Context: Disruption is replacing discussion as the foundation of our legislative functioning. The passionate debate is taking place everywhere other than in Parliament.

• Last week, a newspaper reported that the government is considering curtailing the monsoon session of Parliament on account of disruptions.

Parliamentary Disruptions - Data

• A PRS (PRS Legislative Research) report says during the 15th Lok Sabha (2009-14), frequent disruptions of Parliamentary proceedings have resulted in the Lok Sabha working for 61% and Rajya Sabha for 66% of its scheduled time.
• Another PRS report said, the 16th Lok Sabha (2014-19) lost 16% of its scheduled time to disruptions, better than the 15th Lok Sabha (37%), but worse than the 14th Lok Sabha (13%).
• The Rajya Sabha lost 36% of its scheduled time. In the 15th and 14th Lok Sabhas, it had lost 32% and 14% of its scheduled time respectively.

Reasons for disruptions

• In 2001, a day-long conference was held in the Central Hall of Parliament to discuss discipline and decorum in legislatures.
• The inputs of participants of conference helped identify four reasons behind the disorderly conduct by MPs.
• Inadequate time: The first was dissatisfaction in MPs because of inadequate time for airing their grievances.
• Unresponsive attitude: The second was an unresponsive attitude of the government and the retaliatory posture of the treasury benches.
• Adherence to norm: The third was political parties not adhering to parliamentary norms and disciplining their members.
• Lack of action: The absence of prompt action against disrupting MPs under the legislature’s rules.

Possible Solutions

Code of Conduct: To curb disorder in Parliament there is a need for strict enforcement of code of conduct for MPs and MLAs.

• These ideas are not new. For example, the Lok Sabha has had a simple code of conduct for its MPs since 1952. Newer forms of protest led to the updating of these rules in 1989.
• The Lok Sabha Speaker should suspend MPs not following such codes and obstructing the Houses’ business.

Increasing Number of Working Days: Recommended by the 2001 conference, there should be an increase in the working days of Parliament. It resolved that Parliament should meet for 110 days every year and state legislative assemblies for 90 days.

• In the United Kingdom, where Parliament meets over 100 days a year, opposition parties get 20 days on which they decide the agenda for discussion in Parliament. Canada also has a similar concept of opposition days.

Democratic Participation: Not all disruptions in the Parliament are necessarily counter-productive. Thus, the government of the day needs to be more democratic and allow the opposition to put their ideas in free manner.
Proposals in Individual Capacity

• In 2019, Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairperson mooted an idea of evolving a ‘Parliament Disruption Index’ to monitor disruptions in Parliament and state legislature.
• In the Lok Sabha, some members proposed automatic suspension of members who cause disruption and rush to the Well of the House.
• But the proposals are still in a nascent stage.

Productivity Meter: The overall productivity of the session also can be studied and disseminated to the public on a weekly basis.

• For this, a “Productivity Meter” could be created which would take into consideration the number of hours that were wasted on disruptions and adjournments, and monitor the productivity of the day-to-day working of both Houses of Parliament.

Road Ahead

• Democracy is judged by the debate it encourages and sustains. More strengthening of the Parliament is the solution to prevent disruption of its proceedings. There should be a deepening of its role as the forum for deliberation on critical national issues.