy.
B. If there is just a government elected with majority votes and no other representation then the government would not be accountable to anyone. Thus, the executive would become all powerful.
C. The legislature also needs to make laws considering all the sections of society.
A class was debating the merits of a bicameral system. The following points were made during the discussion. Read the arguments and say if you agree or disagree with each of them, giving reasons.
A. Neha said that bicameral legislature does not serve any purpose.
B. Shama argued that experts should be nominated in the second chamber.
C. Tridib said that if a country is not a federation, then there is no need to have a second chamber.
A. No, I don’t agree.
Bicameral Legislature has advantages like:
a. A bicameral legislature makes it possible to have every decision reconsidered.
b. Every decision taken by one house goes to the other house for its decision.
c. This means that every bill and policy would be discussed twice.
d. This ensures a double check on every matter.
B. Yes, I agree.
The experts must be nominated from the second chamber so that they can provide input on subjects that require technical knowledge. Eg. Sports, Science, Films etc
C. No, i don’t agree.
There is no such condition that only federal country can have second chamber house. In India only seven states have bicameral legislature even though India is federal in nature. Bicameralism is generally followed in bigger states.
Why can the Lok Sabha control the executive more effectively than the Rajya Sabha can?
The Lok Sabha controls the executive more effectively than the Rajya Sabha because:
a. The Council of Ministers is responsible to Lok Sabha and not Rajya Sabha.
b. The Lok Sabha has power to make laws and amend constitution.
c. The Lok Sabha can remove government by expressing no confidence, but Rajya Sabha cannot.
d. Lok Sabha can introduce, reject and enact Money bills, but Rajya Sabha cannot reject money bills.
Rather than effective control of the executive, the Lok Sabha is a platform for the expression of popular sentiments and people’s expectations. Do you agree? Give reasons.
Yes, I agree with the statement.
The members of the parliament are free to present their views and express themselves, and no action would be taken upon them for anything said in the house.
The members of Lok Sabha represent their constituency and has concern related to it, so this makes their power wide ranging.
The Union Cabinet which comprises of members of parliament is accountable for its decisions. They make laws and control finances.
The main purpose of parliamentary privilege is to control the executive.
The following are some proposals for making the Parliament more effective. State if you agree or disagree with each of them and give your reasons. Explain what would be the effect if these suggestions were accepted.
A. Parliament should work for longer period.
B. Attendance should be made compulsory for members of Parliament.
C. Speakers should be empowered to penalise members for interrupting the proceedings of the House.
A. Yes, I agree that Parliament should work for longer period.
There are several important issues which require utter importance but due to shortage of time are not discussed. Therefore, parliament should work for longer period to discuss about the important issues.
B. Yes, I agree that Attendance should be made compulsory for members of parliament as this would lead to presence of members while taking crucial decision. This would also encourage members to present their views.
C. I agree that Speakers should be empowered to penalise members for interrupting the proceedings of the House. As this would prevent wastage of time during discussion and maintain dignity of parliament.
Arif wanted to know that if ministers propose most of the important bills and if the majority party often gets the government bills passed, what is the role of the Parliament in the law-making process? What answer would you give him?
The proposed bills are for the interest of nation therefore it becomes necessary to have a debate over it, and this could be done only in parliament.
Various committees of bureaucrat and ministers are set up and the bills are reviewed by them and they also proposes some recommendations, and parliament may or may not accept those recommendations.
The opposition party members are also present in parliament and give their opinion to the bill.
If there is difference in opinion of upper and lower house, then it is resolved by joint session.
Therefore, Parliament plays an important role in framing of important laws.
Which of the following statements you agree with the most? Give your reasons.
A. Legislators must be free to join any party they want.
B. Anti-defection law has contributed to the domination of the party leaders over the legislators.
C. Defection is always for selfish purposes and therefore, a legislator who wants to join another party must be disqualified from being a minister for the next two years.
A. Legislator should not be free to join any party they want as it would lead to promotion of corrupt practices at the time of confidence motion.
B. It is wrong to say that Anti- defection law has contributed to the domination of the party leaders over the legislators. Because the leader can process anti defection only when he has support from the other members of the party.
C. Defection is not always for selfish, sometimes differences in ideology leads to defection. So, legislator who joins another party should contest from their constituency to get re-elected as a minister.
Dolly and Sudha are debating about the efficiency and effectiveness of the Parliament in recent times. Dolly believed that the decline of Indian Parliament is evident in the less time spent on debate and discussion and increase in the disturbances of the functioning of the House and walkouts etc. Sudha contends that the fall of different governments on the floor of Lok Sabha is a proof of its vibrancy.
What other arguments can you provide to support or oppose the positions of Dolly and Sudha?
Dolly’s statement is correct to some extent about the decline of Parliament. The meetings and time spend on debates have decreased. Sometimes entire session is passed without any discussion due to disruption between parties. This has hindered the working of Parliament.
But the important decision is still taken in the Parliament and still remains the supreme Law-making body. The recently made important laws includes Goods and Services Tax Act, law related to criminalizing Instant Triple Talaq etc. Similarly, many important discussions are still done in the Parliament.
Hence, we cannot say that the importance of Parliament has diminished it still remains the supreme Law-making body.
Arrange the different stages of passing of a bill into a law in their correct sequence:
1. A resolution is passed to admit the bill for discussion
2. The bill is referred to the President of India – write what happens next if s/he does not sign it
3. The bill is referred to other House and is passed
4. The bill is passed in the house in which it was proposed
5. The bill is read clause by clause and each is voted upon
6. The bill is referred to the subcommittee – the committee makes some changes and sends it back to the house for discussion
7. The concerned minister proposes the need for a bill
8. Legislative department in ministry of law, drafts a bill
The correct stages of passing a bill is:
1. The concerned minister proposes the need for a bill. (Money Bill must be introduced in Lok Sabha whereas non-money bill can be introduced in either house of parliament).
2. A resolution is passed to admit the bill for discussion.
3. Legislative department in ministry of law, drafts a bill.
4. The bill is referred to the subcommittee – the committee makes some changes and sends it back to the house for discussion. (The bill could be sent or discussed in house itself)
5. The bill is read clause by clause and each is voted upon. (After the report is submitted by the committee)
6. The bill is passed in the house in which it was proposed.
7. The bill is referred to other House and is passed.
8. The bill is referred to the President of India.
9. If the President do not sign then the bill goes to the Parliament with recommendation for reconsideration.
10. If the same bill goes to President with or without changes then the president is bound to give his assent, and it becomes Law.
How has the system of parliamentary committee affected the overseeing and appraisal of legislation by the Parliament?
A significant feature of the legislative process is the appointment of committees for various legislative purposes. These committees play a vital role not merely in law making, but also in the day-to-day business of the House.
1. A large part of the discussion on the bills takes place in the committees. The recommendation of the committee is then sent to the House. That is why committees are referred to as miniature legislatures.
2. The Committee has influenced the overseeing and appraisal of legislation of legislation by Parliament. The Parliament rarely rejects the recommendations of the committee.
3. There are over twenty departmentally related committees. Standing Committees supervise the work of various departments, their budget, their expenditure and bills that come up in the house relating to the department.
4. The Joint Parliamentary Committees have occupied a position of eminence in our country. Joint Parliamentary Committees (JPCs) can be set up for the purpose of discussing a particular bill.
5. Thus Parliamentary Committees have reduced the burden on the legislature and saves time of the parliament.
6. The Parliament has merely approved the work done in the committees with few occasional alterations.