In my three terms as a student in the University called Parliament, this kind of learning has been an enormously educative experience

“Disagreement converts the plausible into the right, and the right into the good decision” — Peter Drucker.

You can learn from people you disagree with. You can learn from people whose ideology you stridently oppose. You can learn from people who are your political opponents. In my three terms as a student in the university called Parliament, this kind of learning has been an enormously educative experience.

Arun Jaitley was the original raconteur in what was then Central Hall (now, sadly, turned into a museum). From cricket to fountain pens, from anecdotes about television anchors to path-breaking Supreme Court judgments, “Koffee With Jaitley” was always special.

One Friday afternoon in 2015 was extra special. Rajya Sabha took up Tiruchi Siva’s Private Member’s Bill on transgender rights. The Treasury Bench tried to convince Siva to withdraw his Bill. But when Siva refused, and asked for a Division (electronic voting), Jaitley addressed the House. He said that the Bill “expresses the sentiment of the House. And the House by voice vote will agree to the sentiment”. This was the first time in 45 years a Private Member’s Bill was passed in the House. Historic. Later, Siva thanked Jaitley for his timely intervention. That was 2015. Parliament has changed.

Arun Jaitley often recounted the advice L K Advani had given him in 1999 when he first entered Parliament, “When you speak in Parliament or outside, speak on issues, avoid making it personal.” Jaitley admits, “Of course I have breached this rule once in a while, but I have tried to follow it as far as possible.”

Yet, his legacy will always be smudged by the electoral bonds scheme, which the Supreme Court struck down in 2024 as unconstitutional. The hasty implementation of GST happened under his watch. In two years of its implementation, there was 32 per cent job loss in the micro segment, 35 per cent in the small businesses segment, and 43 per cent in the trader segment.

Prakash Javadekar held multiple portfolios, but it was his six-month stint (May-November 2014) as Minister of State, Parliamentary Affairs, which has stayed with me. Javadekar is a genteel and affable man, popular with even the Opposition (cynics would say that is why he lost his job!). When Parliament was in session, he would spend more time with members from the Opposition parties than with the Treasury benches. Listening to concerns, devising strategies to ensure smooth running of Parliament. And that is how it should be if a government wants Parliament to function.

Many senior parliamentarians recall that Priya Ranjan Dasmunsi, who was the Parliamentary Affairs Minister from 2005 to 2008, worked in the same way. Prakash was usually far-removed from controversy, yet during his stint as the Human Resource Development minister, he drew the ire of educational institutions when he said, “Some schools come to the government with a begging bowl asking for funds”.

Sushma Swaraj was the first woman Chief Minister of Delhi, the second woman to hold the External Affairs portfolio after Indira Gandhi, first to hold it full-time, and a debater who sparkled. When I became a Member of Parliament, a rookie, she was already an accomplished senior.

In our interactions, limited to fleeting moments in the lobbies of the Lok Sabha or the Rajya Sabha, she would always greet even newbies with a smile and a very personal “Hello (and your first name)”. In June 2015, she courted controversy when there were allegations against her of helping economic offender Lalit Modi to travel to the United Kingdom in 2014.

P P Chaudhary is certainly the BJP’s favourite MP to chair parliamentary committees. In the last few years, he has headed four of them. This columnist was also part of the JPC constituted for the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019. Critics and supporters both agree that this Committee had one of the more high-pressure mandates in Parliament. The Personal Data Protection Bill (now replaced with Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023, rules still awaited!) was a critical piece of legislation that would have fundamentally affected our behaviour on the internet. PP, he is fondly called, was Chairman for only the last five months of functioning. In each meeting of the Committee, he would approach the subject of data governance with objectivity. This often meant diverse, contradictory opinions. PP always ensured each opinion was heard and placed on record.

In recent years, there is enough evidence to suggest that the BJP has been using JPCs to set narratives, rather than to truly improve the quality of legislation. Between 2014 and 2024, Parliament set up 11 JPCs. Of these, the motion for constituting a JPC was adopted on the last day of the Parliament session in seven cases. To add perspective, between 2004 and 2014, three JPCs were set up. None of them were adopted on the last day.

Overheard in the Parliament cafeteria: Colleagues giving credit to this columnist for a tactic the Opposition now uses in Rajya Sabha. Try to make your point, and if the Chairperson does not pay heed, walk out in protest for just 10 minutes. Then rejoin the proceedings. Sitaram Yechury taught me this.

This article was also published in The Indian Express | Friday, September 12, 2025

Good wishes to the newly elected Vice President of India, CP Radhakrishnan. Eight suggestions for the new Vice President, who will also serve as the Chairman of Rajya Sabha.

Take ‘Notice’ of the Opposition

An important tool that enables MPs in the Opposition to hold the Union government accountable is to submit Notices seeking discussions on important issues. There has been a steep decline in the number of notices being accepted and then discussed on the floor of Parliament. In the eight years between 2009 and 2016, 110 notices were admitted into the Rajya Sabha for discussions. In the next eight years, between 2017 and 2024, that number dropped to an abysmal 36.

Rule 267 of the Rajya Sabha states that a member may ask the Chair to suspend the business listed for the day, and instead take up a discussion on an issue of urgent national importance. Under the watch of Venkaiah Naidu and Jagdeep Dhankar, in eight years, not even one discussion was allowed under this rule.

Stop mass suspension of MPs

In December 2023, 146 MPs were suspended from Parliament, 100 of these were from the Lok Sabha. A dubious record. For context, during the 10 years of UPA I and UPA II, a total of 50 MPs were suspended.

This mass suspension in 2023 was because Opposition MPs were demanding a statement from the Home Minister on the security breach in Parliament.

Choosing Vice Chairs

The Chairperson has the prerogative to nominate six members as Vice Chair to preside over the Rajya Sabha in the absence of the Chair or Deputy Chair. In the last two years, about 30 MPs were included in the panel to perform this duty. This must not be looked at as a perk. Nor can it be a game of musical chairs. Two suggestions here. (i) Only those MPs with considerable experience should be chosen to perform this duty. (ii) The political party they are in needs to be (informally) consulted before names are announced.

Do not censor protests by the Opposition

Visuals of Opposition MPs protesting inside Parliament are not shown on the government-run Sansad TV. Cameras and online edits of the proceedings only show the Treasury Benches. Is this fair?

Ensure more Bills are sent for scrutiny

When a Bill is referred to a parliamentary committee, it goes through critical examination with stakeholders and experts being consulted. This scrutiny often helps improve the quality of legislation.

In the 14th Lok Sabha (2004-09), six out of 10 bills were sent to various committees for scrutiny. In the 15th Lok Sabha, it was seven out of 10. In the 16th Lok Sabha this number fell to around three out of ten. In the 17th Lok Sabha (2019-24), only two out of 10 Bills were examined by a parliamentary committee.

Let MPs exercise constitutional rights

When a bill is being passed in Parliament, each Member can move amendments to the Bill. When the amendments are being moved in the House, the Member has an absolute right to ask for “division” (electronic voting). In the last few years, there are multiple examples of members being denied this right. Several MPs, including your columnist, asked for division during the passing of the contentious farm bills. The right was denied.

Must accept points of order

A point of order can be raised by any member when she feels that there has been a transgression of any rule in the House which the Chair has not taken cognisance of. The rules state that whenever such instances occur, members “can and should” bring such instances to the notice of the Chair.

Raising a point of order is a legitimate parliamentary tactic. The Chair cannot, and must not, look away.

Do away with birthday greetings

Not long ago, the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha introduced the practice of wishing MPs on their birthdays. Good thought or an avoidable self-indulgence?

Wishing 200 plus members every year, at two minutes a member, adds up to over 400 minutes. Maybe this time can be used by Parliament to discuss important issues facing the nation.

In all the hoopla about GST, the four-letter word which is slitting the throat of federalism is CESS. Funds collected as cess go 100% to the Union government. Not a rupee is shared with the State governments. Consider this:

i. In 2012, cess formed 7% of the Union government’s total tax revenues. In 2025, cess is estimated to be about 20% of the Union government’s total tax revenues. 

ii. Rs 5.7 lakh crore of cess and surcharge has been lying unutilised since 2019.

iii. 22 states, including many ruled by the BJP, had protested against the shrinking divisible pool. These states asked the 16th Finance Commission for a larger share of tax collections – currently 41%, to be raised to 50%. 

iv. As per RBI, the divisible pool has shrunk from 89% of gross tax revenue in 2011 to 79% in 2021. This, despite the 10% increase in tax devolution to states as recommended by the 14th Finance Commission.

v. Between 2015 and 2024, cess (in operation) has increased by 462% (over Rs 2 lakh crore).

Dr Amit Mitra, economist, former Chairman of the Empowered Committee of State Finance Ministers on GST, and Principal Chief Advisor to the Chief Minister of West Bengal, makes three important points on GST rationalisation.

First, he says that GST rationalisation is a good step, provided the common people get the benefit. There was an anti-profiteering committee that ensured the lower GST would be passed on to the consumers. That committee has been discontinued. 

Second, there also remains the question of how states will be compensated. Eleven ministers in the GST Council had asked for compensation, their voices were muffled.

Third, the Revenue Secretary said in the press conference that revenue loss will be Rs 48,000 crore. But he didn’t take into account the supply chain. It will, easily, be over rupees one lakh crore. 

Postscript: The Parliamentary Select Committee, of which this writer was a member, in its 2015 report on the GST Bill, had recommended that GST should not exceed 18%, and multiplicity of taxes should be avoided. (Now, done. Better late than never.)

Derek O’Brien, Parliamentary Party Leader (Rajya Sabha), AITC.

Earlier this week, the GST Council held its 56th meeting in New Delhi. Taxes have been revised on household products, cars, beverages and electronics amongst other items. For a student of political communication, this week has been fodder. The language used to describe these reforms has been nothing short of grand. “Landmark”. “Biggest ever since the 1990s”. Hyperbole. Those in the Opposition have been advocating for such ‘reforms’ for eight years now – both in and outside Parliament. Just one example is the tax on medical and health insurance. And yet the Union Government, with its cheerleaders in the media, have been ramping up the changes as if they are the biggest ever to happen since Dr Manmohan Singh’s economic reforms of the mid-1990s. Amusing. Here are some other thoughts on narratives that played out recently:

Lesson One: Narrative Manufacture

Did you notice that the Home Minister of India, Amit Shah, chose to give a 45 minute interview to a news agency, just after the Parliament session concluded? Did the Modi coalition cede the narrative to the Opposition during the monsoon session? And that’s why there was a need to fix it ASAP?

Within just a few minutes into the ‘interview’, Mr Home Minister’s defensive opening remark was a dead giveaway: “Through your medium, I would like to inform the people of the country, what exactly is the 130th Constitutional Amendment.”.

In the month-long Parliament session, the Opposition raised some critical issues. The undemocratic nature of Special Intensive Revision. The Vice President’s inexplicable resignation overnight. And, finally, the manner in which the 130th Constitutional Amendment was introduced on the very last day of session. To each of the Government’s tactics (from legislating with stealth, to bringing on marshals, to brazen stonewalling) the Opposition pushed back with legitimate parliamentary devices: notices, questions, motions. When the score line doesn’t look good at the conclusion of a Parliament session, shift the action to the television studio on the receiving end of soft questions. The 130th Constitutional Amendment was too hot to handle on the floor of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. Opposition unity was on steroids. Sustained pressure. In his desperation, Mr Shah even evoked stalwarts of Indian politics during the interview. LK Advani. BS Yediyurappa. George Fernandes. The result? Failure. Six major opposition political parties are boycotting the formation of the Joint Parliamentary Committee towards the 130th Constitutional Amendment. With his furrowed brows, defensive answers and visible discomfort, the body language was diametrically opposite to what the Opposition was in Parliament – confident, focused and united.

Lesson Two: Narrative Deflection

Bihar goes to election in the next 90 days. Crucial time. Political parties, leaders, agencies, and election consultants are crunching data sets and looking for ways to win the minds of the voter. In the whirlwind of campaign ideas, one evoked considerable interest on ground: the Voter Adhikar Yatra. The concept was simple enough: vote theft through SIR. Opposition parties joining in at different stages of the fortnight-long march through districts of Bihar, bolstered the campaign.

Since the Yatra concluded, multiple attempts have been made to play up the allegations of the Prime Minister being abused on the campaign stage. Clips on social media, emotional bytes, crocodile tears. Everything goes. Victim card.

Lesson Three: Narrative Ownership

A month ago, a senior yet youthful MP from the Opposition, did an interview (podcast) with a television anchor of a legacy media channel. Candid enough, light hearted enough, minimal grilling mixed with brushstrokes of the more important issues. The podcast was released on the legacy media channel’s YouTube page. All the standard podcast markings were there: intimate set-up, close camera angles, longer format. The video did well in pulling viewership. Now a contrast. The same day, the same politician did a podcast interview with an independent platform on Youtube. Standard markings were still all present. This time, viewership had another story to tell. Views on the digital only channel’s podcast were one hundred times more than the legacy media channel. Indeed, there are ample platforms from where a politician can amplify his/her message. The onus is on the neta to make the right call.

P.S. Forty years ago, if I had the option to select a college degree beyond political science, history or English literature, I would have picked mass communications. Who knows, these notes might have impressed a professor. Just might have.

This article was also published in NDTV | Friday, September 5, 2025]

Rushing bills and rejecting discussions on issues of national importance have become the norm

For one full month — the entire Monsoon Session — Parliament was virtually washed out. Who created the logjam in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha? What left Opposition MPs with no option but to raise slogans and repeatedly enter the well? Why were the government’s floor managers uninterested even in holding back-channel talks with representatives from major parties in the Opposition? It was a combination of arrogance and defensiveness. This is a government so unsure even of its hubris that it doesn’t feel confident enough to stand up for its actions. Instead, it resorts to a serial sabotage of Parliament.

Here are the facts of how it was done.

i. Reject every single notice given by the Opposition to discuss any issue of national importance (including the Special Intensive Revision).

ii. Come up with two “reasons” to avoid having a meaningful discussion on the floor of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. Excuse number one: The matter is sub judice. Excuse number two: The Election Commission cannot be discussed on the floor of Parliament.

iii. Even when the Opposition made a sincere effort to make Parliament function, the government dug in its heels. Let me tell you, the Opposition was even open to the idea of taking up a discussion on this subject: “Urgent Need to Strengthen the Electoral Process in the Mother of Democracies”. Dwell on the wording of this notice. No mention ofthe SIR. No mention of the EC. And yet the Union government refused to have a discussion.

iv. Rushing bills. In the Lok Sabha, six bills (IIM Bill, Manipur GST Bill, Online Gaming Bill, Manipur Appropriation Bill, Income Tax Bill, and Taxation Laws Bill) were passed without discussion; only the minister spoke. On the last day of the session, when the Online Gaming Bill was being discussed in the Rajya Sabha, the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs, interrupted a Member and said: “No one can speak, or hear anything in the disturbance, so we request you to pass the bill.” I am not making this up!

v. The Business Advisory Committee (BAC) decides the time allocated to each item of business in Parliament. All scheduling and planning is driven by this committee. Your columnist is a member of the BAC. This Monsoon Session, the opening meeting of the BAC was rescheduled five times in the first two days! A dubious record. Jagdeep Dhankhar, then the Vice President and Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, chaired the first meeting of the BAC on July 21 at 12:30 PM. In attendance were the Leader of the House, J P Nadda, and the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs, Kiren Rijiju. However, the two government representatives did not attend any subsequent meetings. By the end of the day on July 21, the Vice President had tendered his resignation. Inexplicable.

vi. According to parliamentary rules, a member may, at any time, raise a “point of order” to a decision taken by the Chairman. During this Monsoon Session, members of the Opposition raised multiple “points of order”. At least 17 such “points of order” were disallowed.

vii. At the fag end of the session, Home Minister Amit Shah introduced three crucial bills. He also moved motions in the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha to constitute a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) to look into these bills. What is the track record of JPCs? Are they an effective and transparent mechanism? You decide.

Members of the JPC are nominated by parties based on their strength in the House. So the ruling party or coalition, with larger numbers, dominates. Also, the recommendations of the JPC are only advisory in nature and the government is not bound to act on them.

In 1987, a JPC was constituted to investigate the Bofors contract scam. Six major Opposition parties boycotted the JPC since the majority of the Committee’s members were from Congress. Two of the parties are still the BJP’s allies: The Telugu Desam party (TDP) and the Asom Gana Parishad (AGP). The Committee’s report, presented in 1988, was rejected by the Opposition (non-Congress) for being biased.

The JPC report on the “Irregularities in Securities and Banking Transactions”, presented in 1993, gave 273 recommendations. Only 87 were actually implemented. The JPC report on “Allocation and Pricing of Telecom Licences and Spectrum”, presented in 2013, gave 74 recommendations. How many were implemented? We do not know because the “action taken” report was not laid.

A motion for the appointment of a JPC to investigate the acquisition of AugustaWestland VVIP choppers was passed in the Rajya Sabha in 2013. Opposing the motion, the then Leader of the Opposition, Arun Jaitley, had said the JPC would be an “exercise in futility” and was a “diversionary tactic” by the government.

Between 2014 and 2024, Parliament set up 11 JPCs. The motion for constituting a JPC was adopted on the last day of the session in seven cases. In contrast, between 2004 and 2014, three JPCs were set up. None were set on the last day.

Overheard at the Parliament cafeteria: JPC. Joint Parliamentary Committee or Just Political Camouflage.

This article was also published in The Indian Express | Friday, August 29, 2025]

A. Six reasons why JPCs do not inspire confidence

1. Members of the JPC are nominated by parties based on their strength in the House. So the ruling party or coalition, with larger numbers, dominates. Also, the recommendations of the JPC are only advisory in nature and the government is not bound to act on it.

2. In 1987, a JPC was constituted to investigate the Bofors Contract scam. Six major Opposition parties boycotted the JPC since the majority of the Committee’s members were from the Congress. Two of the parties are still BJP allies: Telugu Desam party (TDP) and Asom Gana Parishad (AGP). The Committee’s report, presented in 1988, was rejected by the Opposition (non-Congress) for being biased. 

3. The JPC report on the ‘Irregularities in Securities and Banking Transaction’, presented in 1993, gave 273 recommendations. Only 87 were actually implemented. The JPC on ‘Allocation and Pricing of Telecom Licences and Spectrum’, presented in 2013, gave 74 recommendations. How many were implemented? We do not know because the ‘action taken’ report was not laid.

4. A motion for the appointment of a JPC to investigate the acquisition of Augusta Westland VVIP choppers was passed in the Rajya Sabha in 2013. Opposing the motion, the then Leader of Opposition, Arun Jaitley, had said the JPC will be an “exercise in futility” and was a “diversionary tactic” by the government.

5. Since 2014, Parliament has set up 11 JPCs. The motion for constituting the JPC was adopted on the last day of the session in seven cases. In contrast, between 2004 and 2014, three JPCs were set up, none were set on the last day.

6. When the JPC report on the Waqf (Amendment) Bill was tabled in Parliament, dissent notes by the Opposition had been redacted (marked over by a whitener). After vociferous protests by the Opposition, BJP MP Medha Kulkarni, who had tabled the report in Rajya Sabha in the morning, had to table a corrigendum to Appendix 5 of the report post-lunch, which contained the notes that were redacted.

JPC – Joint Parliamentary Committee or Just Political Camouflage. 

B. Those who form JPCs lose elections 

1987: Congress formed JPC on Bofors. In the next elections held in 1989, the Congress failed to form the government.

1992: Congress formed JPC on Harshad Mehta scam. In the next elections in 1996, Congress failed to form the government. 

2002 and 2003: BJP formed JPCs on Ketan Parekh scam, and on pesticide in soft drinks respectively. In the next elections in 2004, BJP failed to form the government.

2011 and 2013: Congress formed JPC on the 2G scam, and on VVIP chopper scam respectively. In the next elections in 2014, Congress failed to form the government. 

Coincidence or trend? 

C. What do the Bills say. Some Opposition parties have already boycotted

The three crucial Bills provide for removal of the Prime Minister, a Chief Minister of a state, or any other Minister in the central or a state government, if s/he is accused of an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or more, and s/he has been arrested and detained in custody for 30 consecutive days.

The second largest Opposition parties in Parliament, All India Trinamool Congress (AITC), and Samajwadi Party (SP), have decided to boycott the JPC. The  Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and Shiv Sena-Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray (SS-UBT), have also followed suit. 

Around 2,400 years ago, Greek philosopher Plato wrote The Republic, a discussion of the principles society ought to be governed by. Of the many concepts he introduced, one especially captured popular imagination and was later familiarised in the proverb “empty vessels make the most sound”. 

Several centuries later, far away from the Greece of 380 BCE, an entire nation witnessed this old proverb play out in live action. Plato in Parliament. Location: New Delhi. Protagonists: the Union government. Timeline: the recently concluded monsoon session. Action: the Government was seen deploying every device to “make the most sound”. If Plato’s postulate is to be followed, this manufactured noise can be traced back to a lack of substance. If Parliamentary questions are to be studied, hundreds of centuries later, the old Greek philosopher would have proven himself right again. 

A list of 12 questions asked recently on the floor of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha by members of the Opposition during Question Hour, which proves the Union Government’s “lack of substance”. 

1. Sudhakar Singh (Rashtriya Janata Dal) enquired about the average ratio of teachers employed to sanctioned positions of teachers in teacher training colleges across the country. The answer provided a link to the National Council for Teacher Education Regulation, without actually giving the data. 
2. Abhishek Banerjee (All India Trinamool Congress) asked for the number of child labourers in the country. The government stated that over 3,000 cases were registered between 2018 and 2022. Actual current numbers not given. 
3. Kanimozhi Karunanidhi (Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, or DMK) asked about instances of caste-based discrimination and violence in Central Universities and the number of students who have availed government support in such cases. Generic reply with steps taken, like the establishment of Students Grievance Redressal Committees, appointment of Ombudspersons, etc. No data was provided either on the instances of discrimination or violence, or the students who availed support. 
4. Vivek Tankha (Indian National Congress) asked about the timeline for Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) rules and grievance redressal, penalty enforcement and compliance mechanisms. The answer listed the features of the bill and that it has been published for public consultation. It did not mention any clear timeline. 
5. Sudama Prasad (Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Liberation) enquired about the valid documents needed for proving citizenship. The government responded by outlining the criteria for citizenship under the Citizenship Act, 1955. Not a single document was mentioned in the reply.
6. Muzibulla Khan (Biju Janata Dal) asked if any assessment was done regarding the representation of minority communities in the Union government. The answer just listed the guidelines by the Department of Personnel & Training to be followed by all Public Sector Enterprises/Banks, financial institutions, quasi-government organisations, etc. Failed to give a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ reply.
7. Sushmita Dev (All India Trinamool Congress) asked whether any survey was conducted on the working hours of loco pilots and action taken against officials who forced loco pilots in filing false duty records. Instead of answering the question, the government just stated ‘loco pilots are important members of Indian Railway family’, and gave a list of improvement works done. 
8. Ujjwal Raman Singh (Indian National Congress) asked if the country had bid to host the Olympics of 2036, the current infrastructure and what steps were being taken to successfully organise these games. The government just stated that a letter of intent was given. No information on current capabilities and infrastructure was provided. 
9. Dr. Vikramjit Singh Sahney (Aam Aadmi Party) asked about the implementation of the Prime Minister’s 15-point programme in the State of Punjab, and funds released and beneficiaries. No details were given; the answer stated ‘schemes/initiatives implemented by other participating ministries/departments’.     
10. Jose Mani (Kerala Congress(M)) asked for the data regarding the number of internet shutdowns in the country. The government admitted that details regarding internet suspensions are not maintained centrally by the Department of Telecommunications. It provided a link to the archive circulars page of the Home Affairs website.
11. Dr. Prabha Mallikarjun and Adv. Dean Kuriakose (Indian National Congress) asked a question about the number of deaths due to rabies and the precautionary measures taken. The government mentioned the National Rabies Control Programme and gave the number of vaccines procured and utilised. No data on the number of rabies cases across the country.
12. Your columnist (All India Trinamool Congress) asked a question on robot density in India against the global average, the displacement of workers and imposition of a robot tax to offset job displacement. The government’s response was on electronics manufacturing. Not a word on job losses. 

This article was also published in NDTV | Tuesday, August 26, 2025]

The All India Trinamool Congress (AITC) and the Samajwadi Party (SP), the second largest Opposition parties in Parliament, decided not to nominate any of its members to the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) being proposed to examine the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, calling the committee a ‘farce’.

Here are three reasons why JPCs are an exercise in futility 

One, the chairperson of the JPC is decided by the Speaker of Lok Sabha and the chairperson of Rajya Sabha, in consultation with each other as may be necessary, and its members are subsequently nominated by each party according to the party’s strength. This makes these committees skewed towards the ruling majority because of their numbers in the Houses. The chairperson of the JPC would have been a BJP MP.

Second, in almost every JPC there is no consensus on the final report. Whenever important amendments are proposed by an opposition MP, the amendments are defeated in the committee by a show of hands. The ruling party uses its brute majority to do this. This has become a trend. Instead of coming to these meetings with an open mind, Members of Parliament representing the treasury benches come and rubber stamp the views of the ruling party. Those in the opposition, holding an alternate view, are outvoted. The only recourse left is to table a dissenting note – for the record.

Third, let me pluck out a few examples – from 1987, 1992 and 2001. In the Bofors case of 1987, it was alleged that a Congress member had taken bribes while settling the deal of purchasing the Bofors ‘shoot and scoot’ guns. The JPC report was boycotted by the opposition highlighting that the committee was packed with members of the ruling party. When the Harshad Mehta scam (1992) surfaced, a JPC was set up to inquire into allegations that Mehta diverted funds to Maruti Udyog Limited and provoked a major fall in the Sensex. However, the recommendations were neither accepted nor implemented. During the Share Market Scam (2001), the Ahmedabad-based Madhavpura Mercantile Cooperative Bank had big exposure to the stock market, courtesy former stockbroker Ketan Parekh. The JPC suggested stock market regulations, which were subsequently diluted.

There have been other cases where a JPC has been formed for investigations. For example, the Joint Committee on pesticide residues in and safety standards for soft drinks, fruit juice and other beverages (2003) and the Joint Committee to examine matters relating to allocation and pricing of telecom licences and spectrum (2011). While only some recommendations were implemented from the former, the latter was mired in controversy. (Extract from my column which appeared on my blog on 6 March, 2023)

Joint Parliamentary Committees (JPCs) were originally conceived as democratic and well-intentioned mechanisms, established through motions passed by both Houses of Parliament and endowed with exceptional powers, such as summoning witnesses, demanding documents, and examining experts. These are far beyond what ordinary committees can do, to ensure transparency and public accountability. However, this purpose has eroded significantly post-2014, with JPCs increasingly being manipulated by the government in power. Now, in the same committee which represents public accountability, procedures are bypassed, opposition amendments rejected, and meaningful debate replaced by partisan fluff.

The Modi coalition pushing to form this JPC to examine an ‘unconstitutional bill’ is a stunt performed to create a distraction from Special Intensive Revision (SIR – vote chori). Someone needed to call a stunt a stunt. I am glad we did.

These cut across health, education and law among other spheres. For one, withdraw the SIR exercise in Bihar

As India celebrates its 79th Independence Day, here are 79 suggestions for the Union government.

Unemployment
1. Reduce unemployment. Eight out of 10 unemployed are youth.
2. Create jobs for the youth. Youth unemployment is over 15 per cent.
3. Introduce urban employment guarantee schemes.
4. Increase wages of rural workers— real average annual growth is just 0.2 per cent.
5. Increase the female Labour Force Participation Rate. Among youth, this is around half that of men.
6. Boost skill training. Only 4 per cent of the youth workforce have formal vocational training.

Health
7. Remove 18 per cent GST on health and life insurance.
8. Increase spending on public healthcare, currently less than 2 per cent of GDP.
9. Strengthen AIIMS. Over 18,000 positions are vacant in AIIMS hospitals.
10. Provide free medical and psychological treatment for acid attack survivors.

Education
11. Restart discontinued minority scholarship schemes like the Maulana Azad National Fellowship.
12. Stop partisan changes to

NCERT textbooks
13. Provide quality education to ST kids. A third of Eklavya schools are non-functional.

Children
14. Bring down student suicides.
15. Eradicate child labour.
16. Fight drug addiction among children. 1.5 crore children aged 10-17 are addicted.
17. Focus on child health. Two out of five children up to five years of age are stunted.
18. Bring down number of zero-food children. Three out of 10 infants aged between six and 11 months are classified as such.

Gender
19. Pass stronger laws for time-bound resolution of cases of crime against women.
20. Amend the Women’s Reservation Bill, delink it from the census and delimitation.
21. Harmonise punishment for sexual violence against transgender persons with penalties under the BNS for women.
22. Legalise same-sex marriage.
23. Criminalise marital rape.

Federalism
24. Make cess and surcharge a part of the divisible pool, to be shared with states.
25. Resolve ongoing unrest in Manipur.
26. Stop using the ED as a political weapon. Its conviction rate is 0.25 per cent.
27. Stop Hindi imposition.
28. Give full statehood to J&K.
29. Stop squeezing non-BJP states for funds. Bengal alone is owed over Rs 15,000 crore under MGNREGA and PMAY-G.
Policy
30. Admit demonetisation was a failure.
31. Roll back Agnipath and bring back permanent recruitment in the Armed Forces.
32. Introduce a framework to reduce financial frauds, which increased by 97 per cent between 2020 and 2024.
33. Introduce a national elder care policy with support services and pension.
34. Ensure a five-year cooling-off period before retired judges can take up any other constitutional post.
35. Increase the judiciary’s strength. Over five crore cases are pending across courts.
36. Delink MGNREGS payment from Aadhaar, which makes over 28 per cent of MGNREGS workers ineligible.
37. Strengthen RTI and include institutions like PM CARES under its purview.
38. Improve data privacy. The DPDP rules have not been framed. More than 81 crore citizens’ data was leaked in 2023.
39. Improve press freedom, in which India is ranked 161 out of 180.
40. Strengthen the Armed Forces. There are 1.09 lakh vacancies in paramilitary forces.
41. Strengthen banking access. One in five Jan Dhan accounts is inactive.
42. Increase PM Kisan funds to Rs 12,000
43. Stop manual scavenging. Between 2014 and 2023, 736 people died cleaning sewers and septic tanks.
44. Reduce plastic pollution. 3.5 million tonnes of plastic waste is generated each year.
45. Build dedicated legislation for AI. Do not wait to take the cue from other countries.
46. Withdraw the SIR exercise in Bihar.
47. Implement a national bail reform policy to reduce the undertrial population.
48. Conduct the census, due since 2021, in 2026 instead of 2027.
49. Standardise gig/contract worker rights, including social security.
50. Increase the wages of MGNREGS and ASHA workers.

Economy
51. Reduce poverty. Four out of five people earn less than Rs 171 a day.
52. Improve GDP growth, which was at a four-year low in 2024-25.
53. Increase value added by manufacturing. Manufacturing GVA was at 4.5 per cent in FY 2025, lower than FY 2013.
54. Reduce agriculture household debt. The average outstanding loan per agricultural household is over Rs 74,000.
55. Strengthen MSMEs. Between 2020 and February 2025, over 75,000 MSMEs were shut down.
56. Boost industrial growth, which in June was at its lowest in 10 months.
57. Create high-value jobs. Forty-six per cent of the workforce is in agriculture.
58. Reduce household indebtedness. Household savings touched a 50-year low
in 2022-23.
59. Reduce per capita external debt, which rose by 132 per cent in 2014-2025.

Infrastructure
60. Develop air connectivity. Of 619 routes operationalised under UDAN, only half are currently operational.
61. Improve internet access. Over 21,200 villages don’t have internet connections.
62. Expand expressways. Twenty-five per cent of Bharatmala project isn’t yet awarded.
63. Boost railway safety. There are over one lakh vacancies in the railways.
64. Expand KAVACH. In four years, it was installed in just 2 per cent of rail routes.
65. Ensure road safety. About half of unnatural and untimely deaths are due to road accidents.
66. Improve infrastructure. Work for only eight per cent of Amrit Bharat stations has been completed.

Parliament
67. Give more time to the Opposition. Seventy per cent is used by the government.
68. Appoint a deputy speaker of the Lok Sabha. The post has been vacant since 2019.
69. Have a fixed parliamentary calendar with a minimum 100 days of sittings.
70. Stop bulldozing bills. The 500-plus-page Income Tax Bill was passed in under five minutes in the Lok Sabha this week.
71. Stop mass suspension of MPs — 146 were suspended in one session in 2023.

Bad Laws
72. Repeal CAA.
73. Ban anti-conversion laws.
74. Scrap sedition and the UAPA law, which has a conviction rate under 3 per cent.
75. Repeal the Waqf (Amendment) Act.
76. Criminalise marital rape.
For the Prime Minister
77. Answer a question in Parliament.
78. Hold a press conference.
79. Visit Manipur

This article was also published in The Indian Express | Friday, August 15, 2025]

Eight suggestions for the new incumbent, whoever that may be

The best time to give advice is to speak to a chair in front of you with nobody sitting on it. Empty chairs have arms. No ears, no minds, no conscience. Tell an empty chair anything and it will listen. And that’s precisely what I have planned to do in this column — give gyan to an empty chair. There is a vacant seat to be filled. The chair of India’s second-highest constitutional office will have a new occupant soon. The Vice President of India, as we learnt in civics books in school, chairs the Council of States. Before the monsoon recedes, we will have a new full-time presiding officer seated in the Rajya Sabha.

As a student of parliamentary democracy, let me — you guessed it — offer some suggestions to an empty chair. (Will be filled on the election of the 15th Vice President of India.)

Take ‘Notice’ of the Opposition

An important tool that enables MPs in the Opposition to hold the Union government accountable is to submit Notices seeking discussions on important issues. There has been a steep decline in the number of notices being accepted and then discussed on the floor of Parliament. In the eight years between 2009 and 2016, 110 notices were admitted into the Rajya Sabha for discussions. In the next eight years, between 2017 and 2024, that number dropped to an abysmal 36.

Rule 267 of the Rajya Sabha states that a member may ask the Chair to suspend the business listed for the day, and instead take up a discussion on an issue of urgent national importance. Under the watch of Venkaiah Naidu and Jagdeep Dhankar, in eight years, not even one discussion was allowed under this rule.

Stop mass suspension of MPs

In December 2023, 146 MPs were suspended from Parliament, 100 of these were from the Lok Sabha. A dubious record. For context, during the 10 years of UPA I and UPA II, a total of 50 MPs were suspended.

This mass suspension in 2023 was because Opposition MPs were demanding a statement from the Home Minister on the security breach in Parliament.

Choosing Vice Chairs

The Chairperson has the prerogative to nominate six members as Vice Chair to preside over the Rajya Sabha in the absence of the Chair or Deputy Chair. In the last two years, about 30 MPs were included in the panel to perform this duty. This must not be looked at as a perk. Nor can it be a game of musical chairs. Two suggestions here. (i) Only those MPs with considerable experience should be chosen to perform this duty. (ii) The political party they are in needs to be (informally) consulted before names are announced.

Do not censor protests by the Opposition

Visuals of Opposition MPs protesting inside Parliament are not shown on the government-run Sansad TV. Cameras and online edits of the proceedings only show the Treasury Benches. Is this fair?

Ensure more Bills are sent for scrutiny

When a Bill is referred to a parliamentary committee, it goes through critical examination with stakeholders and experts being consulted. This scrutiny often helps improve the quality of legislation.

In the 14th Lok Sabha (2004-09), six out of 10 bills were sent to various committees for scrutiny. In the 15th Lok Sabha, it was seven out of 10. In the 16th Lok Sabha this number fell to around three out of ten. In the 17th Lok Sabha (2019-24), only two out of 10 Bills were examined by a parliamentary committee.

Let MPs exercise constitutional rights

When a bill is being passed in Parliament, each Member can move amendments to the Bill. When the amendments are being moved in the House, the Member has an absolute right to ask for “division” (electronic voting). In the last few years, there are multiple examples of members being denied this right. Several MPs, including your columnist, asked for division during the passing of the contentious farm bills. The right was denied.

Must accept points of order

A point of order can be raised by any member when she feels that there has been a transgression of any rule in the House which the Chair has not taken cognisance of. The rules state that whenever such instances occur, members “can and should” bring such instances to the notice of the Chair.

Raising a point of order is a legitimate parliamentary tactic. The Chair cannot, and must not, look away.

Do away with birthday greetings

Not long ago, the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha introduced the practice of wishing MPs on their birthdays. Good thought or an avoidable self-indulgence?

Wishing 200 plus members every year, at two minutes a member, adds up to over 400 minutes. Maybe this time can be used by Parliament to discuss important issues facing the nation.

These are eight suggestions to an empty Chair, expectantly waiting for somebody to sit on it.

[This article was also published in The Indian Express | Friday, August 1, 2025]