English 
Hindi Volume: 3 Issue: 2021-01-01
Dr. Kameshwar Paswan
Asstt. Prof. Dept Of Economics, M.K. College LaheriaSarai, LN Mithila University, Darbhanga
Relevance of Industrial Dispute in the Contemporary Economic Structure of India: A study
- July 10, 2021
- Editor
Share this:
Share on whatsapp
Share on facebook
Share on google
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on pinterest
Share on print
Recent Posts
-
भारत में उपभोक्ता संरक्षणः बदलते संदर्भ एवं मुद्दे
-
भारत में उपभोक्ता संरक्षण और शिकायत निवारण तंत्रः एक अध्ययन
-
बिहार में सामाजिक परिवर्तन के बदलते आयाम और कर्पूरी ठाकुरः एक अध्ययन
-
उपभोक्ता संरक्षण अधिनियम के फ्रेमवर्क में उपभोक्ता अधिकार का फैलता दायरा
-
भारत में उपभोक्ता संरक्षण का महत्वः एक अध्ययन
-
गरीबों के मसीहा और सच्चाई एवं ईमानदारी के प्रतीक जननायक कर्पूरी ठाकुर
-
भारतीय राजनीतिक संस्कृति का स्वरूप्य
-
वर्तमान शिक्षा में टैगोर एवं स्वामी विवेकानन्द के शिक्षा दर्शन की प्रासंगिकता
-
सुशासन के दौर में आर्थिक विकास बिहार के संदर्भ मेंः एक विश्लेषणात्मक अध्ययन
-
New Dimensions of Indo-US Strategic Relations
-
A Study for Understanding the Problems of Labor Market Outcomes for Younger People
-
Income Elasticity and the Role of Women in the Household’s Consumption Pattern: A Study on Rural Households of Muzaffarpur District
-
Relevance of Industrial Dispute in the Contemporary Economic Structure of India: A study
-
Arundhati Roy A Renowned Feminist: An Analytical Study with reference to her Novel “The God of Small Things”
-
COVID-19 Effect on Climate Change and Carbons oxide in Political Prospective Emission
-
Dr. Mohammad Alamgeer Prof. of Political Science, Samastipur College, Samastipur Abstract: Parliament has a central role in our system of governance. First and foremost, it is the institution that checks and challenges the government of the day. Last year, the national legislature was missing during the coronavirus pandemic, and only met for 33 days. This year, people hoped it would make up for lost time. The expectation was that the institution would devote itself to addressing the challenges arising from the Covid-19 pandemic and other vital issues such as tensions with China. But the Lok Sabha (LS) and the Rajya Sabha (RS) were in session for only 59 days, 11 days less than planned for the year. And even on the days that the two Houses met, there was no shortage of subjects to derail their functioning. The fact that Parliament and its committees have not met for over two months indicates the absence of scrutiny of government actions. The research paper attempts to diagnose the problem and suggest how to strengthen our Parliament as a solution to prevent disruption of its proceedings. Key Words: Parliamentary Democracy, parliamentary privileged, disruption of house Parliament has a central role in our system of governance. First and foremost, it is the institution that checks and challenges the government of the day. While introducing the draft Constitution, B.R. Ambedkar explained why the drafting committee had preferred a parliamentary form over the presidential system of governance. The reasoning was that while the presidential system provides a higher level of stability, the parliamentary system is better at holding the government to account on a daily basis through questions, motions and debates. Over the decades, our Parliament has evolved procedures of accountability including hearings of committees. The fact that Parliament and its committees have not met for over two months indicates the absence of scrutiny of government actions. The Constitution requires all expenditure by the government to be approved by Parliament. The government has announced a series of measures to address the economic crisis sparked by the health crisis and the lockdown. These have not been subject to parliamentary scrutiny or approval. Disruption is replacing discussion as the foundation of our legislative functioning. The passionate debate that should inform the country is taking place everywhere other than in Parliament. Last week, this newspaper reported that the government is considering curtailing the monsoon session of Parliament. If that happens, then all four sessions since last year would have been cut short. The first two because of Covid, this year“s budget session because of campaigning in state elections, and the ongoing session on account of disruptions. Political parties understand what causes disorder and the changes required to prevent it. In 2001, a day-long conference was held in the Central Hall of Parliament to discuss discipline and decorum in legislatures. A galaxy of political leaders including the then Prime Minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Sonia Gandhi, and leader of the All-India Trinamool Congress,Mamta Banarjee, weighed in on the subject. Their inputs and those of parliamentarians like ArunJately, Pranab Mukherjee, and former prime minister Chandra Shekhar helped identify four reasons behind the disorderly conduct by MPs. The first was dissatisfaction in MPs because of inadequate time for airing their grievances. The second was an unresponsive attitude of the government and the retaliatory posture of the treasury benches. The third was political parties not adhering to parliamentary norms and disciplining their members. Finally, the absence of prompt action against disrupting MPs under the legislature“s rules. Two of the conference suggestions to curb disorder in Parliament were enforcement of a code of conduct for MPs and MLAs and an increase in the sitting days of legislatures. These ideas are not new. For example, the Lok Sabha has had a simple code of conduct for its MPs since 1952. Earlier, the rules required MPs not to interrupt the speech of others, maintain silence and not obstruct proceedings by hissing or by making commentaries during debates. Newer forms of protest led to the updating of these rules in 1989. Accordingly, members should not shout slogans, display placards, tear away documents in protest, play cassettes or tape recorders in the House. A new rule empowers the Lok Sabha Speaker to suspend MPs obstructing the Houses“ business automatically. The conference also resolved that Parliament should meet for 110 days every year and larger state legislative assemblies for 90 days. Indian Express Aug 03/2021 Ray The pressing issues MPs have a duty to shape policy and guide the government in national interest. They represent the concerns of people by raising issues in Parliament. The country is facing serious challenges on many fronts as a consequence of the pandemic. These include addressing questions on how to stall the epidemic from spreading, how to treat people who are infected, and how to minimize the loss of life to the virus. There is also the question of how the economy is impacted, both from the supply side due to the lockdown, and from the demand side as incomes and spending contract. But these suggestions have not been enforced so far. The government decides when Parliament should meet, for how long and plays a significant role in determining what issues the House should discuss. Successive governments have s hied away from increasing the working days of Parliament. When a contentious issue crops up, the government dithers on debating it, leading to Opposition MPs violating the conduct rules and disrupting the proceedings of Parliament. Since they have the support of their parties in breaking the rules, the threat of suspension from the House does not deter them. Breaking this pattern of parliamentary disruptions requires a few changes in the functioning of Parliament. As recommended by the 2001 conference, there should be an increase in the working days of Parliament. Our legislature should meet throughout the year, like parliaments of most developed democracies. But these increased days will not help prevent disruptions if opposition parties don“t have the opportunity to debate and highlight important issues. Currently, government business takes priority, and private members discuss their topics post lunch on a Friday. 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. The main opposition party gets 17 days and the remaining three days are given to the second-largest opposition party. Usually, decisions of the House passed on opposition days are not binding on the government and are an opportunity for the opposing parties to focus national attention on issues that it deems crucial. Canada also has a similar concept of opposition days. More strengthening of our 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. It is the only mechanism to ensure that disrupting its proceedings or allowing them to be disrupted ceases to be a viable option. In 1992, former President KR Narayanan described indiscipline and disorder in the legislative bodies as “Infantile disorders or the measles of the middle-age” which “...are bound to pass, but pass they must, otherwise the system will be in mortal danger”. (Hindustan Times There is one word that describes Parliament in 2021: Disrupted. Last year, the national legislature was missing during the coronavirus pandemic, and only met for 33 days. This year, people hoped it would make up for lost time. The expectation was that the institution would devote itself to addressing the challenges arising from the Covid-19 pandemic and other vital issues such as tensions with China. But the Lok Sabha (LS) and the Rajya Sabha (RS) were in session for only 59 days, 11 days less than planned for the year. And even on the days that the two Houses met, there was no shortage of subjects to derail their functioning. Throughout the year, political parties traded charges about who was responsible for violating the sanctity of our legislature. Rethink the functioning of India“s Parliament To do justice to the vision of the Constitution“s drafters, and encourage greater deliberation, Parliament needs a set of structural changes Parliamentary disruptions are a symptom of the critical problems afflicting our legislatures. An effective Parliament requires rethinking of two fundamental areas of our legislative functioning. One — who should convene Parliament and what should it discuss? Two — what changes are required to encourage deliberation and ensure scrutiny in Parliament? There is a simple test to judge a parliamentary session. Former Lok Sabha Speaker GMC Balayogi came up with it. At 46, he was the youngest Speaker, and according to him, “All“s well if it doesn“t end in Well.” He was referring to the well of the House. It is the area before the Chair of the Speaker occupied by secretariat staff. In our parliamentary functioning, it is a sacred space. Here, Members of Parliament (MPs) take their oath of office before beginning their responsibilities as lawmakers. The well is also where MPs assemble to disrupt the proceedings of the House. An empty well during House proceedings is, therefore, a good sign. And the hope is that, on the Balayogi test, the upcoming 19-day winter session will pass. Parliamentary disruptions are a symptom of the critical problems afflicting our legislatures. Repealing the three farm laws will address one contentious subject that caused a parliamentary logjam over the last year. However, an effective Parliament requires rethinking of two fundamental areas of our legislative functioning. One — who should convene Parliament and what should it discuss? Two — what changes are required to encourage deliberation and ensure scrutiny in Parliament? Our Constitution empowers the government to convene Parliament. The only responsibility it casts on the government is to ensure that there should not be a gap of six months between two Parliament sessions. So, earlier this month, the government announced the dates of the winter session. If the session goes according to plan, then the legislature of the world“s largest democracy would have met for 60 days this year to discuss the myriad problems facing the country. Over the last two decades (excluding the general election and the previous year when the pandemic curtailed House sittings), Parliament met for an average of 71 days in a year. Since the Constitution visualized a case when Parliament was not in session, it gave the government power to make laws in an urgent situation. These laws had to be brought before Parliament for approval in the next session. Using this power, the government promulgated three laws (called ordinances) between the monsoon and the upcoming winter session. One of them deals with a drafting error in the Narcotics Act. The other two, earlier this month, provide a mechanism for extending the tenure of the director of the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Enforcement Directorate. These two ordinances will be a point of contention during the session. Since the Constitution allowed lawmaking in the absence of Parliament, it incentivised all governments from 1952 to resort to the ordinance route for making laws. Fewer Parliament sitting days also means that the government squeezes all its work (laws and budgets) into the three sessions of Parliament. For example, in this 19-day winter session, the government plans to discuss 31 legislations and a supplementary budget. Parliamentary rules prioritise government business over all other discussions. As a result, the executive corners most of the legislature“s time to discuss its agenda, leaving less time for the Opposition to highlight other national issues. The government“s powers to convene the legislature and promulgate ordinances are both colonial legacies. Our Constitution-makers carried them forward in our founding document. They hoped that governments would not use these powers after Independence in the manner that the colonial masters did. However, since Independence, governments haven“t lived up to that expectation. In other mature democracies, Parliaments meet through the year on a fixed calendar. They sit for anywhere between 120 to 150 days and take breaks in between for festive and other occasions. Their meeting schedule also enables MPs to tend to their constituencies. In countries such as the United Kingdom, Opposition parties get a fixed number of days to highlight important issues. The rules of parliamentary procedure need to be overhauled to encourage debate. For example, during the monsoon session, the demand for discussing the alleged Pegasus phone hacking led to the washout of the entire session. A similar situation might arise in the upcoming winter session when the Opposition tries to raise the subject of the Lakhimpur Kheri violence. The rules of procedure of the two Houses do not allow debate on matters pending in court. There are precedents disallowing a discussion because of this rule. For example, in the winter session of 1974, the government filed a charge-sheet in a licence scandal case a few hours before the sitting of Parliament. It then argued that MPs could not discuss the matter since it was sub-judice. Now, issues pending in courts are routinely debated in the media unless expressly barred by the court. The sub-judice rule creates a situation where a topic can be discussed on national television but not by MPs in Parliament. The rule aims to prevent legislative debate from prejudicing judicial proceedings but stifles MPs from debating on issues. Parliament could amend its procedure to encourage discussions and also protect the sanctity of judicial proceedings. In the winter session of Parliament, the government plans to introduce, debate and pass 26 new bills. All these legislative proposals are complex and will have a significant impact on different policy areas. These bills are on diverse subjects, such as bringing more competition into the electricity sector, enhancing demand for renewable energy, and regulating crypto currency. Another legal proposal will overhaul the Emigration Act of 1983. A debate on the floor of the two Houses will not give MPs the opportunity to scrutinise such diverse laws effectively. As a result, Parliament will not do justice to its constitutional responsibility of rigorously examining laws before passing them. Parliament has a mechanism for referring government bills to its specialised committees for scrutiny. Over the years, these committees have done an excellent job of making valuable suggestions to strengthen complex government bills such as the Labour Code and DNA Technology bills. However, the rules currently do not require all bills to be mandatorily referred to parliamentary committees. As a result, ministers often request the presiding officers to not refer bills of their ministry to committees. Parliament should amend its rules and send all government legal proposals to its subject committee for scrutiny and strengthening. In 2000, the Central Hall of Parliament was the venue for celebrating the 50th anniversary of our Republic. On this occasion, then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee said, “Let this be our resolve today: We shall leave institutions above all, our Parliament and our State legislature for the coming generation in a condition vastly better than the condition in which we found them; in discharging our duties in them, our conduct will be such as would have done the Founding Fathers proud. That would be a fitting way to repay our debt to them. It would be a great tribute to our national heroes like, Jawahar Lal Nehru, Maulana Azad, B R Ambedkar and Dr. Rajender Prasad Atal Ji etc,who visualized a strong parliament as a safeguard of health of our democracy.
-
Improved Adhesion and Field Emission Properties of Multi-Walled Carbon Nanotubes Based Cold Cathode by Using Aluminium Buffer Layer
