Denigrating parliament

Parliamentary democracy in India, once envisioned as the highest forum of sober deliberation, is increasingly being reduced to a theatre of confrontation. The evidence is stark. The 2024 winter session saw the Lok Sabha functioning for barely 52% of its scheduled time and the Rajya Sabha for only 39%. Frequent adjournments, shouting matches, placard displays, and incursions into the well of the House have become routine, eroding the dignity of the institution. The following year offered a mixed picture. In 2025, Parliament sat for 62 days across its three major sessions. Productivity fluctuated sharply- the Monsoon Session marked the nadir of the 18th Lok Sabha, while the Budget and Winter Sessions recorded unusually high productivity, sometimes exceeding 100%. This unevenness underscores a deeper malaise-Parliament is no longer a predictable forum for debate but a battleground where confrontation often substitutes for deliberation. It is tempting to assign blame solely to the opposition, whose protests are often theatrical. Yet the larger reality is one of shared responsibility. The ruling party’s repeated refusal to entertain legitimate demands for debate leaves the opposition with few institutional avenues to press its case. This dynamic produces a vicious cycle: marginalization breeds louder protest, which invites harsher sanctions, further fueling disruption. Critics argue that the government has adopted a majoritarian approach to lawmaking, “bulldozing” legislation through sheer numbers rather than building consensus. Parliamentary scrutiny has undeniably weakened. In the 17th Lok Sabha, 35% of bills received less than an hour of discussion. In 2023, seven bills were passed in under 20 minutes each. The executive’s reliance on ordinances has also grown-from an average of six annually between 2000 and 2010 to around 12 per year between 2014 and 2023-raising concerns about bypassing legislative accountability. The opposition defends obstruction as a last resort when conventional channels are closed. Historical precedent lends some credence: both Congress and BJP have used disruption while in opposition. During the 15th Lok Sabha, interruptions led to nearly 40% of time being lost when the BJP was in opposition. Yet this symmetry of misbehaviour cannot absolve present leaders. Repeated expulsions, suspensions, and allegations of selective broadcasting-such as claims that Sansad TV privileges the Speaker and Treasury benches while downplaying opposition protests-further erode trust in parliamentary institutions. Beyond the spectacle lies a tangible civic cost. Parliamentary time is expensive and as per official estimates it runs at ₹2.5 lakh per minute. Between 2014 and 2024, disruptions and lost debate time cost taxpayers roughly ₹3,300 crore. This is money squandered not on governance but on performative confrontation. Restoring dignity to Parliament requires recalibrating incentives. The government must allow fuller debate, respect opposition requests, and avoid treating the House as a rubber stamp. The opposition, in turn, should reserve theatrical tactics for extraordinary circumstances and engage constructively wherever possible. Procedural reforms and stronger enforcement of norms by the Speaker are essential to curb excesses without stifling dissent. Parliament belongs to the people but unfortunately, its standing is weakened when urgent national issues are sidelined for spectacle. The path to restoration lies not in victories by volume but in arguments won through reasoned deliberation and democracy demands nothing less.