Dismissal of Question Hour- Requisite or Mere Escape?

September 10, 2020

Dismissal of Question Hour- Requisite or Mere Escape?

Uday Deb-Times of India

The Lok Sabha Secretariat has released the schedule of the monsoon session of the Parliament which will commence from September 14 and will continue till October 1, with a total of 18 consecutive sittings without any break. Arrangements have been made to ensure the safety of the Members.

On the first day, the Lok Sabha will have proceedings from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. From September 15 to October 1, it will sit from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m. Similarly, on September 14, the Rajya Sabha will sit from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m.

From the second day, it will transact business between 9 a.m. and 1 p.m. The two hours between 1 p.m.- 3 p.m. will be used to entirely sanitise the parliamentary premises. During this session, the Parliament will discuss the China border issue, Covid-19 and 11 bills to replace 11 ordinances that were passed between March and September.

To conduct business in a short time and reduce the risk of coronavirus infection, the Government had decided to do away with the question hour for this entire session. But after facing a massive opposition against this move, it has now been allowed for 30 minutes.

What is question hour?

The question hour is a general practice which allows the Parliamentarians to hold the Government accountable for its actions. It is the first hour of any session of the Parliament. It is held on all days of the session, in both the Houses. During this question hour, Parliamentarians can ask questions on any administerial or governmental activity. As the Lok Sabha website describes it, the question hour is a medium for the Government to feel the pulse of the nation. Although the ultimate purpose of asking a question is to gain information, the actual intention of the member asking the question is to steer attention to the shortcomings of the administration and to understand the stand of the government on certain matters or even help them in formulating a policy or to assist them in making suitable modifications in existing policies. Thus, the answers given by the administration achieve twofold objectives –

· first, the general public will get knowledge about the policies of the government, and

· second, the public reaction and public opinion regarding a policy- its implementation and its defects is provided to the government so that they can make appropriate changes in public interest.

There are four types of questions which can be asked in the question hour.

1. Starred Questions- A starred question is one to which a Member seeks an oral answer from the Minister in the House. These questions are required to be distinguished by him/her using an asterisk. This type of question enables members to ask supplementary questions followed by the answer. A supplementary question can be asked with the Chair's permission immediately after the Minister has answered the main question, for the purpose of further elucidating any matter. Notice for such question should be given 15 days before the session.

2. Unstarred Questions- An unstarred question is one to which the member desires a written answer which is laid on the Table of the House by the Minister. Such kind of a question does not allow the Members to ask supplementary questions. Notice should be given 15 days before the session.

3. Short Notice Questions- A member may give a notice of 10 days for asking a question on an urgent matter of public importance, seeking oral answer. This is the minimum prescribed period of notice for asking a question in ordinary course. Such a question is referred to as a ‘Short Notice Question’.

4. Questions to Private Members- A question can also be addressed to a private member if the subject matter of the question is concerning any matter involving the business of the house for which that particular private member is responsible.

Question hour has time and again proved to be effective in exposing scandals and highlighting the inaction of the Executive Ministers.

An example of this was seen as early as in the first decade of independence in the infamous ‘LIC Scandal’. In 1957, Congress MP Ram Subhag Singh questioned the Finance Minister TT Krishnamachari about an investment made by the Life Insurance Corporation. LIC had made an irregular investment of Rs 1 crore in six public limited companies owned by one Haridas Mundhra. Subhag Singh was also joined by another congress MP Feroz Gandhi. Their questioning in this regard initiated the uncovering of the first financial scandal in India. The parliamentarians demanded to know why LIC had made such a huge investment in these companies. The outcome of their continued questioning and further inquiry by Justice M.C. Chagla (in this matter) was the revelation of the suspicious reason behind such an investment by LIC. It was discovered that the real purpose of the deal was to help the Mundhra companies. This report led to Finance Minister TT Krishnamachari's resignation from the council of ministers from Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s cabinet.

Basic Structure-

In the opinion of All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) president Asaduddin Owaisi, "not having question hour in the upcoming Parliament session goes against the theory of separation of power which is part of the basic structure of our Constitution".

Legally speaking, even though the question hour is not constitutionally mandated, the exercise of questioning ministers is the soul of a parliamentary democracy which is a fundamental component of the basic structure of the Constitution.

Opposition’s say on ‘elimination of question hour’

The opposition parties and the citizens have heavily criticised this initial action of the Government to cancel the question hour in the monsoon session, referring to it as ‘murder of democracy’ and initiation of dictatorship. Various critical comments in regard to this are;

Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury, a Congress leader of Lok Sabha, and Mahesh Tapase, the NCP spokesperson have alleged that BJP is using the pandemic as an excuse to hide its failures on multiple fronts. They have also claimed that it is the right of the members to question the government, especially in the current situation. They have further condemned this decision of the government and denunciated it to be ‘arbitrary’ and ‘undemocratic’.

Derek O Brien, Rajya Sabha MP of Trinamool Congress tweeted criticising the cancellation of question hour “MPs required to submit Qs for Question Hour in #Parliament 15 days in advance. Session starts 14 Sept. So Q Hour cancelled? Oppn MPs lose right to Q govt. A first since 1950? Parliament overall working hours remain same so why cancel Q Hour? Pandemic excuse to murder democracy,” he tweeted.

Further, in an article published on NDTV he commented, “This time around, the circumstances are exceptional. We are holding a parliament session in the middle of a pandemic. Are we, as an opposition party, okay with a 4-hour daily session for each House? Yes. Are we okay with working 7 days a week? Of course. Are we okay with doing away with the question hour? Not at all.”

Shashi Tharoor also tweeted, "The notification for the delayed Parliament session blandly announces there will be no question hour. How can this be justified in the name of keeping us safe? Questioning the Government is the oxygen of parliamentary democracy. This Govt seeks to reduce Parliament to a notice-board & uses its crushing majority as a rubber-stamp for whatever it wants to pass. The one mechanism to promote accountability has now been done away with,”

Tagging Tharoor's tweet, another senior Congress leader Mukul Wasnik said on Twitter, "You may have misunderstood the Government. This is not about your safety. It is about the Government's safety."

The citizens have also opposed this move using twitter as their medium pointing out the hypocrisy of the government as they cancelled the question hour but not exams.

Previous instances where question hour was cancelled-

This is not the first time since independence that the question hour has been cancelled. A senior member of the BJP party listed down certain previous instances.

1961- this was the first instance when question hour was cancelled in the 33^rd session of the Parliament. This was a special session of the Parliament which was summoned to discuss the budget of Odisha.

1975- this session was convened for the proclamation of National Emergency by the President.

1976- this next instance was the 98^th session of the Parliament which passed the 42^nd amendment act of the Constitution (also referred to as the Mini Constitution).

1977- this session of Parliament was convened to discuss whether the presidential rule in Nagaland and Tamil Nadu should be extended.

Question hour was also suspended in other Parliament sessions conducted during war-like situations, such as the Indo-Chinese War in 1962 and the Indo-Pak War in 1971.

This list is not exhaustive and merely lists certain events when the question hour was cancelled. Other than these there have various other instances where the question hour has been cancelled on the demand of opposition MPs. For instance, During the last two years (July 2018-March 2020) there have been 123 sittings of the Upper house out of which on 79 days the opposition MPs, a party or even the entire party asked the chairman to suspend the Question Hour. The opposition who is now fighting for question hour itself didn’t want the question hour for more than half of the sessions in the past two years.

It is also accounted that from 2015-2019 only 40% of the total available question hour time has been used by the opposition MPs to get answers for their questions. The rest 60% of the time has been unused on account of disruptions.

Two juxtaposing arguments arise in this regard-

1. Not in favour of the question hour,

Previous instances indicate that the question hour can be cancelled by the Government if any special or emergency situation arises and this Covid-19 situation is as much urgent and dangerous as any of these previous instances when question hour was cancelled (e.g. the emergency or war). Under Rule 32 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Lok Sabha (“the Rules”), the Speaker is empowered to direct whether the first hour of every sitting should be made available for questioning Ministers. This is an exceptional situation which has to be dealt with prudently and while it is important to conduct Parliamentary sessions and hold the Government accountable for its actions it is also important to ensure the safety of the Parliament Members.

As the Leader of Opposition in Rajya Sabha Ghulam Nabi Azad had said the Session is “being held in totally extraordinary circumstances” and to “accommodate a normal day’s business in half a day is in itself impossible”. Conducting the question hour normally would require a lot of executive officials to be present in the Parliamentary premises, which can prove to be dangerous to them as well as the other Parliament Members. The Chairman and Speaker have to ensure the safety and security of Parliamentarians.

Thus, conducting the Parliament session restricting the discussion to urgent issues would be reasonable in light of the Covid-19 crisis that we are facing now.

It can be seen from the accounted data that 60% of the total question hour time is not used to its full extent and considering that the original 6 hour time of the parliament has also now been reduced to 4 hours it makes little sense to allow a question hour to have Parliament Members indulge in baseless arguments rather than utilizing that time deciding issues of importance. It is also important to note that the Government has now allowed a 30-min question hour during which unstarred questions can be taken up. It will allow the Members to ask questions and they will be provided with a written reply which would be posted online on the website of the respective House. This can be considered sufficient right now, in light of the prevailing critical situation.

2. In favour of the question hour and starred questions,

The reasoning that question hour was suspended before cannot be used to suspend it now since these sessions in which question hour was suspended were special sessions convened for a specific purpose. This session of the parliament is a regular session and thus the Government cannot cancel the question hour using Covid-19 crisis as a shield to hide behind it. The fact that the available question hour time has not been used appropriately in the previous two years does not give the Government the right to cancel the question hour. Disruptions do not justify discarding the questions altogether. The opposition has an inherent and unfettered right, (granted under article 75 of the constitution, to question the Government about their actions.) This is required now more than ever, with the drastic decrease in the economic growth and the huge increase in the Coronavirus infected cases, unemployment rate, suicide rate, and other emerging issues of national importance.

The websites of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha themselves emphasise on the importance of the question hour. The official website of Lok Sabha says, “It is during the question hour that Government policies in national as well as international spheres come into sharp focus as the members try to elicit pertinent information during the question hour.”

It adds that “the Government is, as it were, put on its trial during the question hour and every Minister whose turn it is to answer questions has to stand up and answer for his or his administration’s acts of omission and commission.”

The Rajya Sabha website says that “This parliamentary device, in fact, is primarily meant for exercising a kind of legislative control over executive actions. Besides, the Members also find an opportunity through this device to criticise the government’s policies and programmes; ventilate public grievances; expose Government’s lapses; and extract promises from Ministers.”

It adds that “Members also get the opportunity to give vent to their feelings when they are not satisfied with the answers by putting supplementaries. The question hour serves another purpose. The Ministers are also made aware of the working of their departments at the ground level which otherwise could have gone unnoticed.”

Thus, this right of the opposition is the backbone of the democratic republic state of India. By not allowing a question hour and starred questions the government has imbalanced and unhinged the basic structure of the democracy.

Alteration of Statement by the Government-

The Government has now, after considering enough criticism from the opposition and the public at large has allowed a 30-min question hour but only unstarred questions, however, such type of questions do not let the member who asked the question to ask supplementary questions in regards to the answer given, thus excusing the particular Ministry from their liability. Starred question is the nucleus of question hour. Not having starred questions is similar to not having question hour at all. Unstarred questions may not build the same pressure as starred questions, as a starred question is to be answered orally on the floor of the house allowing the members to ask supplementary questions with respect to the answer and cross-examine the minister about the steps taken by him regarding that specific issue. Thus, the particular minister answering the question cannot be ambiguous and cannot avoid accountability for his or her actions, which can be done easily in case of unstarred questions, as has been done on previous occasions by the Ministers by ignoring some of the components of the questions posed to them.

As Mahila Congress Chief, Sushmita dev claims the system of checks and balances is being destroyed by such actions and with that the country is moving from democracy towards a dictatorship.

As Derek O Brien writes in his article, “Another lame excuse being floated is that if there's a question hour, many Ministry Officials would need to brief the Ministry and subsequently visit Parliament. Our simple contention is: why can't the Ministers be briefed virtually?”

When the question hour was cancelled previously there were no technological advances. Today in 2020, where more than 50% of our work has been transferred to an online platform why can’t the ministers answer the questions through the numerous virtual platforms available.

Finally, it would seem right to reiterate what All India United Democratic Front (AIUDF) chief Badruddin Ajmal said,

“Pandemic is just an excuse, the real motive is to suppress the voice of the Parliamentarians and deprive them of their democratic rights so that the Government shouldn’t have to answer questions on burning national issues”.