Back
Supreme Court Senior Advocate Decries 's Dysfunction as Democracy Decays
In a stark critique of India's , a Senior Advocate at the has sounded an urgent alarm over the declining quality of legislative processes, warning that the nation's democracy is suffering from a deep-seated . Writing in a personal capacity, the senior counsel argues that 79 years after independence and 76 years since the Constitution came into force, Parliament—the "pivotal institution" in the —has become a mere shadow of its intended role.
The opinion piece, published in a legal context, pulls no punches: Parliament's twin primary objectives—lawmaking and holding the executive accountable—have both suffered a
"marked deterioration, indeed a dismal failure."
The author points to the recently concluded monsoon session as a damning example, where 11 bills were passed in 19 sittings, with 10 of them consuming a total of just 64 minutes in the
, and nine bills passed without any debate other than the piloting minister's introductory remarks. The
, traditionally the lifeblood of parliamentary oversight, occupied a mere 9 minutes of the entire session, with only 2 of the 380 listed questions receiving oral answers.
The Erosion of
The senior advocate begins by grounding the discussion in first principles.
"Democracy may be defined as the dwelling place which man has built for the spirit of liberty,"
they write, emphasizing that
rests on elections—the "heartbeats" of democracy—but also on the proper functioning of institutions.
"A democracy can decay and die not only when elections are not held. It can be impaired and even destroyed when institutions created and meant to make democracy function stop performing."
The
prescribes government by democratic legislatures with the executive accountable to them, resting ultimately on public opinion. The mainstay of a
, the author asserts, is
. Yet the current reality reflects a systematic breakdown of this foundational principle.
—"of the very essence" of democracy—becomes meaningless when Parliament does not function. The purpose of debates and discussion is to ensure that decisions are
"tested in
."
This critique is all the more poignant given the Indian political landscape, where disruptions and adjournments have become the norm rather than the exception.
"Neither side should take an extreme position,"
the writer advises, noting that while occasional walk-outs and adjournments are legitimate tools, employing them constantly is detrimental even to the opposition's own interest.
"The Opposition needs Parliament and its processes more, so as to question, expose and reign in the government. Disruption is no substitute for that function."
A Vanished Middle Ground
The article laments the near disappearance of the middle ground where negotiation and quiet persuasion once took place. Leaders on both sides are expected not only to defend their own stand but to ensure the working of the House despite disagreement. Yet today,
"the ability of quiet persuasion is simply missing in the present leadership of parties."
The author draws a crucial distinction:
"The difference between
ought never to be forgotten."
Quoting the illustrious parliamentarian Atal Behari Vajpayee, who famously told Prime Minister Indira Gandhi while in opposition,
"We have the arguments, you have the numbers and the votes,"
the senior advocate underscores that the essence of robust democracy is that the opposition must have its say, and the government must have its way. That balance has now broken down into bald assertion, conflict, and
.
The Perils of Expanding a Dysfunctional House
Against this backdrop of legislative paralysis, the proposal to increase the strength of Parliament and pay parliamentarians more comes under sharp scrutiny. The author argues that the case for more MPs—greater representation and improved governance—is "highly debatable" in light of the present track record.
"Experience shows that such increase would be counter-productive—more expenditure and less work."
In an interesting comparative observation, the piece notes that other democracies have not changed the size of their representative institutions despite population growth, suggesting that numerical optics are not the answer.
The writer goes on to describe today's parliamentary democracy as having
"descended into an institutional apparatus of a corporate establishment with its own expanding class system of perks and privileges."
The line between legitimate assistance to people's representatives and political largesse is increasingly crossed.
"While we are perpetually reminded of
, the ruling class, more often than not, thinks of what the public purse can give."
The question that emerges with "strange poignancy" is:
"do we need a paid or a performing democracy?"
The Role of Public Opinion and Institutional Reform
The senior advocate does not offer easy solutions, but places faith in the power of public opinion to temper all power. Citing Rabbi Hillel's ancient words,
"If not now, when? If not we, who?"
the piece calls for alertness and conversation.
, the author believes, is the ultimate safeguard against
.
For legal professionals, the message is one of constitutional vigilance. The judiciary, while not directly implicated, cannot remain indifferent to the health of the legislative branch. India's constitutional democracy depends on the harmonious functioning of all three branches. When Parliament fails in its core duties—lawmaking with deliberation and holding the executive to account—the entire system suffers. The senior advocate's intervention serves as a reminder that the legal community must champion the cause of parliamentary , not merely as a political issue but as a .
In an era where legislative output is increasingly measured by speed rather than quality, and where the opposition's role is reduced to disruption, the call for a return to
is both timely and urgent. The article concludes with a powerful reflection:
"The strength of a republic rests on the character of those who govern, as Aristotle wisely observed. Elected representatives owe their constituents their judgment."
As India continues to evolve its democratic practices, the senior advocate's words resonate beyond the immediate political climate. The article is a clarion call for introspection by all stakeholders—legislators, political parties, the judiciary, and the citizenry—to reclaim and restore Parliament to its rightful place as the crucible of India's democratic soul.
