|
|
3.4.1. In this chapter the amendments proposed by us in
the working paper to the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution
have been considered. So far as the proposal to delete
paragraph 3 of the Tenth Schedule is concerned, there has
been unanimous support (including that of the Prime
Minister of India) to this proposal, in all the seminars,
except the lone voice of Shri S.Jaipal Reddy, MP. He
submitted that in the light of the fact that there is no
internal democracy in the political parties today and also
because the internal structures of political parties had
not been satisfactorily established so far, splits could
not be barred. He opined that every split was not
undesirable. In this connection, he referred to the split
in the CPI in 1964. He also referred to the fact that
splits had taken place in the socialist party in the past
as well as in the Congress party (in 1969 and 1978). Shri
Reddy opined that democracy was inherently an untidy
business and that in such a situation, the banning of
splits (as well as mergers) would amount to interfering
with the political processes and growth of political
pluralism. In the responses received pursuant to the
circulation of the working paper, the Janata Party has also
not agreed with this proposal. There has been no other
dissenting view.
3.4.1.1. We are of the opinion that the objections
raised by Shri Jaipal Reddy are really without any
substance. By banning the splits, the ongoing political
process, or the pluralism in the society is not being
arrested. As we had made clear in our working paper, once
the Parliament is dissolved, there can be splits, mergers,
formation of new parties and so on. Moreover, even during
the life of a Lok Sabha or State Legislative Assembly, as
the case may be, political process can go on. There can be
mergers, splits and formation of new political parties but
they shall not be reflected in the House. So far as the
House is concerned, there shall be no splits in a political
party and if any member violated paragraph 2 of the Tenth
Schedule, he will stand disqualified. Indeed, the Tenth
Schedule deals with and governs only the membership of the
House and the splits and mergers among the members of the
political parties in the House. It does not purport to
govern or regulate the political processes outside the
House. So far as the internal democracy and internal
structures of a party are concerned, we agree that they
should be strengthened. It is for this very reason that we
have recommended in Chapter one of Part three insertion of
a Chapter in the Act governing and regulating the
functioning of the political parties. Those provisions
must also be implemented along with the changes in the
Tenth Schedule.
3.4.2 In connection with this issue, some of the
participants in the seminar raised a connected issue.
Their views can be stated thus: the deletion of paragraph
3 tends to strengthen the control of the majority over the
political party. The minority will be left with no voice.
The freedom of speech, which is so essential for the
successful functioning of democracy and of the
Parliament/State Legislature, will come to an end. On
every conceivable occasion, whip is being issued by the
party leadership, leaving no room for dissent. It would be
appropriate if it is provided that a whip shall be issued
only on occasions when the voting is likely to affect the
existence or continuance of the government and not on all
and sundry occasions. Let us deal with the views
aforesaid.
3.4.3. Firstly, it may be mentioned that a democracy and
particularly a parliamentary democracy without political
parties is inconceivable. One can just imagine what will
happen if 300 independents are elected in Lok Sabha. The
political parties are inseparable from a parliamentary form
of government. In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, the
Supreme Court observed:
"..One cannot conceive of a democratic form of
Government without the political parties. They are
part of the political system and constitutional
scheme. Nay, they are integral to the governance
of a democratic society."
3.4.4 Necessity for abiding by the whip - In such a case,
the endeavour should be to strengthen the political parties
by providing for internal democracy and internal structures
rather than to weaken them. Inasmuch as we are
recommending in this report insertion of a new chapter
governing the political parties(including the provisions
ensuring internal democracy, internal structures and
transparency in the conduct of its affairs), there should
be no objection to strengthening of the political parties
so that they will of majority prevails in a political
party. Freedom of speech is undoubtedly precious but when
a person becomes a member of the political party, accepts
its ticket and fights and succeeds on that ticket, he
renders himself subject to the discipline and control of
the party. It should also be noticed that when a person
applies for the ticket of a political party, he knows, and
is expected to know, about the leadership, internal
working, policies and programmes of the party. He must
also reckon with the fact that in future, the leadership
may change, policies and programmes may change and so on.
If he, with his eyes open, applies for and obtains the
ticket and contests and wins on that basis, he cannot plead
later that he does not agree with the leadership or
policies of the party. Any difference of opinion, he must
ventilate and fight within the party. The membership of
House does not become his private property nor can he trade
in it. It is a trust and he is in the members of a
trustee. He cannot also say that he will take advantage of
the name and facilities of a political party, fight the
election on the ticket of that party and succeed, but he
will not be subject to the discipline of the political
party. This is simply unthinkable besides being unethical
and immoral. He has to abide by the party discipline
within the House. He may fight within the party to have
his point of view or policies adopted by the party but once
the party takes a decision one way or the other and issues
the whip, he shall have to abide by it or resign and go
out. It would equally be unethical and immoral for him to
vote against the whip and then resign.
3.4.5. We may mention that in a system of government like
that of the USA, there is no occasion, generally speaking,
of issuance of a whip. The vote in Congress does not and
cannot affect the continuance of the government. In recent
days, we have witnessed (in the case of impeachment of
President Clinton) several members of Republican Party
voting against their party line and in favour of the
President.
3.4.6. Desirability of issuing the whip in specific
situation only. - So far as the issuance of the whip is
concerned, it is not governed by any law. Neither the
Rules framed under the Tenth Schedule nor the Rules of
Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Lok Sabha/Council
of States provide for or regulate the issuance of whip. It
appears to be a matter within the discretion and judgment
of each political party. In such a situation, we can only
point out the desirability aspect and nothing more. It is
undoubtedly desirable that whip is issued only when the
voting in the House affects the continuance of the
government and not on each and every occasion. Such a
course would safeguard both the party discipline and the
freedom of speech and expression of the members.
3.4.7 Conclusions regarding amendments to the Tenth
Schedule - So far as the deletion of paragraph 4 (merger)
is concerned, we are of the opinion that this paragraph
should also go in the interest of maintenance of proper
political standards in the Houses and also to minimise the
complications arising on that account. Paragraph 4 says
inter alia that a member of a House shall not be
disqualified under paragraph 2(1) where his original
political party merges with another political party has not
accepted the merger and have opted to function as a
separate group. In such a case, it is provided that such
group shall be deemed to be a political party to which he
belongs for the purpose of paragraph 2(1) and it shall be
deemed to be his original political party for the purpose
of this sub-paragraph, this provision in sub-paragraph (1)
of paragraph 4 is likely to lead to several complications
and unnecessary disputes. Accordingly, we reiterate our
proposal to delete paragraph 4 as well. The other allied
provisions in Tenth Schedule, which become unnecessary as a
result of deletion of paragraphs 3 and 4, have necessarily
got to be deleted. Secondly, in view of the proposed
deletion of paragraphs 3 and 4, the definition of the
expression "original political party" may be dropped and in
its place, the following definition should be inserted:
(c) "political party" in relation to a member of a
House, means the political party on whose ticket
that member was elected and where such political
party is a part of a front or a coalition formed
before a general election for contesting such
election, such front or coalition,
Provided that the Election Commission is
informed in writing by all the constituent
parties in the front/coalition before the
commencement of the poll that such a
front/coalition has been formed".
This definition is suggested in the interest of
stability of government (see part VII of this report).
For more information:
Telephone Us: 011-46081209, 011-64598338, 91-9891155057, 91-9868340420
Email Us: info@youthforequality.com
|