Anda di halaman 1dari 13

724

Practice and Procedure of Parliament

CHAPTER XXVIII

Motions of Confidence and No-Confidence in the Council of Ministers


Cabinet Responsibility1 One of the fundamental postulates of parliamentary democracy is the principle of collective responsibility of the Council of Ministers or the Cabinet to the popularly elected House.2 The Government must always enjoy majority support in the popular House to remain in power. If need be, it has to demonstrate its strength on the floor of the House either by moving a Motion of Confidence and winning the confidence of the House or by defeating a No-confidence Motion brought against it by the parties in Opposition.3 The Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha4: the responsibility is joint and indivisible. There is no specific provision in the Constitution laying down the individual responsibility of a Minister and his accountability to Parliament for all the acts of omission and commission in his departmental charge. However, in keeping with the high parliamentary traditions, individual Ministers have of their own accord accepted responsibility for, and resigned on account of, the criticisms or short-comings of the Departments under them5.
1. See Subhash C. Kashyap: Parliament of India, Myths and Realities, New Delhi, 1988, pp. 35, 39-43; The Parliament and the Executive in India, Lok Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi, 1987 and the Table (London) Vol. XLIX, 1981. G.C. Malhotra : Cabinet Responsibility to Legislature : Motions of Confidence and No-Confidence in Lok Sabha and State Legislatures, Lok Sabha Secretariat, 2004 p(vii) Ibid., p. (v). Art. 75(3). Interpreting art. 75(3), the Supreme Court in U.N.R. Rao v. Smt. Indira Gandhi (A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 1002), observed: Article 75(3) brings into existence what is usually called Responsible Government. In other words the Council of Ministers must enjoy the confidence of the House of the People. While the House of the People is not dissolved under art. 85(2)(b), art. 75(3) has full operation. But when it is dissolved, the Council of Ministers cannot naturally enjoy the confidence of the House of the People... Art. 75(3) only applies when the House of the People does not stand dissolved. 5. For example, R.K. Shanmukham Chetty resigned because he, through an error of judgment, gave instructions to withdraw certain groups of cases which had been referred to the income-tax Investigation CommissionC.A. (Leg.) Deb., 17-8-1948, pp. 357-59; Lal Bahadur Shastri resigned because of a serious railway accident.L.S. Deb., 26-11-1956, cc. 993-97; following an inquiry into the Mundhra deal transacted by the Life Insurance Corporation, T.T. Krishnamachari resignedL.S. Deb., 18-2-1958, c. 1282; A.P. Jain resigned because of strong criticism of the food situation in the countryL.S. Deb., 14-8-1959, cc. 2496-584; 21-8-1959, cc. 3566-629, and 22-8-1959, cc. 3847-930; Krishna Menon resigned soon after the Chinese invasionL.S. Deb., 9-11-1962, cc. 357-59; K.D. Malaviya resigned following an inquiry about some entries in the papers of a firm purporting to relate to himL.S. Deb., 17-8-1963, cc. 954-57; Gulzari Lal Nanda resigned following violent demonstration near the Parliament HouseL.S. Deb., 10-11-1966,

2. 3. 4.

Motions of Confidence and No-Confidence in the Council of Ministers 725 Collective responsibility6 is assured by the enforcement of two principles: first, no person is nominated to the Council except on the advice of the Prime Minister, and secondly, no person is retained as a member of the Council if the Prime Minister demands his dismissal7. The essence of collective responsibility is that a Minister is free to express his dissent when a policy is in the stage of discussion, but after a decision is taken every Minister is expected to stand by it without any reservation. The only alternative, therefore, for a Minister who does not see eye to eye with the Prime Minister in matters of policy or is not prepared to defend a Cabinet decision is to resign8. Likewise, if the Prime Minister finds that a colleagues views or actions are causing him embarrassment, he can appropriately ask for his resignation9. Cabinet responsibility to the Lok Sabha implies that not only the Prime Minister but also a substantial majority of the members of the Council should be chosen from amongst the members of the Lok Sabha10 but it is not unconstitutional if the
cc. 2493-522; Dr. Karan Singh (Minister of Tourism and Civil Aviation) tendered resignation because of the crash of an HS-748 aircraft near Secunderabad on 15 March 1973. However, his resignation was not accepted by the Prime MinisterL.S. Deb., 16-3-1973, cc. 218-19; 20-3-1973, cc. 198-200; K.P. Singh Deo and Chandu Lal Chandrakar tendered their resignations as their names figured in the chargesheet filed by the Government against a person in an espionage caseL.S. Deb., 5-3-1986, cc. 201, 205 and 11-3-1986, cc. 257-58. For an analysis of the distinction between the concepts of ministerial responsibility and administrative accountability, see Kashyap, op. cit. Dr. B.R. Ambedkars speech in the Constituent AssemblyC.A. Deb., 30-12-1948, pp. 1159-60. For example, Dr. S.P. Mookerjee, Union Minister of Industry and Supply, resigned on account of the weak, halting and inconsistent attitude taken by Government in the face of brutalities to which, he alleged, Hindu minorities in Pakistan were subjected P. Deb., 19-4-1950, pp. 3017-22; Dr. John Matthai, the Union Minister of Finance, resigned on account of differences with the Prime Minister on fundamental principles of policy, especially over the formation of Planning Commission which the Finance Minister regarded as ill-timed and ill-conceived Hindu, 1-6-1950 and 3-6-1950; Mahavir Tyagi, Minister of Rehabilitation, resigned on 15 January 1966 on account of his differences over the signing of the Tashkent Agreement; M.C. Chagla, Minister of External Affairs resigned on 5 September 1967, on account of his disagreement with the Governments Education Policy; Asoka Mehta, Minister of Petroleum and Chemicals, resigned on 22 August 1968 because of his differences with the Government policy on the Czechoslovakian issueL.S. Deb., 26-8-1968, cc. 1649-51; Morarji Desai, Deputy Prime Minister resigned on 16 July 1969, as a protest against his being summarily relieved of the Finance portfolio L.S. Deb., 21-7-1969, cc. 280-84; Mohan Dharia, Minister of State for Works and Housing, resigned on 2 March, 1975, on account of his differences with the Prime Minister in the matter of having a national dialogue and consensus on burning problemsL.S. Deb., 5-3-1975, cc. 241-54. For instance, on 15 October 1969, the Prime Minister asked for the resignation of four Ministers, which were tendered. These principles have been borne in mind ever since 1952 when, under the Constitution, two Housesthe Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabhawere constituted. However, in 1966, the Council of Ministers was headed by Smt. Indira Gandhi who was not a member of the Lok Sabha. In the Budget Session, a private members Bill which sought to amend the Constitution so as to provide that the Prime Minister shall be member of the House of the People (Lok Sabha), was considered in the House. In reply, the Government stated that the present Prime Minister would herself have been willing to contest the election to the Lok Sabha but for the reason that by-elections were not being held because of emergency. While accepting the spirit behind the Bill, the Minister added that it would not be proper to have such a provision in the Constitution. There may be occasions that too for a limited periodwhen a Prime Minister has to be from the other HouseL.S. Deb., 15-4-1966 and 13-5-1966.

6. 7. 8.

9. 10.

726

Practice and Procedure of Parliament

Prime Minister or a number of Ministers are members of the Rajya Sabha. There is also no provision in the Constitution that a Minister holding any particular portfolio should be drawn from a particular House11. Responsibility, however, does not mean that every Government act has to be reported to and approved by the Lok Sabha. The Government needs express parliamentary approval for its legislative and fiscal proposals as well as expenditure, and is, on occasions, called upon to explain and justify its policy. If the House clearly shows that it does not propose to support the Government that is, if the Government has lost the confidence of the Houseit must resign or have the House dissolved12. However, resignation or dissolution would follow only where the defeat implies loss of confidence. What the Government will treat as a matter of substantial importance on which to resign or to dissolve the House is, primarily, a question for the Government to decide. The Opposition can test the opinion of the House by demanding a vote on the motion of no-confidence13. Motion of No-Confidence In view of the express constitutional provision regarding collective responsibility of the Council of Ministers to the Lok Sabha, a motion expressing want of confidence in an individual Minister is out of order; under the Rules, only a motion expressing want of confidence in the Council of Ministers as a body is admissible14. A no-confidence motion in the Council of Ministers is distinct from a censure motion. Whereas a censure motion must set out the grounds or charge on which it is based and is moved for the specific purpose of censuring the Government for certain policies and actions, a motion of no-confidence need not set out any grounds on which it is based. The giving of reasons is not a condition precedent to the admission
11. 12. Observations made by Speaker in regard to the appointment of Pranab Kumar Mukherjee, member of the Rajya Sabha as the Union Minister of FinanceL.S. Deb., 19-2-1982, cc. 9-27. Dissolution can take place only after the President is satisfied that it is not possible to form an alternative government following the defeat and resignation of the Council of Ministers. It is a moot point whether the President should accept automatically the advice of a defeated Government to dissolve the House without his exploring the possibility of an alternative government which enjoys the confidence of the House. In case the President dissolves that House, the defeated Government continues in office as caretaker government until the general elections, following the dissolution of the Lok Sabha, are over. In the States, however, the position is different. On the defeat and resignation of the existing Governor, the Governor of a State has to ascertain whether an alternative government can be formed, and if he is unable to do so, he has to report to the President under art. 356 of the Constitution that the constitutional machinery of the State has broken down. 13. 14. Constitutional Precedents, op. cit., pp. 1-3. Rule 198(1). Before independence, the Executive was not responsible to the Central Legislature. Consequently, there was no provision in the Rules or Standing Orders of the Central Legislative Assembly for moving of a motion of no-confidence. On the enactment of the Indian Independence Act, 1947, the Cabinet became responsible to the Constituent Assembly of India which was then also exercising the powers of the Legislature of the Dominion of India, and a provision was made for the first time in the Rules for the moving of a motion of no-confidence in the Council of Ministerssee Rule 24B of the Constituent Assembly (Legislative) Rules, 1947.

Motions of Confidence and No-Confidence in the Council of Ministers 727 of a motion15. Even when grounds are mentioned in the notice and read out in the House, they do not form part of the no-confidence motion16. There has been a case where the Speaker refused to read out himself or allow the member who had given notice of a no-confidence motion, to read out the grounds set out in the notice before leave of the House to the moving of the motion was granted17. The Speaker may, in his discretion, mention the grounds to the House18. Censure Motion No leave of the House is required to move a censure motion19. It is in the discretion of the Government to find time and to fix a date for its discussion. There is no specific provision in the Rules for the moving of censure motionsuch a motion is governed by the Rules applicable to motions in general20 and can be admitted as a No-Day-Yet-Named Motion21. Censure motion can be moved against the Council of Ministers or an individual Minister or a group of Ministers for their failure to act or not to act or for their policy and may express regret, indignation or surprise of the House at the failure of the Minister or Ministers. The Motion should be specific and self-explanatory so as to record the reasons for the censure, precisely and briefly. The Speakers decision whether the motion is in order or not for any reason is final22. Restrictions on moving the Motion of No-Confidence A motion expressing want of confidence in the Council of Ministers may be made subject to the following restrictions: leave of the House to move the motion has to be asked for by the member when called by the Speaker; and
15. 16. L.S. Deb., 31-8-1961, c. 6174. The Speaker after reading out the text of the motion of no-confidence mentioned also in brief the grounds given in the notice, but he made it clear that the grounds did not form part of the motion. The member when asking for leave of the House to the moving of the motion, read out only the text of the motion and not the groundsL.S. Deb., 9-11-1962, cc. 359-60; 20-2-1963, cc. 2165-67; 13-8-1963, c. 169; 16-8-1965, cc. 135-38; 25-7-1966, cc. 192-216; I-11-1966, c. 165; 18-3-1967, c. 109; 22-11-1967, c. 1992; 9-3-1968, cc. 3211-12; 11-11-1968, c. 202; 18-21969, cc. 212-13; 28-8-1969, c. 232; 28-7-1970, cc. 509-11; 21-11-1973, cc. 227-30. The Speaker has held the view that it is not necessary to read out the grounds at that stage as it would be unfair to the Government if they were not allowed an opportunity to explain their position, if opportunity were given to the Government, it would lead to a debate on the notice itself and it might so happen that ultimately there might not be the required number of members to support the noticeL.S. Deb., 31-8-1961, c. 6174. L.S. Deb., 9-11-1962, cc. 359-60; 13-8-1963, c. 169; 21-11-1963, cc. 227-30. 28-8-1969, cc. 231-32; 28-7-1970, cc. 509-11. See Chapter XXVI regarding Motions. Rule 184-89. L.S. Deb., 18-12-1964, cc. 5694-702; 21-12-1964, c. 5924. Ibid., 19-8-1968, cc. 2714-840; 4-8-1977, cc. 314-15; 7-8-1980, cc. 296-382.

17.

18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

728

Practice and Procedure of Parliament

the member asking for leave has, before the commencement of the sitting for that day, to give to the Secretary-General a written notice of the motion which he proposes to move23. The expression before the commencement of the sitting means a reasonable time before the commencement of the sitting. A notice of no-confidence motion which is required to be given before the commencement of the sitting on the day on which the matter is proposed to be raised in the House has to be given by 10.00 hours on that day, i.e. an hour before the commencement of the sitting. Such notice, if received after 10.00 hours, is valid only for the next sitting24. Before the commencement of a session, a notice can at the earliest be given after a date and time fixed in advance by the Speaker and notified in the Bulletin. Notice can also be given for a future date25. No conditions of admissibility of a motion of no-confidence are laid down in the Rules, except that once a decision, after discussion, is taken by the House on such a motion, no motion raising an identical matter can be moved in the same session26. However, there is no bar to the admission of a motion, even though members might have already got opportunity earlier in the session to criticise the Government at the time of discussion on the Presidents Address, Budget or Demands for Grants, etc. in the same Session27. The Speaker is vested with the power of deciding whether a motion is in order or not. He may not bring a notice before the House if it is not properly worded or on any other ground considered sufficient by him, or he may bring it before the House after objectionable matter, if any, has been deleted therefrom or the notice has been suitably edited. Leave of the House Notices of no-confidence motions are taken up at the prescribed stage after the Question Hour before the House embarks upon the main business for the day entered in the List of Business28. If the Speaker holds a no-confidence motion to be in order, the member who has tabled the notice asks for leave of the House to move the motion29.
23. 24. 25. 26. 27. Rule 198(1). Dir. 113B. On 18 August 1984, a member tabled a notice of motion of no-confidence to be moved by him on 22 August 1984. The member, however, withdrew his notice on 21 August 1984. Rule 338; L.S. Deb., 4-9-1974, cc. 64-78. L.S. Deb., 7-5-1981, cc. 304-26. In order to move a motion of no-confidence for the second time in the same session, a member may table a motion for suspension of Rule 338 in its application to his motion of no-confidence. However, two conditions have to be fulfilledthe Speaker has to give his consent and the motion has to be adopted by the House. No rules or principles are laid down for the consent of the Speaker. He decides each issue on merits and gives or withholds his consent. The second imperative that the House has to adopt such a motion leaves the burden on the ruling party. The party has to decide whether the no-confidence motion should be allowed against the Council of Ministers. They decide whether there is merit in discussing such a motion a second time. Dir. 2 and L.S. Deb., 7-9-1964, cc. 138-39. No speech is permitted unless leave has been granted by the House to move the motion L.S. Deb., 9-11-1962, cc. 361-62, 18.8.2003, cc. 327-28; 19.8.2003, cc. 287-576.

28. 29.

Motions of Confidence and No-Confidence in the Council of Ministers 729 The Speaker calls upon members in favour of leave being granted to rise in their seats. Leave is deemed to be granted by the House if not less than fifty members rise. A physical count is taken to determine that the requisite number of members have stood in support of the motion. When called upon by the Speaker to ask for leave of the House, the member can at that stage withdraw the notice by making a request to that effect30. In case, however, the member wants to withdraw his motion after the leave of the House has been granted, he may do so only with the permission of the House31. Notice of noconfidence motion can also be withdrawn by the members concerned by sending letters of withdrawal signed by all the signatories to the notice before the item is taken up in the House32. In that case the item is not mentioned in, or brought before the House. When a number of notices of no-confidence motion are received for the same sitting, the notices are balloted to determine their inter se priority. Notices which are held to be in order are taken up one by one in the order of their priority. In case leave of the House for the moving of the first motion is not granted, the second motion is taken up. As soon as leave of the House to the moving of any motion is granted, the remaining motions, if any, are kept pending till the one to the moving of which leave of the House has been granted is disposed of33. However, when notices of several noconfidence motions are received and it is agreed by consent of all members tabling those motions that only a particular notice might be taken up, other notices are not brought before the House. The first signatory of the agreed motion is permitted to ask for leave of the House to move his motion34. Where a notice is signed by more than one member, it is deemed to have been given by all the signatories. In such cases the names of the other members are indicated immediately after the first signatory and it is left to them to decide as to who would ask for the leave of the House. When leave of the House to the moving of a motion has been granted, no substantive motion on policy matters is to be brought before the House by the Government till the motion of no-confidence has been disposed of35. Discussion on the Motion and its Scope Ordinarily, the member who has been granted leave of the House moves the motion of no-confidence and initiates the discussion. However, the Chair may permit
30. 31. 32. 33. L.S. Deb., 13-8-1963, cc. 167-73; 9-11-1970. cc. 236-38; 15-11-1971, cc. 247-48. On 7 December 1987, a member, on being called, was not present to ask for leave of the House. Ibid., 3-9-1973, cc. 29-33. On 8 March 1965, four notices of no-confidence motions were received but they were withdrawn by sending letters of withdrawal signed by all signatories before the item was taken up in the House. In case where notices of two or more no-confidence motions have been received and leave of the House to the moving of one motion therefrom has been granted, the names of members who tabled the other notices are not mentioned in the HouseL.S. Deb., 9-3-1965, c. 3213. L.S. Deb., 7-9-1964, cc. 132-34; 22-7-1974, cc. 277-78; 7-5-1981, cc. 304-27. Ibid., 25-7-1966, c. 230; 26-7-1966, c. 457; 27-7-1966. c. 777; 24-7-1974, c. 221.

34. 35.

730

Practice and Procedure of Parliament

such member merely to move the motion without making a speech and allow another member of his party to open the debate36. Discussion on a motion of no-confidence, leave to the moving of which has been granted by the House, is not merely confined to the grounds mentioned in the notice of that motion. Normally, the matters referred to by the mover of the motion are discussed but it is open to any member to raise any other matter he likes during the course of the discussion on the motion37; even matters on which separate discussion has taken place in the same session can be brought up if it is shown that there has been a failure on the part of the Government after the last discussion took place38. There is no restriction on the moving of more than one no-confidence motion in a session, although this has not been done so far, but the second motion is admissible only if it raises new matters not covered by the discussion on the previous motion. Normally, the Opposition act with responsibility and do not bring forward such a motion for the second time in the same session. But if something serious has happened since the first motion was debated and the Government is subjected to criticism in the public and in the House which has tended to undermine the credibility of the Council of Ministers, the Opposition may give notice of another no-confidence motion. The Speaker, on receipt of such a motion, may bring it before the House and rule it out of order if, in his opinion, it is an abuse of procedures and calculated to obstruct the business of the House on a frivolous or an ordinary matter for which other procedures are available39. A motion of no-confidence is required to be taken up within ten days from the date on which the leave to move is granted by the House. In fixing the date for the discussion of such a motion, the Speaker may ask the Leader of the House to suggest to him the date or dates in consultation with the leaders of various Opposition Parties or Groups40. Time for discussion of the motion may be allotted by the House on the
36. 37 . 38. Ibid,, 9-5-1974, cc. 282, 538-44. Ibid,, 9-3-1965. cc. 3211-12. For example, discussion regarding Food Situation was held in the Lok Sabha on 7-10 September 1964. Failure on the part of the Government to solve the food problem was referred to in the discussion on the no-confidence motion which took place in the House on 11 and 14-18 September, 1964. On 4 September 1974, in regard to a notice of motion of no-confidence tabled by a member for the second time in the same session, the Speaker observed that the motion could not be taken up because one motion for want of confidence in the Council of Ministers had already been discussed and negatived earlier during the session and Rule 338 prohibited such repeat motion in the same session. The member wanted to move the aforesaid motion on the failure of the Government to provide time for the discussion of a No-Day-Yet-Named Motion relating to the setting up of a parliamentary committee to probe into the alleged forgery of signatures of twenty members of the Lok Sabha on a petition for the grant of licence to certain business concerns. Certain members contended that Rule 338 prohibited the raising of a question substantially identical with the one on which the House had given a decision in the same session and therefore, the motion of noconfidence raising new matter could be taken up. The Speaker, thereupon, observed that in a motion of no-confidence, no reasons were given and even if some reasons were given they were not part of the motion. Therefore, there could not be any repeat motion of no-confidence in the same session. Thereafter, the member concerned moved a motion for suspension of Rule 338 which was negativedL.S. Deb., 4-9-1974, cc. 64-78. L.S. Deb., 13-8-1963, c. 173; 14-8-1963, c. 424.

39.

40.

Motions of Confidence and No-Confidence in the Council of Ministers 731 recommendation of the Business Advisory Committee41 or the Speaker may, after considering the state of business in the House, himself allot a day or days for this purpose42. With the consensus of the House, discussion may be taken up on the day on which House grants leave43. The time so allotted can, however, be extended with the consent of the House44. Since no grounds are mentioned in a no-confidence motion, an amendment to the motion is out of order if it seeks to insert grounds or to single out particular Minister or Ministers. With a view to seeing that discussion on the motion concludes within the time allotted and all Groups in the House have their due share in the discussion, the Speaker may prescribe a time-limit on speeches and indicate the ratio in which time would be distributed among various Groups. Out of the total time allotted for discussion, the Speaker may, in his discretion, earmark some time for discussing a specific matter45. After the members have spoken on the motion, the Prime Minister46 replies to the charges levelled against the Government. The mover of the motion has the right of reply47. When the debate on the motion is concluded, the Speaker forthwith puts the question necessary to determine the decision of the House on the motion48. Statement by a Minister who has Resigned A member who has resigned the office of Minister may, with the consent of the Speaker, make a personal statement in explanation of his resignation49. However, no
41. 17R (BAC-3LS); L.S. Deb., 14-8-1963, cc. 424-31; 14R(BAC-4LS), L.S. Deb. 20-2-1968, c. 2166; 23R (BAC-4LS) and L.S. Deb., 12-11-1968, cc. 189-92; 28R (BAC-4LS), L.S. Deb., 19-2-1969, cc. 196-99; 51R (BAC-4LS), L.S. Deb., 28-7-1970, c. 610; 29-7-1970, c. 246; 44R (BAC-5LS), L.S. Deb., 23-7-1974, c. 328; 24-7-1974, c. 220. The Ninth Session of the Seventh Lok Sabha which was scheduled to adjourn sine die on 13 August 1982, was extended by one day (16-8-1982) on the recommendations of the Business Advisory Committee to provide time for discussion of motion of no-confidence. 42. 43. 44. 45. Rule 198(3). L.S. Deb., 17-9-1981, cc. 259, 287-88; 10-12-1987, cc. 458-548, 18.8.2003, cc. 327-28. Ibid., 21-8-1963, c. 1808; 22-8-1963, c. 2240. On 7 September 1964, the Lok Sabha granted leave to the moving of a no-confidence motion. On the next day, the Speaker withheld his consent to the moving of an adjournment motion on a matter of public importance on the ground that this matter could be discussed during debate on the no-confidence motion. Out of 20 hours allotted for discussion of the motion of no-confidence, two and a half hours were earmarked for discussion of the subject-matter of the adjournment motionL.S. Deb., 7-9-1964, c. 134; 8-9-1964, cc. 396-405. On 8 May 1998, in the absence of the Prime Minister who was on a State tour abroad, points raised in the no-confidence motion were replied to from the Government side by the Finance Minister. L.S. Deb., 25-7-1974, cc. 297-336; 11-12-1987, cc. 443-45. Rule 198(4); L.S. Deb., 18-9-1964, cc. 2563-67. Rule 199(1); The term Minister, as defined in the Rules, means a member of the Council of Ministers, a Minister of State, a Deputy Minister or a Parliamentary SecretaryRule 2.

46.

47. 48. 49.

732

Practice and Procedure of Parliament

such statement can be made in the House by a Minister who is not a member of the Lok Sabha because as soon as his resignation is accepted, he ceases to be Minister and cannot exercise the right of taking part in the proceedings of the House of which he is not a member. Though it is customary for a Minister who has resigned his office to make a statement in the House explaining the reason for his resignation, he is not bound to make such a statement. Moreover, where the grounds which led to the resignation are well known, such a statement may not be necessary50. The Speaker cannot compel a member who has resigned the office of Minister to make a statement in the House51. However, members may be permitted to make a query under Rule 199 with a view to demanding a statement from the member who has resigned from the office of Minister. If the member who has resigned from the office of Minister has the privilege under this Rule to make a statement in the House, by implication, it is open to other members to request him to exercise that privilege. It is ultimately for the member who has resigned as a Minister to make or not to make such a statement. On 17 July 1978, when the Speaker called the Leader of the Opposition to make a query about the Ministers who had recently resigned from the Council of Ministers but had not made any statement in the House with regard to their resignations, several members raised points of order that it was the discretion of the members who had resigned from the Office of Minister to make statements with regard to their resignations, and other members had no locus standi under Rule 199 to demand a statement from the former Ministers. The Speaker inter alia observed that on three occasions in the past, the then Speaker had permitted members to make a query under this Rule to request former Ministers to make statements in the House52. On 17 August 1978, the Speaker conveyed to the House the information given to him by one of the former Ministers to the effect that he would not be making his statement in explanation of his resignation from the Office of Minister which had been listed in the List of Business for the day. When a number of members raised points of order, the Speaker observed that under the Rules, he had no power to compel a member to make a statement. The Speaker further held that the statement sent by the member to the Speaker had not become the property of the House. Subsequently, during the same session, the same former Minister wrote to the Speaker that he would make his statement under Rule 199 on 24 August 1978, and sent therewith a copy of the statement which he had since revised. The item was included
For instances of statement made by resigning Ministers, see C.A. (Leg.) Deb. (II), 17-8-1948, p. 357; P. Deb. (II), 19-4-1950, p. 3017; L.S. Deb., 25-7-1956, c. 813; 18-2-1958, c. 1282; 17-8-1963, c. 950; 21-7-1969, cc. 280-87; 31-7-1972, cc. 239-41; 5-3-1975, cc. 241-54; 5-3-1986, cc. 201-05, 11-3-1986, cc. 257-59, 25-8-2006, cc. 431-35. There is no precedent in the Lok Sabha for a statement being made either by the Prime Minister who resigns or by his successor informing the House of the reasons for the change in the Ministry. 50. 51. 52. L.S. Deb., 9-11-1962, cc. 358-59; 28-6-1968, cc. 1650-51. Ibid., 18-2-1965, cc. 137-38; 2-3-1965. cc. 1986-88; 20-3-1981, cc. 262-72; 27-2-1986, c. 1. Ibid., 17-7-1978, cc. 315-59.

Motions of Confidence and No-Confidence in the Council of Ministers 733 in the Revised List of Business for that day. When the item was reached, several members raised objections to allowing the former Minister to make the statement so late and after having declined to avail of the opportunity given to him earlier. The Speaker thereupon observed that whenever a Minister resigned either voluntarily or at the request of the Prime Minister, he was entitled to make a statement in the House and no limitation whatsoever had been prescribed in this Rule with regard to the time for making the statement. The Speaker further observed that if the statement had been unduly delayed, he might not have given permission, but as it was being made during the session itself, he would not be justified in declining his permission to the member to make the statement. Thereafter, the former Minister made the statement in explanation of his resignation. This was followed by a statement by the Prime Minister53. Similarly the other former Minister who had resigned in June 1978 finally made a statement in the Lok Sabha under Rule 199 only on 22 December 1978. Although he had earlier expressed a wish to make such a statement, it kept on being postponed for one reason or the other. The former Ministers statement was followed by a statement by the Prime Minister54. Rule 199 has since been amended and now the Minister who resigns may, with the consent of the Speaker, make the statement on any day during the session in which the resignation has been accepted by the President. The Rule provides that a member may make such a statement at the earliest opportunity on a day not being more than seven days from the date of commencement of the session if the resignation was accepted by the President when the House was not in session. When a Minister resigns on account of differences of opinion with his colleagues and chooses to make a statement in the House, references to his difference likely to involve disclosure of Cabinet secrets or of such information which might be prejudicial to the security of the country, cannot be made by him. However, if he feels that it is necessary for him to make incidental references to such matters, he has to obtain the permission of the Prime Minister and inform the Speaker in advance of such permission having been obtained by him. To avoid disclosure or the making of statements offensive to constitutional proprieties, it is obligatory on the resigning Minister to supply a copy of the statement proposed to be made by him, or a gist thereof, to the Speaker and the Prime Minister, one day in advance of the day on which the statement is to be made55. The advance copy of the statement or gist thereof received by the Speaker is treated as confidential till the statement is actually made in the House. Where the Speaker gives his consent to the statement being made in the House, the item is included in the List of Business and such a statement is normally made
53. 54. 55. Ibid., 24-8-1978, cc. 340-49. Ibid., 22-12-1978, cc. 304-14. See Rule 199(2). The provision for supply of a copy of the statement in advance was made in 1953Min. (RC), 17-4-1953 and notified in the GazetteH.P. Notfn. No. 290-C/53, 19-5-1953, Gaz. Ex. (1-1), 30-5-1953.

734

Practice and Procedure of Parliament

after the questions and before the main business of the day is taken up56. But in an exceptional case where, before making the statement, the resigning Minister is interested in getting through an item of business standing in his name, he may make the statement at such time as may be fixed by the Speaker. No Discussion on the Statement No debate is permitted on a statement made by a member who has resigned the office of Minister in explanation of his resignation57, but after it has been made, a Minister may make a statement pertinent thereto58. Such a statement is normally made by the Prime Minister59. Thereafter, no other Minister can make a statement on matters raised by the resigning Minister in his speech. Ministers and Parliament No-Confidence in the Government: Recent developments in the parliamentary system have clearly established that every defeat of the Government in the House does not amount to expression of lack of confidence. Unless a crucial policy issue is involved, the mere fact of a Government sponsored measure not being passed by the House is not regarded as a vote of no-confidence in the Council of Ministers and there is no obligation on the Government to resign. Government can be dismissed only by passing a direct vote of no-confidence and not otherwise. In view of the constitutional provision regarding the collective responsibility of the Council of Ministers to the Lok Sabha [article 75(3)], a motion of no-confidence can be moved only against the Council of Ministers as a whole and not against any individual Minister. However, there is nothing in the Rule either for or against a censure motion being moved against a single Minister under Rule 184 relating to motions in general60. Ministers oath of office and secrecy and disclosure of Information Article 75(4) of the Constitution of India provides that before a Minister enters upon his office, the President shall administer to him the oath of office and of secrecy. The oath of secrecy forbids a Minister from disclosing information made available to him or became known to him except as may be required for the due discharge of his duties as such Minister. The secrecy imposed is not a blanket one. It is subject to an important qualification, viz. that he can disclose the information gathered by him as
56. 57. 58. Rule 199(3) and Dir. 2. L.S. Deb., 17-8-1963, cc. 959-61. Rule 199(3). The original rule framed in 1947 provided that a Minister could make a statement in reply. In 1950, while adapting the C.A. (Legs.) Rules for the Provisional Parliament, for the words in reply the words pertinent thereto were substitutedParl. Sectt. Notfn. No. 30/1/50 A, 26-1-1950, Gaz. Ex., 14-2-1950. For example, on 21 July 1969, Morarji Desai made a statement on his resignation from the Office of Deputy Prime Minister. He also laid on the Table his correspondence with the then Prime Minister in this regard. The then Prime Minister (Smt. Indira Gandhi) also made a statement thereafterL.S. Deb., 21-7-1969, cc. 280-87. For further instances see L.S. Deb., 24-8-1978, cc. 304-49; 22-12-1978, cc. 265-314. See Chapter XXVI, regarding Motions.

59.

60.

Motions of Confidence and No-Confidence in the Council of Ministers 735 Minister if it becomes necessary for him for the due discharge of his duties as such Minister. What may be required to be kept secret at one stage may be required to be brought to knowledge of the public at a later stage. One Minister may consider that a particular information should be kept confidential whereas the successor may think that it would be in public interest to let the public know about it. The question whether a particular disclosure made by a Minister was required for the discharge of his duties as such Minister is very difficult to decide and so long as the Speaker is not able to say that the disclosure made was not required for the due discharge of duties of the Minister concerned, it is not possible to hold that there was breach of any constitutional provision61. Motion of Confidence In addition to the well established procedural device of motion of no-confidence under Rule 198(1), the motion of confidence is also used to test the majority of the Government of the day. There is no specific rule in the Rules of Procedure relating to the motions of confidence in the Council of Ministers. The necessity of the device of the confidence motion has, however, been felt in recent times with the advent of the era of minority governments caused by split in the mainline political parties, and the formation of coalition governments as a result of hung Parliaments. In the absence of any specific rule, the motions of confidence have been admitted under the category of motions stipulated under Rule 184 which are meant for raising discussions on matters of public interest. Decisions on such motions are taken under Rule 191 by putting before the House all the necessary questions. In the case of a confidence motion, there is no requirement for seeking the leave of the House as in the case of a no-confidence motion. The one line notice of a motion under Rule 184 reads that this House expresses its confidence in the Council of Ministers. The confidence motion is worded in a language which is directly opposite to the wording of a no-confidence motion. The purpose and object of both the No-confidence and Confidence Motions are the same. The confidence motion gets priority over the no-confidence motion even if the notices are received for both motions basically because under Rule 25, Government business has precedence over other business on days allotted for the transaction of Government business. Since the need for this motion is felt when the legitimacy of the Government is in question, it is appropriate that a positive vote of confidence is sought for. In order to admit a no-confidence motion, it must satisfy conditions laid down in Rule 198 which inter alia provides: (a) if not less than 50 members rise, the Speaker shall declare that the leave is granted; and (b) that the motion will be taken up on such day as he may appoint, not being more than 10 days from the date on which the leave is asked for. In the case of the confidence motion, what is relevant is Rule 190 which deals with motions in general and which reads: The Speaker may, after considering the state of business in the House and in consultation with the
61. L.S. Deb., 20-4-1978, cc. 267-70.

736

Practice and Procedure of Parliament

Leader of the House or on the recommendation of the Business Advisory Committee, allot a day or days or part of a day for the discussion on such motion. Motions of Confidence and No-confidence during 1952-2009 During the last fifty-seven years since the time of the First Lok Sabha in 1952, twenty-six motions of no-confidence (NCMs) and twelve motions of confidence (CMs) in different Councils of Ministers during the First to Fourteenth (1952-2009) as shown in the Table62, below were admitted.
Table NCMs and CMs admitted in Lok Sabhas Lok Sabha First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth Seventh Eighth Ninth Tenth Eleventh Twelfth Thirteenth Fourteenth Fifteenth Total Period 17.04.52 - 104.04.57 05.04.57 - 131.03.62 02.04.62 - 103.03.67 04.03.67 - 127.12.70 15.03.71 - 118.01.77 23.03.77 - 122.08.79 10.01.80 - 131.12.84 31.12.84 - 127.11.89 02.12.89 - 113.03.91 20.06.91 - 110.05.96 15.05.96 - 104.12.97 19.03.98 - 126.04.99 10.10.99 - 6.02.2004 17.05.2004 - 8.05.2009 18.05.2009 NCMs 6 6 4 2 3 1 3 1 26 CMs 1 3 1 4 2 1 12

In the first two Lok Sabhas, no such motion was admitted. While a maximum number of six motions of no-confidence each was debated in the Third and Fourth Lok Sabhas, the maximum number of confidence motions was accounted for in the Eleventh Lok Sabha. The House discussed all the twenty-six motions of no-confidence and eleven of the twelve confidence motions63.

62.

Reproduced from (position till Thirteenth Lok Sabha) G.C. Malhotra: Cabinet Responsibility to Legislature : Motions of Confidence and No-Confidence in Lok Sabha and State Legislatures (2004). Lok Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi. For a detailed analysis of the subject, see ibid.

63.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai