As the COVID-19 cases continue to rise at an exponential pace in India even after the sweeping federal lockdown, the Parliament of the country has commenced the Monsoon Session which runs from 14th September to 1st October this year. The decision by the Secretariats of both the Houses of the Indian Parliament to dispense with the Question Hour in the forthcoming session due to COVID-19 attracted backlash from various factions of society. This move was criticized as being undemocratic in nature. Following the backlash, the Government resolved to curtail the Question Hour to thirty minutes while only admitting unstarred questions. At the outset, the authors wish to clarify that this is not a comment on the political aspects pertaining to this decision, but instead a purely academic endeavor to critically analyze the decision from a socio-legal perspective.

The Question Hour is the first sixty minutes in the sitting of the Indian Parliament facilitating parliamentarians to question the democratically elected representatives on the functioning of the Government. Questions on issues of education, affirmative policies, subsidies, agriculture, employment, healthcare, etc. are tabled before the House to seek responses from the Ministers concerned which eventually leads to inclusive decision-making on issues of public importance. The questions asked can be starred or unstarred questions. Starred questions refer to the questions to which the Members desire oral answers, referred to as such due to the asterisk mark accompanying such questions. These questions may be followed by supplementary inquiries if the Members are not satisfied with the initial responses. In contrast, unstarred questions are those which are not answered orally before the House but rather, in writing. A fifteen-day notice period is given to the Ministry from which such answers are sought. These questions can be related to any aspect pertaining to that Minister’s portfolio and therefore, the Minister is assisted by officials of his Ministry, usually permitted to be seated in the public gallery. A single session permits up to twenty starred questions to be taken up. This process is further laden with bon mot and occasional riposte by Members of the Parliament and may be referred to by some, as the liveliest hour in this chamber of legislative significance.

The practice of Question Hour in India can be traced to the Question Time prevalent under the British Parliamentary Proceedings. In the United Kingdom, the Prime Minister answers questions in the House of Commons every Wednesday. In India, both the Houses of the Parliament are empowered through Article 118(1) of the Indian Constitution to formulate their own rules of procedure to conduct their business. In the House of People (“Lok Sabha”), the Question Hour emanates from Rule 32 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha which states that unless otherwise provided by the Speaker, the first hour of every sitting shall be available for the asking and answering of questions. In the Procedure for the House of the Lords (“Rajya Sabha”), Rule 38 states that unless otherwise directed by the Chairman, the Question Hour shall be from 12 noon to 1 PM.

It is acknowledged that the Question Hour is important in a parliamentary democracy like India since in such a system, the Government derives its legitimacy from the confidence of the Parliament to which it is also accountable. This accountability is linked to the parliamentarians’ privilege to question the Government and the Government’s obligation to answer the same. The handbook published by the Lok Sabha itself states that the Government is “put on trial during the Question Hour”. Question Hour is also seen as a manifestation of democracy since in its duration, a Minister is duty-bound to give replies to questions asked, which distinguishes it from other situations wherein Ministers have the liberty to not answer. In the past, the Question Hour has proved to be instrumental in exposing scandals, such as the Mundhra Scandal, independent India’s first major financial scam, which was unraveled following questions raised during the Question Hour on 4th September, 1957. Similarly, eighteen years later, in 1974, a Member of Parliament was indicted in a corruption scandal pertaining to issuance of forged licenses, after the issue was raised during the Question Hour. These questions, therefore, may also lead to court inquiries or appointment of commissions exhibiting their contribution in ensuring accountability and further underlining their importance in a democratic system.

However, the present situation must be distinguished from the aforementioned instances, in light of the fact that we are faced by a global pandemic of incomparable proportions. Alternatively, as shall be discussed subsequently, the actions of the Government do not have the effect of completely negating the Opposition’s right to question, as is being alleged.

Even in the past, the Question Hour has been suspended to devote more time to other business or in light of certain special reasons. It was reportedly suspended in 1954 when more time was required for consideration of the Hindu Marriage and Divorce Bill, 1952 and soon after again, for consideration of the Press (Objectionable Matter) Amendment Bill, 1953. Further, in 1961, 1975, 1976 and 1977, there was no Question Hour as these sessions were summoned for special purposes, namely, Orissa Budget, approval of Proclamation of Emergency, Constitution (Forty- fourth Amendment) Bill, 1976 and approval of President’s Rule in Tamil Nadu and Nagaland. In 2010 and 2012, the Question Hour was dispensed with to accommodate discussions on the price rise situation and the Motion regarding FDI in the Multi-brand Retail Sector, respectively. Now, in 2020, both the Houses have yet again resorted to this measure albeit with a twist of curtailment of the question hour while only permitting unstarred questions on their floor in view of the extreme circumstances warranting social distancing and minimized disruptions in parliamentary business. The State Legislatures dominated by opposition parties in Maharashtra and West Bengal have also acted in a somewhat similar manner. During the Question Hour, each answer is given following a careful consultation with the ministerial team since an ill-informed response has the potential to cause more harm than good. However, this usual practice of having the team present besides the Minister is undesirable in the present situation as it flies in the face of the strict social distancing requirements necessitated by COVID-19. The Question Hour in the past has often resulted in several disruptions. According to reports, about thirty-three percent of the time scheduled for the Question Hour was lost due to disruptions in the Lok Sabha, while this percentage was significantly higher, at fifty-nine percent, in the Rajya Sabha. At a time when the session is truncated in order to conclude business in half-a-day instead of usual working hours, it is essential that the events likely to cause disruption are averted by opting for less time-consuming alternatives such as the unstarred questions in place of oral interrogation.

It must be borne in mind that the Question Hour is not a constitutional privilege, but is instead rooted in a rule of procedure that may be dispensed with at the discretion of the Speaker, especially in unprecedented circumstances such as the one we are living in. This is clear from a sheer reading of Rule 32 and Rule 38 of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha Rules of Procedure, respectively. Furthermore, in the present scenario, reportedly none of the opposition parties except one raised any objection, and instead agreed to the initial move of the Government acknowledging the extraordinary circumstances behind that decision. Be that as it may, contrary to the views of the Opposition, it cannot be said that the Government is running away from the debate as it has guaranteed answers to all unstarred questions listed for the day which will also be subsequently uploaded to the official website of both the Secretariats. Therefore, the right to question remains unaffected and the move cannot be said to be in derogation of the parliamentarians’ privilege and to say that it is an attack on democracy, is fallacious.

Jyotsna Punshi is a Fifth Year (B.A. LL.B. Hons.) student at the National University of Advanced Legal Studies (NUALS), Kochi in India.

Aditya Yadav is a Fifth Year (B.A. LL.B. Hons.) student at the National University of Advanced Legal Studies (NUALS), Kochi in India.

Suggested citation: Jyotsna Punshi and Aditya Yadav, Questioning the Curtailment of the Question Hour in the Indian Parliament, JURIST – Student Commentary, September 14, 2020, https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2020/09/punshi-yadav-curtailment-of-question-hour/.

This article was prepared for publication by Akshita Tiwary, JURIST’s Staff Editor. Please direct any questions or comments to her at commentary@jurist.org