Without fear or favour: The Speaker should take up the no-confidence motion

For the fourth day in succession, Speaker Sumitra Mahajan adjourned the Lok Sabha on Thursday without taking up the motion of no-confidence moved by the Telugu Desam Party and the YSR Congress that was supported by major Opposition parties. This is surprising as the rule is that a no-confidence motion must be taken up immediately; all other House business must make way for it. This is fundamental to parliamentary functioning and to executive accountability. That this has not happened so far despite being moved by the required number of Members of Parliament (MPs) has led to concerns in the Opposition benches that delaying the no-confidence motion will benefit the government, which seems keen to avoid a debate involving the Punjab National Bank scam and the Rafale deal. In any case, Ms Mahajan’s argument is debatable as the rules put the onus of maintaining order in the House squarely on the Speaker.

Ms Mahajan said she could not proceed unless the House was in order. But as the Opposition has pointed out, she did not think there was a lack of order when applying the guillotine and allowing the Finance Bill to be passed without debate — it is only the third time that this has happened. This was also the first time in years that the Lok Sabha did not discuss and vote on even one demand for grants. This is uncalled for as the Finance Bill proposed several sweeping changes through a total of 40 amendments that include expanding the scope of the biometric-based Aadhaar number, making it mandatory for taxpayers to provide their unique identity number while filing returns.

What made it worse was some of the associated changes in laws that were effected in the same way, with regard to the retrospective amendment to the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (2010), or FCRA, which legalises all foreign funding to political parties over the previous 42 years. In the Finance Bill, the government has proposed to cancel an existing rule that requires corporate entities to disclose, in the profit and loss account, the name of the political party to which the funding is made. The company only needs to make a mention of the amount contributed under this category. The sharp increase in salaries, daily allowances and pensions of MPs from April 1 was also passed in this manner. This meant such important decisions were taken without any legislative scrutiny. 

Some of Ms Mahajan’s other actions have also been questioned. For instance, her approval of Bills that are clearly not Money Bills that have been dealt with by the Lok Sabha as such, thus depriving the Rajya Sabha of its right to legislate. The Speaker should not be partisan, as she represents the entire House and not just the Treasury benches. Through her actions, Ms Mahajan needs to demonstrate that impartiality. In any case, it is the Speaker’s duty to ensure detailed deliberation and legislative scrutiny of important legislation.