Listen to this article:

The resolution sponsored by opposition parties in the Lok Sabha for removal of the Speaker, Om Birla, in terms of the provisions of Article 94 (C) of the constitution was the first such resolution during the last forty years flagging partisan behaviour of Birla. Predictably it has been defeated by voice vote. And yet its contents underlined the crucial point that the legislative intent of the House arising out of deliberations taking place there has been systematically eroded because leaders of opposition parties charged that Birla did not allow them to exercise their legitimate right to speak and leaders of the ruling party, representing the executive, got preferential treatment. Such preferential treatment for the executive has led to the predominance of executive intent over legislative intent which often are looked upon by judiciary to determine validity of the law.

Deliberative process muzzled

Illustration: Pariplab Chakraborty.

Law making powers of the parliament is based on a deliberative and consultative process. The instance of three farm Bills passed by Lok Sabha in September 2020, when Birla was the speaker, without consulting stakeholders and adequate deliberations of their provisions in the House represented the triumph of executive intent.

The fact that farmers were not consulted for framing those Bills was flagged by the Supreme Court while adjudicating the constitutional validity of those laws. Repeated pleadings of the opposition parties for adequate discussion of those Bills in the Lok Sabha were not heeded to by Birla and the Modi regime eventually tendered an apology and repealed those laws following........

© The Wire