New Delhi : The freedom struggle had its moments of civil disobedience, when breaking unjust laws became a moral and political weapon. Independent India now faces an altogether different irony: the repeated violation of the rules of legislative debate by those entrusted with making the laws.
There is little doubt that disruptions have become an established feature of Indian parliamentary politics turning legislation into a hurried exercise in voting rather than deliberation.
THE NUMBER TELL THE STORY
The Monsoon Session, held from July 20 to August 13, 2026, had 19 sittings spread over 25 days. According to an analysis by PRS Legislative Research, the Lok Sabha functioned for only 15% of its scheduled time, while the Rajya Sabha functioned for 33%. Question Hour was particularly badly affected: it functioned for just 1% of the scheduled time in the Lok Sabha and 12% in the Rajya Sabha.
HARD TO BELIEVE BUT IT IS TRUE
Twelve Bills were passed by both Houses during the session. But PRS found that nine Bills were passed in the Lok Sabha without any discussion. In several cases, not a single MP participated in the debate. For example, It took only four minutes for the Lok Sabha to pass The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, The MSME Development (Amendment) Bill took three minutes; the Taxation and Other Laws (Amendment) Bill three minutes; and the Registration of Births and Deaths (Amendment) Bill only two minutes.
A DISMAL PICTURE
According to the government, the productivity of the Lok Sabha was 19% and 39% for the Rajya. The Parliamentary Affairs Minister himself expressed dissatisfaction with the quality and extent of debate. This undermines the spirit of the Constitution. Parliament‘s purpose is not merely to pass Bills. It is to examine them, question their provisions, hear competing viewpoints and, where necessary, improve them.
VOICE VOTE REPLACES DELIBERATION
A voice vote is perfectly legitimate under parliamentary procedure. The problem arises when important legislation is disposed of by voice vote after sustained protests have prevented meaningful debate.
On August 5, the Lok Sabha passed the Bankers’ Books Evidence Bill, 2026, by voice vote without debate amid Opposition protests. The Bill seeks to replace the 1891 law and bring the legal treatment of banking records in line with digital banking practices.
Similar is the case with the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026 passed on August 13 by the Lok Sabha. The legislation has significant implications for the powers of state governments in relation to taxes, cess and other levies on mineral rights and mineral-bearing land. On the same final day, the Rajya Sabha dispensed with Question Hour and Zero Hour and proceeded to take up the Bill,and passed it by voice vote.
Not that voice voting is improper.
The point is that a vote cannot substitute for scrutiny. That is where the distinction between passing a law and making good law becomes important.
THERE IS NO SINGLE BRUTUS
When the UPA was in power, the NDA Opposition repeatedly disrupted Parliament over issues such as the 2G spectrum allocation, the Commonwealth Games controversy and coal block allocations. The winter session of 2010 became one of the starkest examples of parliamentary paralysis.
After the NDA came to power in 2014, the political roles changed, but the method often remained the same. Land acquisition, demonetisation, the Rafale controversy, the three farm laws, the Adani issue and the Manipur crisis have all, at different times, been accompanied by prolonged disruptions.
THE LESSON IS UNCOMFORTABLE BUT SIMPLE
The party in Opposition tends to discover the virtues of disruption; the same party, once in government, discovers the virtues of uninterrupted proceedings.
That is not parliamentary democracy. It is political convenience.
Opposition parties have every right—and indeed a duty—to question the government. Protests are an integral part of parliamentary democracy. But entering the Well of the House, shouting slogans, displaying placards and repeatedly forcing adjournments cannot become substitutes for debate.
At the same time, disciplinary action cannot become a substitute for political accommodation. Suspension of MPs may restore order temporarily, but it does not resolve the substantive issue that led to the protest.
IT IS A VICIOUS CYCLE
The Opposition disrupts because it says the government is unwilling to provide adequate discussion. The government proceeds with legislative business because it says the Opposition is unwilling to allow discussion. Eventually, Bills are passed amid disruptions, and both sides blame the other. In the process the public interest loses.
PARLIAMENT CANNOT BECOME A LAW FACTORY
The Constitution gives Parliament a legislative function, but Parliament is much more than a voting machine.
A Bill requires scrutiny because unintended consequences often become visible only when different viewpoints are heard. Standing Committees and Select Committees exist precisely because the floor of the House cannot always examine every technical, legal and administrative aspect of a Bill in sufficient detail.
The erosion of this scrutiny is therefore not merely a procedural concern. It affects the quality of legislation.
A particularly revealing statistic.
Of the 380 questions listed for oral answers,in the last session of the Lok Sabha, only two received oral answers, according to the PRS-based analysis.
advertisement
A Parliament in which questions cannot be asked, debates cannot be completed and Bills can pass within minutes risks becoming a place where decisions are announced rather than deliberated.
PUBLIC SCRUTINY MAY HELP
Parliament could publish a legislative scrutiny scorecard for every Bill, recording the time spent in debate, the number of members who participated, whether the Bill was examined by a parliamentary committee, and the reasons for proceeding without such scrutiny. Such information would allow citizens to judge not merely how many Bills Parliament passed, but how carefully it made them.
A need for a political compact.
Former Vice-President and former Rajya Sabha Chairman M. Venkaiah Naidu has repeatedly emphasised that Parliament should be a forum for debate, discussion and decision—not obstruction.
Any political party that is voted to power must accept that an Opposition is not an inconvenience to be managed. It is an essential component of parliamentary democracy. The Opposition, in turn, must accept that protest cannot permanently replace participation. The House is the place for argument; the vote is the place for decision.
The 86th All India Presiding Officers’ Conference, held in Lucknow in January 2026, recognised the need to strengthen the capacity of legislators, improve research and knowledge support, enhance accountability and promote discussion and dialogue in legislatures. Its resolutions also proposed a National Legislative Index to assess the performance of legislative bodies.
advertisement
These should not remain ceremonial resolutions. They offer the beginnings of a framework for restoring public confidence in the legislative process.
A country cannot be satisfied merely with the number of laws enacted. It must also care about the quality of those laws, the depth of scrutiny and the accountability of those who make them.
Laws may be passed by a majority. Good laws, however, require debate.
