After the failure of discussions between members of a committee comprising Union Ministers and the civil society team, Anna Hazare declared on July 29, 2011 that if the government did not act on the Jan Lokpal Bill drafted by the team by August 15, he would go on an indefinite fast from August 16. On the morning of August 16, the Delhi Police arrested him and some of his team members, inviting huge public protests in Delhi and many other States. That night the police released them, but Mr. Hazare continued his fast in Tihar jail.
On August 17, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh issued an imperious observation in the Lok Sabha that the path chosen by Mr. Hazare “to impose his draft Bill upon Parliament is totally misconceived and fraught with grave consequences for our parliamentary democracy.” He further asserted: “Those who believe that their voice and their voice alone represents the will of 1.2 billion people should reflect deeply on that position. They must allow the elected representatives of the people in Parliament to do the job that they were elected for.”
Mr. Hazare came out of Tihar jail on August 19, and continued his fast at the Ramlila Grounds. He told a cheering crowd: “Do not allow this torch of struggle to be put out, whether Anna is alive or not!” By the tenth day, doctors were worried about his health. But the Gandhian refused to be admitted to hospital.
As his fast continued, attracting intense support from all over India and the world, the Prime Minister and his Ministers changed their hard-line approach. On August 25, the Prime Minister came down from his pedestal to tell the Lok Sabha thus: “I applaud Hazare. I salute him. He has become the embodiment of our people's disgust and concern about tackling corruption. His life is much too precious and I would urge Shri Anna Hazare to end his fast. We will find effective ways of discussing Jan Lokpal Bill along with government version and others to have the best possible Bill.”
At this stage, Mr. Hazare set three demands: Lokayuktas with Lokpal-like powers should be appointed in all the States; a Citizen's Charter should be drawn up; and the lowest to the highest levels in the bureaucracy should be brought under the ambit of the Lokpal. The government had no alternative but to accept these demands. Then came up questions about the procedure to be adopted by Parliament to confirm the assurances given.
Team Anna demanded a resolution to be voted by both Houses of Parliament. Shanti Bhushan said: “We approved the draft that Law Minister Khurshid had dictated to Medha Patkar that a resolution would be passed in the House. After that, I don't know what has happened.” Bharatiya Janata Party leaders were prepared to vote on Mr. Hazare's demands.
Eventually, on August 27, Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee made a statement in the Lok Sabha which did not require any voting. In his statement, Mr. Mukherjee referred to the demand made at an all-party meeting on July 3 that parliamentarians, as elected representatives of the people, should make the laws, and that some nominated members from outside could not override the elected members.
The media uniformly reported then that there was no consensus at that meeting except for a one-line statement that there should an effective Lokpal Bill. Returning to the Lok Sabha at 7 p.m. to wind up the discussions, Mr. Mukherjee exhorted the members that having taken the oath by the Constitution, they should abide by the constitutional norms and principles. He observed that the House agreed in principle to the demands of Mr. Hazare and requested the Speaker to transmit the proceedings to the departmental Standing Committee for its perusal as part of the process of finalising its recommendations for a Lokpal Bill. Then the Speaker adjourned the House, to meet at 11 a.m. on Monday, August 29.
After the closure of the sessions of both Houses, observations appeared in the media on the strange outcomes of the deliberations of both Houses. These went thus: “Lok Sabha adopted ‘Sense of the House' resolution by thumping desks”; “the Lok Sabha Speaker has clarified that thumping of desks conveys voice vote as well”; “If the House was unanimous in passing the resolution, there is no need for a vote. Nobody abstained, nobody disagreed.” One of the last reports of that night said: “Around half past nine, when a letter from Prime Minister Manmohan Singh describing the resolutions was handed over to him [Mr. Hazare] by Union Minister Vilasrao Deshmukh, he announced that he would call off his 12-day-old fast at 10 a.m. on Sunday.” Expositions such as ‘Sense of the House,' a statement becoming a ‘resolution,' thumping of desks being considered equivalent to ‘voice vote,' were inexplicable and perplexing. It was a mockery of well-established Rules of Procedure under Article 118 of the Constitution.
Every question requiring a decision of the House in respect of a resolution or a motion should be decided by the Speaker, or anyone else presiding over the sitting. At the end of the debate, he or she calls upon the members supporting the motion to say ‘aye,' and after a pause, those against to say ‘no.' Then he or she says: “I think the ‘Ayes' have it” (or the ‘Noes' have it). If the Speaker's decision is challenged, he orders a division to enable each member to record his ‘aye' or ‘no' or ‘abstain' in a vote recorder. The results come up on a display board. In case the electronic device is not working, paper slips are issued to members to cast their votes. Detailed information of a division is given in Maheshwar Nath Kaul and S.L. Shakdher, Practice and Procedure of Parliament (Sixth Edition, pages 970-980).
When a Minister makes a statement to inform the House on a matter of public importance or to State government policy, that does not require voting. Though Law Minister Salman Kurshid had given an assurance earlier to have a resolution passed, Mr. Mukherjee on August 27 made a statement, and the procedure excluded voting. On August 17, the Prime Minister stated that Mr. Hazare's draft bill was “fraught with grave consequences for our parliamentary democracy.” But on August 27, MPs were not allowed to adopt a motion under established parliamentary procedure.
On August 27, Mr. Mukherjee exhorted the MPs to abide by constitutional norms and principles as they have taken their oath by the Constitution. But it is not known under which constitutional provision Mr. Mukherjee made both Houses adopt a ‘Sense of the House' resolution by thumping of desks. If this is the sordid beginning of the government's acceptance of the Jan Lokpal Bill for consideration, what will be the outcome of its efforts to prepare and pass the ‘best possible Bill' with all its jumbling rules of ‘vote by thumping' and the senseless dictum of the ‘Sense of the House'?
It should be hoped that such a device of voting would not be used in Parliament in future while considering or passing a Bill.
( Era Sezhiyan is an eminent parliamentarian and author .)
