REWIND

New Delhi, 18 December 2025

The People’s Right To Information

By Inder Jit

(Released on 7 August 1984) 

Ignorance continues to abound in regard to Parliament, its constitution, practices, procedures and privileges. Thirty-four years as a sovereign democratic Republic seem to have failed to inform and educate our leaders and public adequately. Even members of Parliament have of late spoken in astonishing terms. Not a few inside Parliament and outside have described the current session of the Lok Sabha as “the last session of Parliament.” True, the present Lok Sabha is now approaching the close of its five-year term meet for its winter session in November. (Contrary to reports, no firm decision has yet been taken about the date of the next general election. Mrs Gandhi, it appears, prefers to play it by the ear.) But the Lok Sabha is not Parliament, notwithstanding the fact that it is directly elected. Parliament is also not the two Houses -- the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha. Parliament, according to the Constitution, consists of three elements: the President, the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha. No single entity, by itself, is Parliament.

Equally, the basic concept of a parliamentary form of Government is still not understood, even among our parliamentarians. The system provides for an orderly form of government by discussion and debate. As Leo Amery wrote in Thoughts on the Constitution, “the main task of Parliament is still what it was when first summoned, not to legislate or govern but to secure full discussion and ventilation of all matters.” Parliament is essentially a critical forum or, as described by Lloyd George, “the sounding board of the nation” which derives its influence from its ability to speak to and to speak for the people. Yet, thanks to an unfortunate failure of leadership on both sides of the two Houses --- the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha - parliamentary form of Government in India is fast becoming a Government not by debate and discussion in the true sense of the term but a Government by speeches or, more appropriately, a government by “bhashans”. There is less and less of orderly give and take. Even accepted norms of conduct and parliamentary niceties patiently sought to be promoted by Nehru -- have fallen by the wayside.

Most discussions in the Lok Sabha and with speeches from the two sides are with little of the cut and thrust of a vigorous debate, except on rare occasions. Nehru graciously yielded whenever any Opposition member sought to interrupt him in the course of his reply to a debate to elicit a clarification or information. No MP of the ruling party was permitted, much less encouraged, by Nehru, who spent long hours in the House, to heckle or shout down Opposition members. Nothing of the kind happens any more, especially where the Prime Minister is concerned. Mrs Gandhi appears less and less inclined to be interrupted to offer explanations or clarifications as at her Press conferences. (Remember, Mrs Gandhi, at her Press conferences, allows one question one person to give an opportunity to the largest number of newsmen. This procedure, however, bars alert and probing newsmen from following up with searching supplementaries.) The “halla” (shouting) groups Congress-I members make things easier for Mrs Gandhi, even before she has time to say “no”.

Parliament and through it the country stand to gain in any give and take in a debate. The MPs themselves benefit, as in the recent stage case involving Prof Madhu Dandvate and Mr Rajiv Gandhi at one stage and Mr Indrajit Gupta and Mr Rajiv Gandhi at another in the Lok Sabha discussion on Punjab. Both Prof Dandvate and Mr Gupta gracefully yielded to Mr Rajiv Gandhi when the latter sought an opportunity to clarify that he had never described Bhindranwale as a religious leader and had, in fact, strongly criticised him. Dandvate and Mr Gupta added to their parliamentary stature by upholding the best parliamentary norm and yielding to Mr Gandhi. And Rajiv Gandhi, for his part, not only set the record straight but impressed one and all with his unsuspected ability to cross swords with seasoned parliamentarians tactfully ---reminding many Parliament watchers of his father, the late Feroze Gandhi, one of free India’s most effective parliamentarians. Interestingly, Mr. Rajiv Gandhi, who has a rich voice like his father’s, sits close to where Feroze Gandhi adorned the non-official benches.

Alas, the Opposition is even more at fault. It often fails to play its role and, in the bargain, makes things easier for the Treasury benches. Nothing illustrates this more than the debate on the scandalous and painful happenings in Kashmir. Both Mr George Fernandez, Janata, and Mr Ram Jethmalani, Bharatiya Janata Party, made powerful speeches and blasted both the Centre and the Governor for the havoc played in Srinagar. Unfortunately, however, both were missing when the new Home Minister, Mr P.V. Narasimha Rao, wound up the discussion even if he did so late in the evening in a debate which seemed to go on interminably. With what result? Mr Narasimha Rao was able to get away with blue murder on some basic issues through a slick impressive presentation. In fact, Mr Narasimha Rao was even able to say that the Opposition had little interest in principles. Said he: “Mr Nar Bahadur Bhandari, Congress- I Chief Minister in Sikkim, was dismissed. But he went unwept and unhonoured”. None from the Opposition challenged his tongue-in-the-cheek statement.

That, however, is only one bit. The Opposition has been behaving astonishingly even otherwise against its own interest. It has, at least, twice in the current session demanded suspension of the Question Hour. Mercifully, the Speaker, Mr Bal Ram Jakhar, overruled the demand. Clearly, the Opposition wanted to emphasize the importance it gave to the Kashmir developments in proposing a virtual adjournment motion on the opening day. But in doing so they allowed their better judgment to run away with their anger over the happenings --- and their desire to demonstrate their support for Dr Farooq Abdullah. The Question Hour is in many ways the most important hour for the Opposition and the back-benchers on both sides of the House and has even been described by some experts as the “sacred hour”. The Government under the Constitution, as we all know, is responsible to Parliament. The Question Hour translates this to reality in practice and ensures the Government’s accountability. It has also been described as the hyphen that links Parliament to the Government.

Undoubtedly, the Question Hour is the most powerful instrument available to the Opposition and, indeed, to all private members belonging to the ruling party. It enshrines Parliament’s right to know and through it the people’s right to information. The Question Hour in its present form is unique and is practised at present only in Britain and India. It is a part of the daily sittings of the House. Yet it is set apart as an hour itself because Parliament’s first prerogative is to get information. It is held from 11 to 12 noon and precedes the “zero hour” -- or what is called the Public Business in Commons. Since the Question Hour entitles the private members to put questions on anything which comes within the framework of Government or national activities, the rules of the House ensure that the Government does not find an excuse to avoid questions or to conveniently slip out of the dock. The rules provide that there “shall’ be a Question Hour. In Britain, too, it comes right at the beginning.

The Question Hour serves two other purposes. It provides back-benchers with an opportunity to probe the intelligence and honesty of senior Ministers, even the Prime Minister. It is an occasion which all members may enjoy and benefit from. There is likely to be something for everyone without having to listen to long speeches. It also needs to be remembered that a Minster personally handles very few of the day-to-day decisions which are taken by his civil servants in his name. These decisions are, of course, made in a way which the official thinks conforms to ministerial policy. A question about one of these decisions brings the case on to the Minister’s desk. The decision may have been taken at quite a low level in the department. It now is looked at by the senior members of the department -- the Secretary as well as the Minister. But the fact that the Minister has to give the answer in a full House and to be prepared for supplementaries helps in keeping him on his toes.

The crucial importance of the right to information is not adequately appreciated. The right to information carries the right to question and, by implication, to control and direct. An interesting story comes to mind and deserves to be retold. Winston Churchill is said to have asked Lord Mountbatten only one question when the latter sought his advice about whether or not he should accept Governor-Generalship of India following independence: “Would you have the right to information?” When Mountbatten replied yes, Churchill said; “Fine. Go ahead.” India’s President enjoys the same right. Alas, however, it has seldom been exercised. Rajen Babu, India’s first President, is known to have exercised it. But he ceased to do so when he discovered that it was beginning to sour his relations with Nehru. Mr B.D. Jatti, as Acting President, exercised it in 1978 and created a sensation and a major problem for the Janata Government which then wanted him to sign an ordinance to dismiss nine State Governments.

Parliament’s right to information has enabled members over the years to bring to light through questions some sensational scandals in Government’s functioning. Prominent among these have been the Jeep scandal, the Mundhra affair which led to the resignation of T.T. Krishnamachari as Finance Minister, the Serajuddin case which led to the exit of K.D. Malaviya from the Cabinet, the Tulmohan Ram affair and, lately, the Kuo oil deal. During the British regime, S. Satyamurthi of the Congress Party, for instance, became a terror through his probing questions. All in all, both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha may not have the power to bend or break the Government, especially where it has a two-thirds majority. But it has the power to influence the Government by exposing its weaknesses and acts of omission and commission. This is vital if one remembers that the ultimate power in our democratic system rests with the people through the ballot box. Parliament has a key role. But this role needs to be fully grasped and exploited.---INFA

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)