New Delhi: Vice Chancellors and representatives of various law universities have suggested to the government to do away with no-confidence motion to stop dissolutions of assemblies and legislatures. At the meeting of the joint parliamentary committee formed to review the One Nation One Nation bills, representatives of law universities suggested that instead, another system could be adopted wherein an elected head can only be removed if a successor is elected with majority.
On Wednesday, representatives of the National Law Universities met the members of the Committee. The JPC had sought the constitutional expertise of various stakeholders from the national law universities. This included the VCs of the NLU in Jodhpur, Odisha, Shimla, Meghalaya, Nagpur and Lucknow as well as Kochi’s National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Patna’s Chanakya National Law University.
A primary recommendation was the addition of a clause for a “constructive no-confidence motion” – a parliamentary mechanism that allows a legislature to dismiss an incumbent head of government only if they simultaneously elect a successor by an absolute majority. The system originated in the German Constitution (Article 6) and aims to provide political stability.
“Unlike a standard no-confidence motion, they suggested, this constructive model will ensure that the House or Legislative Assembly is not automatically dissolved,” a member attending the meeting said.
“Instead, it creates a more stable system by requiring the House to elect a successor simultaneously with the removal of the sitting leader. The universities said that this is a widely accepted international model, successfully adopted in various forms by nations such as Germany, Belgium, and Spain,” the member added.
The universities also proposed several technical amendments to safeguard democratic features. These include introducing procedural protections, revisiting the scope of powers granted to the Election Commission, and establishing a statutory timeline for re-elections. The universities acknowledged the aim of the Bill to enhance administrative efficiency, reduce fiscal burdens, policy paralysis and to strengthen democracy.
Members present also asked questions to the representatives. The representatives of the NLUs have been asked to consider the Legislative and the constitutional queries raised by the committee and thus prove a collaborative draft of the proposed changes in the Bill.
