In idle mode

Parliament cannot be treated as a chessboard on which procedural rules are moved to suit political convenience. The manner in which the Monsoon Session has been kept open raises serious questions about transparency, accountability and the health of parliamentary democracy. The session began on July 20, 2026, and both Houses were adjourned sine die on August 13. However, as of November 12, it had not been formally prorogued. It therefore remained technically open and could be reconvened without summoning an entirely new session. Such a long gap between adjournment and prorogation is unusual. The previous notable instance was in 1987, when the Eighth Session of the Eighth Lok Sabha began on February 23, was adjourned sine die on May 12 and remained unprorogued for 76 days. The government has not publicly offered a formal reason for keeping the Monsoon Session open. The explanation reported so far is that it wants to retain the option of reconvening Parliament at short notice. This has led to speculation that the government may seek to introduce or pass proposed constitutional amendments concerning delimitation and the implementation of women’s reservation without summoning a fresh session. While a new session normally requires advance notice, an adjourned session can be reconvened more quickly. There is nothing improper in seeking support from different parties for constitutional amendments. Such changes affect the country beyond the tenure of one government and should ideally be based on broad political agreement. However, the process of building that support must also follow democratic principles. If Parliament is being kept technically open to facilitate a legislative move, the government owes the public a clear explanation. The Opposition has criticised the decision and alleged that the government is keeping open the possibility of a special sitting. There is also suspicion that the ruling BJP is seeking greater support from Opposition MPs to secure the two-thirds majority needed for constitutional amendments related to women’s reservation and delimitation. If successful, the implementation of women’s reservation could bring electoral benefits to the government. These political calculations may explain the decision, but they cannot replace public accountability. The central danger is that political strategy may overshadow Parliament’s larger responsibility. Numerical strength is important for passing legislation, but democratic legitimacy does not rest on numbers alone. Winning through procedural maneuvering may provide an immediate advantage, yet it can create lasting distrust. Parliament must not appear to serve partisan interests instead of the public good. Parliament is not the private domain of the government, and the Opposition is not an obstacle to be bypassed. Both are necessary to a functioning democracy. The government has the right to pursue its legislative agenda, but it must also respect parliamentary conventions, accommodate dissent and explain decisions with major constitutional consequences. At a time when citizens expect Parliament to address economic and everyday concerns, uncertainty over its proceedings only deepens public scepticism. The government should clarify its decision and demonstrate that its actions are guided by constitutional propriety, not merely electoral calculations. Democracy is measured not only by what a government manages to pass, but by how faithfully it respects the institutions and conventions that sustain the system. Political cleverness may secure short-term gains, but transparency and fairness are essential to preserve Parliament’s credibility in the long run.