Question and Answer: On Parliament and Parliamentary Norms

In an unusual departure from parliamentary convention, the Lok Sabha adopted the Motion of Thanks to the President’s Address without the Prime Minister’s reply to the debate, citing security concerns and the possibility of unexpected conduct by members.

Constitutional and Procedural Norms Governing the Opening of a Parliamentary Session

• Constitutional Basis: Article 87 mandates that the President of India address both Houses of Parliament at the commencement of the first session after each general election and at the beginning of the first session of each year.
• Purpose of the Special Address: The address outlines the government’s vision, priorities, and policy agenda, providing a formal statement of intent to Parliament.
• Motion of Thanks as Parliamentary Instrument: The address is followed by a Motion of Thanks, enabling members to debate and critically examine the government’s claims.
• Motion of Thanks as Confidence Test: Passage of the Motion of Thanks functions as a test of the government’s majority, and its defeat implies loss of confidence and the need for resignation.

Explore UPSC Online Courses

Explore UPSC Online Courses

Convention Governing the Conclusion of the Motion of Thanks Debate

• Established Parliamentary Practice: Long-standing convention requires the Prime Minister to reply at the conclusion of the Motion of Thanks debate.
• Accountability Function of the Reply: The reply allows the executive to respond to criticism, clarify policy positions, and justify actions before the legislature.
• Leadership Responsibility: As Leader of the House, the Prime Minister’s reply symbolises the Cabinet’s collective responsibility to Parliament.

Issues Sought to Be Raised During the Debate

• Source of the Issues: The opposition relied on a publicly available book authored by a former senior military official.
• National Security Concerns: The book reportedly covered events surrounding the 2020 Galwan conflict, including troop movements and preparations.
• Defence Policy and Recruitment Reforms: It also highlighted differences between the originally proposed defence recruitment model and the scheme ultimately implemented.
• Denial of Opportunity: Under parliamentary rules, a member citing a book must authenticate it by laying it on the table and assume responsibility for its contents; despite readiness to comply, permission was denied.

Implications for Parliamentary Democracy

• Erosion of Question–Answer Accountability: Skipping the Prime Minister’s reply weakens the core deliberative mechanism of parliamentary democracy.
• One-Sided Deliberation: Without an executive response, debate risks becoming a unilateral government narrative rather than a genuine exchange.
• Procedural Irregularity: Ordinarily, closure of debate without a reply requires a formal procedural motion,  which was absent in this case.
• Role of the Presiding Officer: The Speaker is expected to function as a neutral constitutional umpire, ensuring fairness and protection of minority voices.
• Impact on Democratic Conventions: Parliamentary conventions are the lifeblood of legislative functioning, and their dilution sets a dangerous institutional precedent.
• Comparison with the UK: In the UK, the Prime Minister answers opposition questions every week, a practice that highlights the lack of similar rigorous accountability in this instance

Check Out UPSC CSE Books

Visit PW Store

Conclusion

By bypassing debate and reply, the episode marks a troubling weakening of parliamentary accountability and democratic norms.

DOWNLOAD PDF