Derek O’Brien writes: This, Session, let the Opposition speak

The total time scheduled for the upcoming session of Parliament is 190 hours. Here is how this time is divided between the government and the Opposition. About half the questions for Question Hour and half the number of notices for Zero Hour are filed by Opposition MPs. This adds up to 31 hours for members of the Opposition to raise questions and matters of public importance. In comparison, the Union government gets 135 hours out of the total 190 for government business and other issues — a whopping 70 per cent of the total time.

There is a legitimate need to cut down on the hours available to the government. Allot some more time to the Opposition. Four hours must be reserved each week, in each House, to allow discussions on matters of urgent public importance. Additionally, two hours should also be reserved for a Calling Attention motion (here the MP brings a matter of urgent public importance to the relevant Minister’s notice who is mandated to reply). This will give the Opposition an added six hours each week in both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha to raise important issues of national public importance. This would mean about 117 hours for government business and 49 hours for the Opposition. A much fairer system.

In recent years, several critical legislative decisions have been made without adequately hearing out the Opposition. For instance, the farm Bills initially came as an ordinance, and were not sent to the department-related parliamentary standing committees or the select committee of the Rajya Sabha for scrutiny, as the Opposition requested. Passed by voice vote in the Rajya Sabha, Opposition demands for a vote were ignored. Ultimately, these laws had to be repealed.

Notably, in the 17th Lok Sabha, a total of 221 Bills were passed. More than one-third were hurried through with less than a 60-minute discussion. Only one out of six Bills was scrutinised by Committees. Even the ones that made it to the committees were handled casually. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023,

which proposes a sweeping overhaul of the criminal justice system with 356 amendments, along with the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita and Bharatiya Sakshya Bill were all discussed in merely 13 sittings. In comparison, the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Bill, 2006, with its 41 amendments, was scrutinised by the Home Affairs Committee over 11 sittings.

Another recent issue that saw minimal participation from the Opposition was the “discussion” on the Parliament security breach. In 2001, when Parliament was attacked, both houses of Parliament engaged in a comprehensive discussion involving the Prime Minister and the Home Minister. This inclusive dialogue demonstrated a commitment to addressing security concerns collaboratively and transparently. However, in stark contrast, in 2023, when Parliament security was breached, 146 Opposition MPs were suspended for demanding a discussion on the subject.

The Provisional Collection of Taxes Bill 2023 was debated by only two and six members and passed in approximately 21 and 30 minutes in Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, respectively. Similarly, the Telecommunications Bill saw participation from merely four and eight members and was passed in one hour four minutes and within an hour in Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, respectively. Many other Bills have met the same fate: The Jan Vishwas Bill, the Digital Personal Data Protection Bill, Government of NCT of Delhi (Amendment) Bill etc.

Between September 2020 and August 2021, 113 notices were filed by MPs in the Lok Sabha for Short Duration Discussion. Only two were accepted. Not allowing notices for a debate on matters of urgent public importance is the most lethal device to muzzle the voice of the Opposition in Parliament. The presiding officers, in their wisdom, would do well to address this.

The re-allotment of time in Parliament between the government and the Opposition needs to be seriously looked at. This is not merely a procedural adjustment, but a fundamental necessity to uphold the principles of accountability and representative democracy.

The writer is MP and leader, All India Trinamool Congress Parliamentary Party (Rajya Sabha). Additional research by Chahat Mangtani and Dheemunt Jain