Answer

The whip system, though integral to parliamentary proceedings, is neither mentioned in the Indian Constitution nor the Rules of Procedure, raising concerns about its legitimacy and impact on MPs’ freedom of expression. Recent debates, including Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar’s remarks on January 23, 2025, have reignited discussions on this issue.

Enroll now for UPSC Online Course

Whip system ensures party discipline and stable governance

• Enforces voting discipline: Whips ensure MPs vote in alignment with party policies during critical legislative decisions, maintaining party unity and preventing fragmentation.
  For example: The three-line whip directs MPs to vote as per party decisions during confidence or no-confidence motions.
• Strengthens majority assertion: The whip system reflects a ruling coalition’s majority in Parliament, signaling political stability to citizens and other stakeholders.
  For example: Whips ensure full attendance during the 2019 Article 370 abrogation vote, affirming the majority support.
• Facilitates government functioning: Ensures smooth passage of essential legislation by securing consistent party backing, reducing policy delays.
  For example: The GST Bill‘s passage in 2017 required cohesive party votes under strict whip instructions.
• Prevents policy deadlocks: Parties can coordinate voting behavior, avoiding chaos during contentious debates or legislative disagreements.
• Maintains coalition stability: In multi-party coalitions, whips unify diverse member-party agendas into cohesive legislative action.
  For example: In the past,  the UPA led coalition relied on whips to pass the NREGA Act despite coalition challenges.

Whip system comprises parliamentary democracy’s freedom of expression

• Restricts individual conscience: MPs are compelled to align with party directives, undermining their autonomy to represent diverse voter interests.
  For example: MPs were unable to vote independently on the 2012 FDI in retail debate due to strict whips.
• Limits constructive debate: Fear of penalties for defying whips discourages MPs from freely voicing dissenting views in Parliament.
• Weakens accountability: MPs prioritize party loyalty over public accountability, diluting their role as representatives of the electorate.
  For instance: Certain MPs have abstained from debates on policies affecting constituencies, citing party whip constraints. 
• Encourages servility: Blind adherence to whips leads to sycophancy, reducing innovative contributions to policy making.
  For example: Party whips have discouraged MPs from proposing amendments to flagship schemes like PM Awas Yojana.
• Violates democratic ethos: Compulsory adherence to whips diminishes Parliament’s role as a forum for deliberative democracy.

Need for reforms in India’s whip system

• Strengthen internal democracy: Encourage robust internal discussions in party forums to accommodate diverse views before issuing whips.
• Restrict whip scope: Limit whip enforcement to crucial issues like confidence motions and budgetary matters, ensuring flexibility on other votes.
• Promote free voting: On non-critical legislation, MPs should vote based on constituency needs, balancing party loyalty with public representation.
• Revisit anti-defection laws: Amend laws to differentiate between defying whips on core issues and general policy matters, reducing disqualification threats.
• Enhance MP autonomy: Introduce guidelines ensuring MPs’ freedom to express dissent during debates without penal consequences.

Check Out UPSC CSE Books From PW Store

Measures to balance party discipline with democratic deliberation

• Allow graded whips: Use one-line or two-line whips for non-critical issues, reserving three-line whips for confidence or budget-related votes.
  For example: In the UK Parliament, a two-line whip is often used for secondary legislation or local government Bills, allowing MPs to abstain without disciplinary action.
• Institutionalize party debates: Mandate formal debates within parties on Bills, ensuring MPs have platforms to voice diverse perspectives.
  For example: In Germany’s Bundestag, parties hold faction meetings to discuss legislative issues, allowing members to express views before adopting a formal position.
• Create oversight mechanisms: Establish independent parliamentary committees to monitor misuse of whips and protect MPs’ rights.
  For example: In India, the Privileges Committee of Parliament reviews complaints against members, ensuring their rights are protected within the framework of parliamentary discipline.
• Empower independent voting: Permit MPs to vote independently on issues unrelated to confidence or constitutional amendments.
  For example:  In Canada’s House of Commons, MPs from major parties sometimes vote against party lines on conscience issues, allowing greater democratic flexibility.
• Educate MPs on rights: Conduct training for MPs on their parliamentary rights and responsibilities to balance party allegiance with public duty.
  For example: The Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) conducts training sessions globally to enhance MPs’ understanding of legislative independence and democratic responsibilities.

Reforming India’s whip system is essential to uphold democratic values while maintaining party cohesion. Implementing measures that allow MPs greater autonomy in non-critical votes can foster a more deliberative parliamentary process, ensuring both effective governance and the preservation of individual expression within the legislature.