Bills being passed by the Lok Sabha while a no-confidence motion against the Narendra Modi government is pending in the House have led the Opposition to argue that such legislations are “constitutionally suspect”. This is because, they contend, the government is yet to prove its majority.
Constitution experts concur that there is no rule stopping passage of bills in the Lok Sabha when a no-confidence motion is pending. However, pausing legislative business while a no-confidence motion is pending in the House is a parliamentary convention, given that passing legislation while the government’s majority is suspect defeats the very purpose of a motion of no confidence.
Modi government faces no-confidence vote
On July 26, the Lok Sabha admitted a no-confidence motion moved by Opposition parties against the Modi government. The Lok Sabha Secretariat announced on Tuesday that the motion would be debated between August 8 to 10, before being put to vote.
According to the Constitution, a government can remain in power only if it commands a majority in the Lok Sabha – the House in which members are directly elected by the people. The no-confidence motion is the mechanism prescribed by the Constitution to test the government’s majority. The motion can be moved only in the Lok Sabha.
A vote takes place at the end of the debate among Lok Sabha members on the motion. If the motion passes, the government has to vacate office.
Lok Sabha rules allow the Speaker to decide when to hold this discussion, but it must happen within 10 days of the motion being admitted by the House.
None of the 27 no-confidence motions moved against any Union government have succeeded in India. However, on three other occasions, when governments had to prove their majority in a vote of confidence, the governments failed.
In this case, Opposition leaders Shashi Tharoor and Gaurav Gogoi, Congress’ deputy leader in the Lok Sabha, have admitted that the Opposition does not have the numbers to pass the motion.
However, they have argued that the motion was needed to force the government, and the prime minister, to discuss the crisis in Manipur. According to the rules, the prime minister, as the leader of the Council of Ministers, is required to respond to the motion in the House.
For over three months, ethnic tensions and violence between Meitei and Kuki ethnic groups have gripped Manipur. More than 180 people have reportedly died and tens of thousands have been displaced due to the violence. The Opposition has been demanding that Modi and the government discuss the matter in parliament.
Opposition’s allegations
As the no-confidence motion is pending, Opposition leaders such as Congress leader Manish Tewari have alleged that any legislation or material business brought before the Lower House is “completely in violation of morality, propriety and parliamentary conventions”. This is because, the Opposition has reportedly argued, the government currently does not enjoy “legislative competence” as it is yet to prove its majority.
The Opposition is also reportedly planning to move the court over bills that have been passed by the Lok Sabha since July 26. At least nine bills were passed by the Lower House from July 27 until Wednesday.
But the government has reported argued that there are two precedents when Lok Sabha’s business had continued despite a pending no-confidence motion – in 1972 and 2018 under Modi. However, the Opposition has claimed that in these cases, bills were passed by “mutual understanding”, The Times of India reported, citing unidentified Opposition leaders.
Violates convention?
Constitution experts such as Vivek K Agnihotri, a former Rajya Sabha secretary general, argue that these developments are within the rules. “There’s no rule that stops the government from moving any bill or getting it passed so long as it’s done as per the rules with a majority of the House voting,” Agnihotri said. “Once a no-confidence motion is made, it doesn’t mean that all the business of the House has to be stopped.”
Agnihotri, who was the secretary to the parliamentary affairs ministry between 2003 and 2005, told Scroll that it is the Speaker who decides if the no-confidence motion takes precedence over everything else. “Ultimately, the speaker’s ruling is final in these matters,” he said. “How the House is to be run is the Speaker’s decision.”
PDT Achary, former Lok Sabha secretary general, concurred that there is no rule stopping bills from being passed by the Lower House when a no-confidence motion is pending.
However, Achary argued that this is against the convention. “There’s a long-standing parliamentary convention under which the government will not bring any major policy or major legislations before the House when the motion is pending,” Achary argued. “There’s no rule, but parliamentary conventions are very important.”
Achary added, “The motion challenges the government’s existence. It says that this House has no confidence in you. What is the use of this no-confidence motion if it’s pending, but all the bills are being passed.”
When asked about bills having passed in a similar situation in 2018, Achary said: “If a government breaks [the convention], nothing can be done. Of course, even when the no-confidence motion is pending, if there’s a very urgent business to be done, naturally the government will bring that business before the House. But in the name of urgency, it’s not that you should bring all the bills and get them passed without any discussion. That’s a very wrong practice.”
He added, “What is happening is the violation of the convention.”
Asked whether the Speaker’s decision is final, Achary told Scroll that it is the House, not the Speaker, that decides when it comes to no-confidence motions. “The no-confidence motion is the only motion that is admitted by the House, not by the Speaker,” Achary said. “All other motions are admitted by the Speaker.”
