No-Confidence motions integral to robust democracies
Aashika Anil | New Delhi
The Parliament has been in a stir ever since its monsoon session began on July 18, 2018. Not only did it have to deal with various impending bills but also the no-confidence motion tabled by the opposition. The Speaker, Sumitra Mahajan accepted the no-confidence motion moved by the opposition including the Congress, TDP and NCP on the first day. The no-confidence debate was scheduled and conducted two days later and after an intense 12 hour debate the results were announced 325/126 in favour of the NDA government.
The Telugu Desam Party had withdrawn from the NDA alliance in March after Andhra Pradesh was denied special category status. With this in mind, TDP tabled the no-confidence motion and found support in the Congress and NCP. The no-confidence debate opened the room for criticisms and clarifications but was also a futile attempt that only delayed other important works. This said, this is not the first time that a no-confidence motion has been passed against the ruling government. India has seen a total of 27 such motions of which only one was successful.
No-confidence motions as said earlier is no foreign concept. Thus, it essential to understand what they are and why they are used. To summarise, the main function a no-confidence motion is ensure some checks on the ruling government and to make sure they do not fail in their duty towards the citizens. There are various ways in which the Opposition in the Parliament can keep a check on the government like adjournment motions, censure motion, etc, but the no-confidence motion directly conveys the failure of the government and that the members of the Parliament have lost confidence in the government to make things right.
The no-confidence motion is based on a key aspect of a Parliamentary form of government, that is, collective responsibility. Article 75 of the Indian Constitution also states that, “The Council of Ministers shall be collectively responsible to the House of the People.” It ensures that the government works as one and reduces internal conflicts that might be detrimental to the citizens. When the House loses confidence in the government then it must dissolve. The President then uses his discretionary powers to invite the person he thinks hold the favour of the majority of the House to form the government or fresh elections will be held.
The no-confidence motion however, finds no mention in the Indian Constitution. Although, Article 118 of the Indian Constitution lays down rules of procedure and clause 1 states, “Each House of Parliament may make rules for regulations, subject to the provisions of this Constitution, its procedure and the conduct of its business.” Keeping in mind the essence of Article 75 and using the power given to it by Article 118, the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha sets aside Rule 198 to exclusively deal with motions of no-confidence in Council of Ministers.
A no-confidence motion can only originate in the Lok Sabha and be decided by it. A member who hopes to raise this motion in the House must do so when called upon by the Speaker and must submit a written notice by 10.00 hrs that day. Once the Speaker calls for the motion made by the member at least 50 other members must come out in favour of the motion only then can the Speaker allot dates for discussing the motion. After great debate the issue is put to vote, if the motion secures a simple majority of members present and voting then the government stands dissolved.
However, by Nehru’s third tenure the political climate in the country had changed tremendously. There was the tension between China and Pakistan, inflation was on the rise, corruption was rampant, famine affected areas across the country and an increase in the members of the opposition made the admittance of the no-confidence motion possible in 1963.
During the debate it was seen that Opposition were also divided among themselves. The right-wing of the Opposition criticized the left-wing of the Congress and vice-versa. The Opposition so divided among themselves failed to gather majority and thus the motion fell through. Nehru, however, kept the criticisms in mind and tried to establish a political equilibrium in the society.
Unlike the Nehru government, the Shastri regime faced three no-confidence motions right from the beginning of his tenure. The issues dealt with in all three motions were that of either India’s problematic foreign policy or its deteriorating economy. All of them failed for lack of majority support because the opposition was still divided in their beliefs and opinions. Indira Gandhi, India’s first female Prime Minister, popularly called the Iron Lady faced 15 no-confidence motions during her regime. Indira Gandhi’s regime has been a problematic and controversial regime.
It would not seem surprising that these many no-confidence motions had been tabled against her. Although what one can find fascinating is that she always managed to gain the confidence of the House. The Opposition was getting stronger and gaining more lime-light, but it could still not overpower the legacy of the great freedom fighters of the Congress and the sentiments that invokes.
The Janata Party was an immediate alliance made from respite for Indira Gandhi and the wariness of the Congress having held power too long. Therefore, once in power different parties seemed to want to fulfil different agendas. There internal conflicts and contradictions within the government. Morarji Desai, though a strong candidate did not possess the capabilities to tame an unruly government. Indira Gandhi was on the other trying to gather support and managed to break Charan Singh’s faction away from the Janata Party reducing them to a minority.
Thus, when the second no-confidence motion against his government was admitted, Desai admitted defeat and resigned. Desai’s resignation was the first time in the country’s history that one had seen the power a no-confidence motion could possess. It was the only time such a motion was successful in dissolving a government. Other Prime Ministers that faced no-confidence motions were Narasimha Rao who faced this thrice and Rajiv Gandhi and Atal Bihari Vajpayee who had to face the motion only once.
Coming back to the present, the no-confidence motion against the Modi government was a motion everyone knew would fail. The purpose of this motion was not to oust the Modi government but bring about dialogue as well as put pressure on the government for various issues that the Opposition finds it lacking in. The issues that were brought out in this 12-hour debate is that of the Rafale deal, mob lynching, cause of the farmers and other such issues that the Opposition felt the government was avoiding.
However, this also proved to a platform for the Modi government to highlight all that it has done in the past four years and draw comparison with the Congress. It is my opinion that this no-confidence motion was not a necessary step. The Parliament already has a lot of issues to deal with and a lot of bills waiting to be discussed and passed. Therefore, keeping in mind that the Parliament has limited time and a lot of issues, the Speaker let this debate happen at the very beginning of their session. There is no doubt that by acing through this no-confidence motion, the government seems capable of staying in power even after the 2019 elections.
Thus, we can see that the no-confidence motions in India seem to hold a different meaning than that in other parliamentary systems. A no-confidence motion is tabled with the hopes that the other party might get power, like in a bi-party system in the UK. In the multi-party system that India is, no-confidence motions are used to realise the mistakes being made by the government with the hopes that changes would be made for the better. The concept of no-confidence has thus evolved uniquely to the Indian context and being used for constructive criticism of the ruling government.
Support The Draft by sharing this story.
The Parliament has been in a stir ever since its monsoon session began on July 18, 2018. Not only did it have to deal with various impending bills but also the no-confidence motion tabled by the opposition. The Speaker, Sumitra Mahajan accepted the no-confidence motion moved by the opposition including the Congress, TDP and NCP on the first day. The no-confidence debate was scheduled and conducted two days later and after an intense 12 hour debate the results were announced 325/126 in favour of the NDA government.
The Telugu Desam Party had withdrawn from the NDA alliance in March after Andhra Pradesh was denied special category status. With this in mind, TDP tabled the no-confidence motion and found support in the Congress and NCP. The no-confidence debate opened the room for criticisms and clarifications but was also a futile attempt that only delayed other important works. This said, this is not the first time that a no-confidence motion has been passed against the ruling government. India has seen a total of 27 such motions of which only one was successful.
No-confidence motions as said earlier is no foreign concept. Thus, it essential to understand what they are and why they are used. To summarise, the main function a no-confidence motion is ensure some checks on the ruling government and to make sure they do not fail in their duty towards the citizens. There are various ways in which the Opposition in the Parliament can keep a check on the government like adjournment motions, censure motion, etc, but the no-confidence motion directly conveys the failure of the government and that the members of the Parliament have lost confidence in the government to make things right.
The no-confidence motion is based on a key aspect of a Parliamentary form of government, that is, collective responsibility. Article 75 of the Indian Constitution also states that, “The Council of Ministers shall be collectively responsible to the House of the People.” It ensures that the government works as one and reduces internal conflicts that might be detrimental to the citizens. When the House loses confidence in the government then it must dissolve. The President then uses his discretionary powers to invite the person he thinks hold the favour of the majority of the House to form the government or fresh elections will be held.
The no-confidence motion however, finds no mention in the Indian Constitution. Although, Article 118 of the Indian Constitution lays down rules of procedure and clause 1 states, “Each House of Parliament may make rules for regulations, subject to the provisions of this Constitution, its procedure and the conduct of its business.” Keeping in mind the essence of Article 75 and using the power given to it by Article 118, the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha sets aside Rule 198 to exclusively deal with motions of no-confidence in Council of Ministers.
A no-confidence motion can only originate in the Lok Sabha and be decided by it. A member who hopes to raise this motion in the House must do so when called upon by the Speaker and must submit a written notice by 10.00 hrs that day. Once the Speaker calls for the motion made by the member at least 50 other members must come out in favour of the motion only then can the Speaker allot dates for discussing the motion. After great debate the issue is put to vote, if the motion secures a simple majority of members present and voting then the government stands dissolved.
India has seen 27 no-confidence motions since independence. The first ever no-confidence motion admitted during the Nehru government. The attempt to admit no-confidence motions in the first two tenures of the Nehru government failed for lack of support of 50 members.
However, by Nehru’s third tenure the political climate in the country had changed tremendously. There was the tension between China and Pakistan, inflation was on the rise, corruption was rampant, famine affected areas across the country and an increase in the members of the opposition made the admittance of the no-confidence motion possible in 1963.
During the debate it was seen that Opposition were also divided among themselves. The right-wing of the Opposition criticized the left-wing of the Congress and vice-versa. The Opposition so divided among themselves failed to gather majority and thus the motion fell through. Nehru, however, kept the criticisms in mind and tried to establish a political equilibrium in the society.
Unlike the Nehru government, the Shastri regime faced three no-confidence motions right from the beginning of his tenure. The issues dealt with in all three motions were that of either India’s problematic foreign policy or its deteriorating economy. All of them failed for lack of majority support because the opposition was still divided in their beliefs and opinions. Indira Gandhi, India’s first female Prime Minister, popularly called the Iron Lady faced 15 no-confidence motions during her regime. Indira Gandhi’s regime has been a problematic and controversial regime.
It would not seem surprising that these many no-confidence motions had been tabled against her. Although what one can find fascinating is that she always managed to gain the confidence of the House. The Opposition was getting stronger and gaining more lime-light, but it could still not overpower the legacy of the great freedom fighters of the Congress and the sentiments that invokes.
The only ever no-confidence motion that was successful in dissolving the government was in the two-year tenure of Morarji Desai. The Morarji Desai government was the first non-Congress government at the centre. The Congress suffered in the elections of 1977, post the emergency period that arose during Indira Gandhi’s tenure.
The Janata Party was an immediate alliance made from respite for Indira Gandhi and the wariness of the Congress having held power too long. Therefore, once in power different parties seemed to want to fulfil different agendas. There internal conflicts and contradictions within the government. Morarji Desai, though a strong candidate did not possess the capabilities to tame an unruly government. Indira Gandhi was on the other trying to gather support and managed to break Charan Singh’s faction away from the Janata Party reducing them to a minority.
Thus, when the second no-confidence motion against his government was admitted, Desai admitted defeat and resigned. Desai’s resignation was the first time in the country’s history that one had seen the power a no-confidence motion could possess. It was the only time such a motion was successful in dissolving a government. Other Prime Ministers that faced no-confidence motions were Narasimha Rao who faced this thrice and Rajiv Gandhi and Atal Bihari Vajpayee who had to face the motion only once.
Coming back to the present, the no-confidence motion against the Modi government was a motion everyone knew would fail. The purpose of this motion was not to oust the Modi government but bring about dialogue as well as put pressure on the government for various issues that the Opposition finds it lacking in. The issues that were brought out in this 12-hour debate is that of the Rafale deal, mob lynching, cause of the farmers and other such issues that the Opposition felt the government was avoiding.
However, this also proved to a platform for the Modi government to highlight all that it has done in the past four years and draw comparison with the Congress. It is my opinion that this no-confidence motion was not a necessary step. The Parliament already has a lot of issues to deal with and a lot of bills waiting to be discussed and passed. Therefore, keeping in mind that the Parliament has limited time and a lot of issues, the Speaker let this debate happen at the very beginning of their session. There is no doubt that by acing through this no-confidence motion, the government seems capable of staying in power even after the 2019 elections.
Thus, we can see that the no-confidence motions in India seem to hold a different meaning than that in other parliamentary systems. A no-confidence motion is tabled with the hopes that the other party might get power, like in a bi-party system in the UK. In the multi-party system that India is, no-confidence motions are used to realise the mistakes being made by the government with the hopes that changes would be made for the better. The concept of no-confidence has thus evolved uniquely to the Indian context and being used for constructive criticism of the ruling government.
Support The Draft by sharing this story.
