Odisha is administered with a hitherto semi-functional legislative Assembly. Many major Bills are passed through the guillotine procedure. This does not speak well of a functioning democracy. An alert, responsive and active House is a condition precedent to a vibrant democracy. Three years have passed and there is hardly any tangible result in so far as the chit fund scams are concerned. The Assembly has been non-functional, and on many occasions, it has also not functioned for a critical minimum of days in a year. Estimation indicates that it costs around Rs 50 lakh per day for keeping the Assembly in session. The MlAs are on an oath to uphold the Constitution and abide by the Rule of law. These are relevant because major administrative and policy issues are to be debated in the House and the Executive has to function in terms of a unanimous or a majority view of the House. On account of nonresponsive and wooden attitude of a ruling party enjoying a brute majority, the opposition parties have indulged in obstructionist methods, which have hitherto hardly yielded any desired results.
Of late, a new trend is much more disturbing. It is the ruling party, which does not want the House to function because some questions have been asked by the leader of Opposition to the Chief Minister, which the members of the ruling party considered objectionable and devoid of any material basis. If that be so, it was within their ability and competence under the leadership of the Chief Minister to answer the questions and meet the allegations made by the leader of Opposition. A question in whatever form needs to be answered in the House. It is not in conformity with any healthy parliamentary practice to throttle the answer and the related proceedings and bring the House to a halt through obstructions inter alia demanding the resignation of the leader of Opposition. A question has to be dealt with an answer and an answer is a legislative duty as a part of accountability of the executive to the legislature. It does not behove of a ruling party to disrupt the proceedings and bring the House to a grinding halt through a noisy demand of an apology from the leader of Opposition coupled with his resignation. If the leader of Opposition had erred in any manner in participating in the proceedings, it can be exposed by the members of the ruling party through an appropriate debate. In the given facts of recent episode, the question was meant for the Chief Minister. The replies have come outside the House from other functionaries. One wonders what prevents the ruling party to state the same through a reply in the House. This session is an important one, dealing with the Budget, and it will be a sad day that important proposals in the Appropriation Bill for different departments will be guillotined without any discussion. The guillotine method results in guillotining the freedom of expression in the House and the duty to be accountable.
The participation of the leaders of the House is almost marginal. Gone are the days when the Assembly used to have vibrant debates relating to public matters. One normally criticised the Opposition for having disrupted the proceedings. Their response used to be one of desperation and helplessness in the non-functioning of the House. But the situation is very different when a 117-member-strong ruling party states things outside the House but refuses to utter the same in the House and, instead, wants the leader of Opposition gagged and out of the office. The relevance of the Question Hour, Zero Hour, Adjournment Motions and debates on important proposals are soon becoming matters of history. In the ongoing Budget Session, out of 21 working days, 11 days have been functional, rest have yielded no results. The deadlock created by the ruling party is contrary to parliamentary practice. However unpleasant or awkward a question may be, it deserves an answer and the contents of the same are not to be uttered outside the House without first stating the same in the House. Members of an opposition party have given a privilege notice against the present Chairman of the Privileges Committee. No privilege motion came against any member of the opposition, including its leader. If there was an occasion to attract the mischief of any of the privileges, any ruling party member could have taken appropriate steps in the course of proceedings of the House.
By showing their might in obstructing legitimate proceedings, the ruling party is not indicating its strength but displaying its inability to meet a certain situation. This may be due to lack of familiarity with legislative procedures. If the leader of Opposition did state any baseless facts, the same could have been stoutly pointed out on the floor of the House rather than the demand for gagging him and his resignation from the House. In the past, there have been very difficult questions involving serious embarrassments to the ruling parties, but no one has dodged them demanding a forced silence and a forced resignation for asking a question in the legitimate discharge of duties in the legislature. A question was asked by the leader of Opposition in the course of proceedings. The question has not been considered by the Speaker to be irrelevant or objectionable. If it was so, the Speaker should have ruled accordingly and the question concerned would have been expunged from the proceedings. Instead of answering the question for whatever its worth, members of the ruling party have tried to evade it and demand silence and resignation on the part of the leader of Opposition, coupled with an apology. This very issue requires a debate in the House. Democracy demands tolerance, responsiveness, sensitivity and cooperating attitude. Members have not been sent to the House by the voters to demonstrate their ability to obstruct the proceedings. They have to put forth the reality before the House as a representative body and cause decisions thereon pursuant to a debate in a purposive manner. It is time the members realised the responsibility handed over to them by the voters.
The voters dominantly belong to the youth power. They were bewildered and perplexed. It is time they raised their voice till their representatives act in a manner to make the House functional, purposive and effective. Gagging is not a part of democracy. The youth power has to raise its voice irrespective of party affiliations and call upon the representatives to save the dignity of the House, act in accordance with their oath and proceed with purposive discussions and debates. Problems that imminently concern the State are plenty: water crisis, drought situation, suicide of farmers, problems of doctors and teachers of all categories, appropriate utilisation of the resources, facilitation of economic activities, regeneration of the agro-rural sector, revival of the cooperative sector and so on. None of these received due attention. This is a danger signal and makes the mechanics of a functional democracy turn into mockery. The intervention of the youth power to remedy the situation is an inevitable need of the hour. In this endeavour, the senior elements in the society have to provide adequate guidance to the youth power. This has to be an organised, coordinated and cooperative venture of the society as a whole. And, surely, this concerns us all!
(The writer, a Senior Advocate, is a former All India Service officer, a former diplomat, a former editor, a former President of Orissa High Court Bar Association and a former Advocate General of Odisha.jayantdas@hotmail.com)