‘Right to Represent’ versus ‘Right to Representation’

Holding the executive accountable, a constitutional respon­sibility, seems to be set aside again in the recently concluded monsoon session of Parliament. A political, institutional and moral deficit is glaring as pressing concerns of the people such as the devastating impact of the second wave, rising inflation and pandemic, protests against the farm bills, and allegations of surveillance using the Pegasus spyware did not find space for parliamentary debate and deliberation. The government’s refusal to concede to demands for scrutiny precipitated a complete breakdown in working ties between itself and the opposition.

Events such as the government’s incredible reply that “no deaths due to lack of oxygen have been reported by the states or union territories,” the Lok Sabha speaker’s refusal to entertain an adjournment motion for discussion on the Pegasus allegations, or the failure of the Standing Committee on Information Techno­logy to convene for want of quorum, point to this growing institutional deficit. Opposition allegations which included that its motions for a detailed discussion on the three farm bills were not taken up, and instead only a shorter discussion was allowed, call for a scrutiny of the speaker’s role. With the scope of reasonable debate and functioning severely curtailed, Parliament was reduced to realpolitik by other means as the government passed by voice vote as many as 22 bills with wide-ranging implications, including the privatisation of state-run general insurance companies, juvenile justice, micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs), etc. However, in a rare act of consensus, Parliament approved the Constitution (127th) Amendment Bill, thereby restoring to states and union territories the power to maintain their own lists of socially and educationally backward classes.