Article 3: Question and answer
Why in news: The Lok Sabha passed the Motion of Thanks to the President’s Address without the Prime Minister’s reply, citing alleged security concerns. This unprecedented move raised questions about parliamentary convention, Opposition rights, and the erosion of democratic accountability.
Key Details
- Lok Sabha adopted the Motion of Thanks without the Prime Minister’s reply, breaking convention
- Speaker Om Birla cited security concerns and possible “unexpected” actions by Opposition MPs
- Claim that the Prime Minister feared harm inside Parliament appeared implausible
- Rahul Gandhi (LoP) was disallowed from citing a book by former Army Chief Gen. M.M. Naravane
- Both the LoP being silenced and the PM not replying violate parliamentary norms
- PM’s reply is mandatory to conclude the debate unless a special resolution is passed
- No such resolution was moved or adopted
- Issues raised involved national security, making denial of discussion unjustified
- Skipping the reply weakened executive accountability and strengthened criticism of evasion
Unprecedented Parliamentary Departure
- The Lok Sabha adopted the Motion of Thanks to the President’s Address without the Prime Minister’s reply on February 5
- This marked a clear break from established parliamentary convention
Speaker’s Explanation Raises Concerns
- Speaker Om Birla claimed there were credible inputs about Opposition MPs planning something “unexpected”
- He indirectly suggested a security threat to the Prime Minister inside the House
- Such an assertion is bizarre, implying the Leader of the House feared harm from fellow MPs
More Plausible Context Inside the House
- Earlier developments offer a more convincing explanation for the Prime Minister’s absence
- Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi attempted to cite excerpts from a book by former Army Chief Gen. M.M. Naravane
- The Chair disallowed the reference, preventing the LoP from fully speaking
Violation of Parliamentary Norms
- On one hand, the LoP was restricted from speaking
- On the other, the Prime Minister chose not to reply
- Both actions undermine parliamentary norms and reflect a serious erosion of democratic accountability
Importance of Debate and Reply
- The debate and Prime Minister’s reply are key tools to hold the executive accountable to Parliament
- Speaker Birla said he requested the Prime Minister not to attend due to possible disruption near his seat
- However, this does not override established rules
Rules Ignored
- As noted by Congress MP K.C. Venugopal, parliamentary rules require the Prime Minister’s reply to conclude the debate
- To end the discussion without it, a specific resolution must be moved and adopted
- No such resolution was passed
Suppression of National Security Discussion
- Even if disputed, Rahul Gandhi was willing to authenticate the book’s contents and place them before the Chair
- The book raises serious national security concerns
- Denying discussion on these issues is indefensible
Missed Opportunity for Accountability
- The excerpts cited outside the House suggest evasion of responsibility by the political executive
- A full debate ending with the Prime Minister’s reply could have disproved this charge
- By skipping the reply, Prime Minister Narendra Modi instead reinforced the criticism
Conclusion
The episode highlights a serious departure from parliamentary norms, where both the Opposition’s right to speakand the Prime Minister’s duty to reply were curtailed. By bypassing debate and accountability mechanisms, the Lok Sabha weakened its own democratic role, setting a troubling precedent that risks normalising executive avoidance and undermining Parliament’s authority.
EXPECTED QUESTION FOR PRELIMS:
Q. Which principle of democracy is most directly affected by the Prime Minister not replying to the debate?
-
- Federalism
- Judicial review
- Executive accountability to Parliament
- Separation of powers
Answer: C