REWIND

New Delhi, 11 December 2025

DISCOURTESY TO PARLIAMENT

By Inder Jit

(Released on 28 Feb 1984) 

Parliament is still not getting from Mrs Gandhi and the ruling Congress-I the respect and courtesy that is its due. In fact, the Constitution and established traditions continue to be violated both in letter and spirit -- as shown by the first two days of the budget session. In one sense, Parliament showed its potency and power even if this was indirect. Its fear -- the fear of exposure -- spurred the Government to give overdue thought to some effective plan of action in regard to the distressing developments in Punjab and Haryana. At the same time, however, Parliament suffered a further decline on three counts. First, the President's Address to the joint session of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha failed to carry out its constitutional obligation of spelling out to Parliament the causes of its summons. Second, the Government’s stand on the adjournment motion on Punjab and Haryana made a mockery of the concept of an adjournment motion. Third, Mrs Gandhi failed to extend to the Lok Sabha early on Friday the consideration expected of her as the Leader of House and Prime Minister. 

Regrettably, the President's address to both Houses of Parliament on Thursday last week was once again not what it is intended to be. The Founding Fathers of the Constitution were clear about the importance and content of the address. They made it incumbent upon the President to address the two Houses assembled together at the commencement of the first session after each general election to the Lok Sabha and at the commencement of the first session of each year and inform Parliament of the “causes of its summons”. The President’s address to both Houses of Parliament assembled together was thus made the most solemn and formal act under the Constitution. Yet, the address has progressively degenerated into an inane review of the past year and a blatant propaganda blast for the Government of the day. In fact, the President’s address to the two Houses last year touched a new low in flouting the Constitution. It spoke of all kinds of things and made all manner of claims for the Government, including “success in containing inflation”. But it did not contain even one word about the “causes of summons”. 

Traditionally prepared by the Government of the day, the President’s address this year too violates the Constitution. Once again, it does not contain even a line about the “causes of summons". Instead, it makes repetitive claims on behalf of the Government and much else that is strictly not relevant. Two paras, for instance, do no more than record what is already known -- information in regard to the foreign travels of the President and the Prime Minister, which would in any case form a part of the annual report of the External Affairs Ministry. Para 28 reads: “I paid State visits to Czechoslovakia, Qatar and Bahrain. The Prime Minister visited Yugoslavia, Finland... She also met the President of France in Paris. In addition to the participation of Heads of State/Government at the NAM Summit and CHOGM, we also had the privilege of playing host to a number of distinguished visitors from abroad. Queen Elizabeth II combined a state visit to India with the opening of the CHOGM... These visits have helped to strengthen friendly ties...” 

Now the important issue of the adjournment motion. In the words of free India’s first Speaker, Mavalankar: “An adjournment motion is really a very exceptional thing, because hon'ble members will see that to allow a matter to be discussed in the House in aspect of which no previous notice is given and which is not placed on the Order Paper, is doing injustice to a large number of absent members. Therefore, the practice has been that nothing will be introduced extraneously in the Order Paper of the day unless the occasion is of such a character that something very grave, something which affects the whole country, its safety, its interests and all that is happening, and the House must pay its attention immediately. Then only an adjournment motion can be conceived. Adjournment motions cannot be introduced in the Order Paper unless the extent of the matter, its importance, its gravity justifies it. The primary object of an adjournment motion is to draw the attention of the Government to a matter of urgent public importance so as to criticize the decision of Government in an urgent matter in regard to which a motion or resolution with proper notice will be too late”. 

Adjournment motions have been in existence since the inception of the Central Legislative Assembly in 1921. The procedure for moving an adjournment motion has remained unchanged. But the purpose and effect of these motions have changed since 1947. Prior to independence, procedural devices available to members for bringing up matters of urgent public importance for discussion were very few. They had, therefore, to resort frequently to one rule, namely, adjournment motion. An adjournment motion has from the very beginning been taken to be in the nature of a censure motion. But it was not viewed so under the British Raj as the Government was not responsible to it. Speaker Frederick Whyte explained the situation and ruled as follows: “No direct affect can be given to an adjournment motion of this House... The only question put from the Chair on the occasion is that this House do now adjourn. If this motion is carried, the action of the Assembly may be taken: (i) as evidence of the serious view which the majority of the floor takes regarding the matter, and (ii) as a possible vote of censure on Government”.

Thus a practice developed in which any matter of consequence was brought up for discussion on an adjournment motion. Successive Speakers invariably admitted adjournment motions liberally. A new situation emerged when India became free and the Government became responsible to Parliament. But the practice had become so deep rooted by then that most members did not realize that it was no longer appropriate to bring up matters of any consequence for discussion on adjournment motions. Partly, the rules were at fault. They had not been so revised or enlarged as to permit of other parliamentary opportunities for discussing such matters. Therefore, according to Kaul and Shakdhar, “a period of great stress and strain between the Presiding Officer and the members ensued -- members wishing to discuss matters on adjournment motions and the Speaker resisting this method of approach as it was not conducive to sound parliamentary procedure”. Speaker Mavalankar, therefore, took an early opportunity of explaining the scope of an adjournment motion in the new set-up. 

In his ruling in the Provisional Parliament on March 21, 1950, he said: “The conditions now have entirely changed and, therefore, in the new set-up, with the various opportunities and the responsive and responsible character of the Government, we cannot look upon an adjournment motion as a normal device for raising discussion on any important matter.” He also took care to leave no scope for any prevarication or hanky-panky in regard to the hour at which the motion was to be taken up. In accordance with established convention, it was provided that an adjournment motion to the moving of which leave of the House had been granted would be taken up at 16.00 hours or, if the Speaker so directed, at an earlier hour, having regard to the state of business in the House. Where some important business has to be gone through, the Speaker was empowered to direct with the concurrence of the House or after suspending the rule that the motion would be taken up at an hour later than 16.00 hours, and if it became necessary, in an exceptional case, even on a subsequent day. 

What come to pass in the Lok Sabha on Friday has left votaries of Parliament greatly distressed. The speaker, Mr Bal Ram Jakhar, appropriately and without much ado gave his consent to the adjournment motion brought forward by Prof. Madhu Dandawate and other Opposition leaders. Leave to the moving of the motion was granted by the House without any objection. But things went wrong when the Government came forward with a motion seeking suspension of Rule 61, which provides for a discussion of the adjournment motion at 16.00 hours or earlier the same day. The Speaker put the motion to vote and the motion was declared carried. Expectedly and rightly, the Opposition reached sharply and vociferously -- and walked out in protest. It made a mockery of Government's move was clearly most unfortunate. the adjournment motion and sought to annul the speaker's action in admitting it. True, Rule 61 was suspended on earlier occasions -- March 21, 1978 during the Janata rule and on April 26 last year. But the House decided at the same time on both occasions to take up the motion at 4 pm the subsequent day. This time, no date or hour was either proposed by the Government or fixed by the House. 

Tricky or thorny situations in regard to adjournment motions arose time and again during the first decade of free India's Parliament. Fortunately, however, Nehru was always there in the Lok Sabha as the Leader of the House to carry out his foremost duty of assisting the Speaker in the conduct of business. But there was no sign of Mrs Gandhi in the House at the zero hour on Friday or in the Rajya Sabha where the Opposition members equally agitatedly sought a discussion on Punjab and Haryana developments. (There is no provision for an adjournment motion in the Rajya Sabha as the Government is responsible only to the Lok Sabha.) Mrs Gandhi walked into the House after the storm over the adjournment motion had blown over and the Railway Minister had started presenting this year’s railway budget. As the Leader of the House and Prime Minister, Mrs Gandhi had a clear responsibility to be present in the Lok Sabha, knowing full well that the Opposition had tabled an adjournment motion on Punjab and Haryana and all eyes were on Parliament. It was neither right nor fair for her to be absent on this crucial occasion, whatever her other pressing engagements. For, any discourtesy to the Lok Sabha or the Rajya Sabha is in essence a discourtesy to the people -- the sovereign masters. --- INFA 

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)