Quality of debates in Parliament, Assemblies

The Supreme Court on Friday made a very significant observation on the quality of debates and discussions in the Parliament and various State Assemblies. A bench of the apex court comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar said that the Indian Parliament and the Legislative Assemblies of various states are increasingly becoming intransigent places and that the philosophical tenet that one must agree to disagree is becoming a rarity during the debates in recent times. This remark or observation by the Supreme Court of India does not speak well of the hon'ble members who have been elected by the people. The three-judge bench also observed that for the hon'ble members to become world leaders, one of the priorities has to be to ensure that the quality of debates in the Parliament and Legislatures ought to be of the highest order. The Supreme Court has rightly put on record that it has become common to hear that the House could not complete its usual scheduled business because most of the valuable time had been spent in jeering and personal attacks against each other, instead of erudite, constructive, and educative debates consistent with the highest tradition of the august body. It went on to say that this is the popular sentiment gaining ground amongst the common people and that it is a matter which is disheartening for the observers. It is indeed disheartening, and if this trend is allowed to continue, then the Parliament and the State Legislatures of the greatest and most vibrant democracy of the world will lose their respect, credibility and even their sanctity. Democratic accountability demands that executive decisions be subjected to legislative scrutiny. But, if most of the time is spent "in jeering and personal attacks against each other" by the hon'ble members, then there is every possibility to fear that the very important function of decision-making and law-making will seriously suffer. It is said that one arm of democracy had to point out the fall of quality of debates in the most vital forum which is another arm of democracy in the country. It is also unfortunate that the apex court has to say that being a House of respected and hon'ble members, who are emulated by their ardent followers and elected from their respective constituencies; they (the hon'ble members) are expected to show statesmanship and not brinkmanship. The apex court however has shown the way to set things right by emphasizing that it is high time that corrective steps are taken by all concerned and the elected representatives to restore the glory and the standard of intellectual debates of the highest order.