The Parliamentary System Legislature and Executive — NCERT Solutions

This is a group activity and role-play exercise. A structured guide for conducting the activity is given below.

Objective: To understand the process by which a bill becomes a law through an experiential, participatory activity.

Suggested Bill for Role-Play: The Right to Education (Amendment) Bill or the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.

Roles to be assigned:

Script Outline for the Skit:

Scene 1 — Introduction in Lok Sabha:

• Minister introduces the bill and explains its purpose.
• Government MPs speak in favour.
• Opposition MPs raise objections and suggest amendments.
• Speaker calls for a vote — bill is passed.

Scene 2 — Rajya Sabha:

• Bill is sent to Rajya Sabha.
• Members debate; some amendments may be suggested.
• Vote is taken — bill is passed.

Scene 3 — Presidential Assent:

• The bill is presented to the President.
• President signs the bill.
• Announcement: 'The bill has become a law!'

Learning Outcomes:

• Students understand the step-by-step legislative process.
• They appreciate the importance of debate, disagreement, and consensus in democracy.
• They learn the roles of different constitutional offices.

Conclusion: This activity brings the democratic process to life and helps students understand that law-making is a careful, deliberative process involving multiple institutions and voices.

Given: The Women's Reservation Bill (now the Constitution (106th Amendment) Act, 2023) was first introduced in Parliament in 1996 but was passed only in September 2023 — a gap of over 27 years.

Concept: In a democracy, passing a constitutional amendment requires not just a simple majority but a special majority (two-thirds of members present and voting, and more than half of the total membership of each House). Beyond the legal requirement, political will, consensus, and social factors play a crucial role.

Reasons why it took over 25 years:

1. Lack of Political Consensus: Different political parties had varying views on the bill. Some parties supported it in principle but disagreed on specific provisions. Building a consensus across party lines took decades.

2. Demand for Sub-Reservation: Several parties, especially those representing Other Backward Classes (OBCs), demanded that within the 33% reservation for women, a sub-quota should be created for OBC women. This disagreement prevented the bill from being passed for many years.

3. Concerns about Implementation: Some MPs raised concerns about which constituencies would be reserved and how rotation of reserved seats would work. These practical concerns led to prolonged debates.

4. Political Calculations: Some parties feared that reserving seats for women might reduce the chances of their existing male leaders getting re-elected. This self-interest sometimes led to deliberate delays.

5. Disruptions in Parliament: The bill was introduced multiple times (1996, 1998, 1999, 2008) but Parliament was often disrupted, adjourned, or dissolved before it could be passed.

6. Social Attitudes: Despite constitutional equality, deep-rooted patriarchal attitudes in society and within political parties made it difficult to build genuine support for women's political empowerment.

7. Coalition Politics: For much of this period, India had coalition governments where the ruling party depended on the support of many smaller parties. Getting all coalition partners to agree on a controversial bill was very difficult.

Why it was finally passed in 2023:

• The ruling party had a strong majority in both Houses.
• There was growing public demand and awareness about women's political representation.
• The government chose to introduce it in a special session, creating political momentum.

Conclusion: The 25-year delay reflects the complexity of democratic law-making — it requires not just a majority but genuine political will, social consensus, and the ability to overcome competing interests. The eventual passage of the bill shows that persistent democratic pressure can ultimately bring about change, even if it takes time.

Given: Parliament is expected to meet for a certain number of days each year (at least three sessions — Budget Session, Monsoon Session, and Winter Session). However, disruptions, adjournments, and walkouts often reduce the actual working time significantly.

Concept: The quality of democracy depends on the quality of deliberation in Parliament. When Parliament does not function properly, it affects both law-making and public trust.

Impact on the Quality of Laws:

1. Hasty Law-Making: When Parliament has less time due to disruptions, bills may be passed quickly without adequate debate, discussion, or scrutiny. This can lead to poorly drafted laws with loopholes or unintended consequences.

2. Bills Passed Without Discussion: Important bills may be passed in a matter of minutes without proper debate, denying MPs the opportunity to raise concerns or suggest improvements.

3. Committees Not Utilised: Ideally, bills should be referred to Parliamentary Standing Committees for detailed examination. When Parliament is disrupted, this process is often bypassed, reducing the quality of legislation.

4. Pending Legislation: Many important bills remain pending for years because Parliament does not have enough time to discuss them. This delays reforms and governance.

5. Reduced Accountability: Question Hour and Zero Hour — the most important tools for holding the government accountable — are lost when Parliament is disrupted. Ministers escape scrutiny.

Impact on Public Trust:

1. Loss of Faith in Representatives: When citizens see their elected representatives disrupting Parliament, shouting, or walking out instead of debating, they lose faith in the democratic process and their MPs.

2. Perception of Wastage: Each day of Parliament costs the public exchequer crores of rupees. Disruptions are seen as a waste of taxpayers' money, increasing public frustration.

3. Cynicism about Democracy: Repeated disruptions can create cynicism — people may begin to feel that Parliament is ineffective and that their vote does not matter.

4. Weakening of Democratic Norms: When disruption becomes a regular tool of politics, it normalises undemocratic behaviour and weakens the culture of debate and dialogue.

What can be done:

• MPs should commit to maintaining decorum in Parliament.
• The Speaker/Chairman should enforce rules strictly.
• Parliament should sit for more days each year.
• Citizens should hold their representatives accountable for disruptive behaviour.

Conclusion: Parliamentary disruptions have serious consequences — they reduce the quality of laws, weaken accountability, and erode public trust in democracy. A functioning, deliberative Parliament is essential for a healthy democracy, and both MPs and citizens have a responsibility to ensure it works effectively.

This is a group activity. A model answer and framework are given below.

Concept:

• An MP (Member of Parliament) represents a constituency in the Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha and deals with national-level policies and laws.
• An MLA (Member of Legislative Assembly) represents a constituency in the State Legislature and deals with state-level policies and laws.

The questions we ask will differ based on the jurisdiction and responsibilities of each.

Step 1 — Form Interest Groups:

Students can form groups based on issues they care about:

Step 2 — Sample Questions for an MP (National Level):

(Example: Education Policy)

• What steps is the Central Government taking to implement the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 in our constituency?
• How much budget has been allocated for mid-day meal schemes and scholarships for students from our state in the Union Budget?
• What is the government doing to improve the quality of higher education and increase the number of central universities?
• Has the Right to Education Act been fully implemented in our area? What are the challenges?

Step 3 — Sample Questions for an MLA (State Level):

(Example: Education Policy)

• How many new government schools have been opened in our constituency in the last five years?
• What is the state government doing to reduce the dropout rate among girls in our district?
• Are there enough trained teachers in government schools in our area? What is being done about teacher vacancies?
• How is the state government using the funds received from the Centre for education?

Key Differences between questions to MP and MLA:

Conclusion: This activity helps students understand the division of powers between the Centre and the states, and the different roles of MPs and MLAs. It also encourages active citizenship — knowing who to approach for which issue is an important democratic skill.

Given: The Indian democratic system is based on the separation of powers among three institutions — the Legislature (makes laws), the Executive (implements laws), and the Judiciary (interprets laws and ensures justice).

Concept: An independent Judiciary is one that is free from the control of the Legislature and the Executive. It functions impartially, guided only by the Constitution and the law.

Role of the Judiciary in Indian Democracy:

1. Guardian of the Constitution: The Supreme Court and High Courts have the power of Judicial Review — they can strike down any law passed by Parliament or any action of the Executive if it violates the Constitution. This makes the Judiciary the ultimate protector of the Constitution.

2. Protector of Fundamental Rights: Citizens can approach the courts if their Fundamental Rights are violated. The Supreme Court can issue writs (like Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, etc.) to protect individual rights against the state or any authority.

3. Settling Disputes: The Judiciary settles disputes between individuals, between individuals and the state, and between the Centre and the states. This ensures peaceful resolution of conflicts through law rather than force.

4. Checking the Executive: The courts can hold the government accountable. If the Executive acts arbitrarily or illegally, courts can declare such actions null and void.

5. Upholding the Rule of Law: The Judiciary ensures that everyone — citizens, government officials, and even the Prime Minister — is equal before the law and must follow it.

6. Public Interest Litigation (PIL): Any citizen can approach the Supreme Court or High Court in the public interest. This has led to landmark judgments on environmental protection, child labour, prison reforms, and more.

7. Federal Arbiter: In disputes between the Centre and states, the Supreme Court acts as an impartial arbiter, maintaining the federal balance.

What could happen if we didn't have an independent Judiciary:

1. Abuse of Power: Without judicial oversight, the government could pass unconstitutional laws, violate citizens' rights, and act arbitrarily without any check.

2. No Protection of Rights: Citizens would have no forum to seek justice if their rights were violated by the state or by powerful individuals.

3. Authoritarianism: The Executive could become all-powerful, leading to a dictatorship. The separation of powers would collapse.

4. Injustice and Inequality: Without an independent court system, the rich and powerful could manipulate the legal system for their benefit, leaving the poor and marginalised without justice.

5. Breakdown of Federal Structure: Disputes between the Centre and states would have no neutral arbiter, potentially leading to political conflicts and instability.

6. Loss of Constitutional Supremacy: The Constitution would become meaningless if there were no institution to enforce it. Any government could change or ignore it at will.

Conclusion: The Judiciary is the backbone of Indian democracy. Its independence ensures that the Constitution is supreme, rights are protected, and no institution — however powerful — is above the law. Without an independent Judiciary, democracy itself would be at risk, and citizens would be left without protection against the misuse of power.