The results of General Election 2019 were declared last week concluding the process for electing the 17th Lok Sabha. Immediately after the results, the previous Lok Sabha was dissolved. The next couple of days will witness several key events such as swearing-in ceremony of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, and the first session of the 17th Lok Sabha. In the first session, the newly elected MPs will take their oaths, the Speaker of the 17th Lok Sabha will be elected, and the President will address a joint sitting of Parliament. In this blog, we explain the process and significance of the events that will follow in the days to come.
Key Events in the First Session of the 17th Lok Sabha
The Bharatiya Janta Party has emerged as the single largest party and the leader of the party will be sworn-in as the Prime Minister. As per Article 75(1) of the Constitution, the other ministers are appointed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister. The 91st Amendment to the Constitution limits the total size of the Council of Ministers to 15% of the total strength of the House (i.e., 81 Ministers). As per media reports, swearing-in of the Council of Ministers is scheduled for May 30, 2019.
How is the schedule for first session decided?
The 17th Lok Sabha will commence its first session in the first week of June. The exact date of commencement of the first session and the schedule of key events in the session, including the date of President’s address, is decided by the Cabinet Committee on Parliamentary Affairs. This Committee will be set up after the swearing in of the Council of Ministers. The previous Lok Sabha had commenced on June 4, 2014 and its first session had six sitting days (June 4, 2014 to June 11, 2014).
Who presides over the first session?
Every proceeding of the House is presided by a Speaker. The Office of the Speaker becomes vacant immediately before the first meeting of a new Lok Sabha. Therefore, a temporary speaker, known as the pro-tem Speaker, is chosen from among the newly elected MPs. The pro-tem Speaker administers oath/affirmation to the newly elected members, and also presides over the sitting in which the new Speaker is elected. The office of the pro-tem Speaker ceases to exist when the new Speaker is elected.
How is the pro-tem speaker chosen?
Once the new government is elected, a list containing the names of the senior-most members of the House is prepared. The seniority is decided by total tenure as a member of either Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha. The Prime Minister then identifies a Member from the list who acts as the Speaker pro-tem. Three other members are also identified before whom other members may take oath/affirmation.
How is the new Speaker chosen?
|
Any member may give notice of a motion that another Member be chosen as the Speaker of the House. The motions are then moved and voted upon. After the results are announced, the Speaker-elect is felicitated by leaders of all political parties, including the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition. From then, the new Speaker takes over the proceedings of the House. |
 |
|
An understanding of the Constitution, the Rules of Procedure, and conventions of Parliament is considered a major asset for the Speaker. While this might indicate that a Speaker be one of the senior-most members of the House, this has not always been the norm. There have been occasions in the past where the Speaker of the House was a first-time MP. For instance, Mr. K.S. Hegde, the Speaker of the sixth Lok Sabha and Mr. Bal Ram Jakhar, the Speaker of the seventh Lok Sabha were both first time MPs |
 |
What is the role of the Speaker in the House?
The Speaker is central to the functioning of the legislature. The proceedings of the House are guided by the Rules of Procedure and the final authority for the interpretation and implementation of these rules rests with the Speaker. The Speaker is responsible for regulating the discussion in the House and maintaining order in the House. For instance, it is the Speaker’s discretion on whether to allow a member to raise a matter of public importance in the House. The Speaker can suspend a sitting member for obstructing the business of the House, or adjourn the House in case of major disorder.
The Speaker is also the chair of the Business Advisory Committee, which is responsible for deciding the business of the House and allocating time for the same. The Speaker also chairs the General Purposes Committee and the Rules Committee of the Lok Sabha and appoints the chairpersons of other committees amongst the members. In the past, Speakers have also been instrumental in strengthening the Committee system. Mr. Shivraj Patil, the Speaker of the 10th Lok Sabha, played a key role in the initiation of 17 Departmental Standing Committees, therefore strengthening Parliament’s control over the functioning of different ministries of the government.
Since the Speaker represents the entire House, the office of the Speaker is vested with impartiality and independence. The Constitution and the Rules of Procedure have prescribed guidelines for the Speaker’s office to ensure such impartiality and independence. Dr. N. Sanjiva Reddy, the Speaker of the fourth Lok Sabha, formally resigned from his political party as he was of the opinion that the Speaker belongs to the whole House and should therefore remain impartial. As per Article 100 of the Constitution, the Speaker does not exercise vote on any matter being voted upon, in the first instance. However, in case there’s a tie during the voting, the Speaker exercises her vote.
What does the President’s Address entail?
The election of the Speaker is followed by the President’s Address. Article 87 of the Constitution requires the President to address both Houses at the beginning of the first session after each general election. The President also addresses both the Houses at the beginning of the first session of each year. The President’s address highlights the initiatives of the government from the previous year, and mentions the policy priorities for the upcoming year. After the address, the ruling party moves a Motion of Thanks to the President’s address in both Houses of Parliament. In the Motion of Thanks, MPs may move amendments to the motion, which are then put to vote.
The President of India, Mr. Ram Nath Kovind will address Parliament in this first session of the 17th Lok Sabha. During the 16th Lok Sabha, the first President’s address was held on June 9, 2014 and the last time he addressed Parliament was on January 31, 2019 (highlights of this address can be read here).
Sources: The Constitution of India; Rules and Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha; Handbook on the Working of Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; The website of Parliament of India, Lok Sabha; The website of Office of the Speaker, Lok Sabha.
As per news reports, the union government has filed a Presidential Reference in relation to the 2G judgment. In this judgment the Supreme Court had cancelled 122 2G licences granting access to spectrum and had ordered their re-allocation by means of an auction. It also held that use of first cum first serve policy (FCFS) to allocate natural resources was unconstitutional. It had held that natural resources should be allocated through auctions. As per the news report, the Presidential Reference seeks clarity on whether the Supreme Court could interfere with policy decisions. This issue has been discussed in a number of cases. For instance, the Supreme Court in Directorate of Film Festivals v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain[1] held that Courts cannot act as an appellate authority to examine the correctness, suitability and appropriateness of a policy. It further held that Courts cannot act as advisors to the executive on policy matters which the executive is entitled to formulate. It stated that the Court could review whether the policy violates fundamental rights, or is opposed to a Constitutional or any statutory provision, or is manifestly arbitrary. It further stated that legality of the policy, and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy, is the subject of judicial review. In Suresh Seth vs. Commissioner, Indore Municipal Corporation[2] a three judge bench of the Court observed that, “this Court cannot issue any direction to the Legislature to make any particular kind of enactment. Under our constitutional scheme Parliament and Legislative Assemblies exercise sovereign power or authority to enact laws and no outside power or authority can issue a direction to enact a particular piece of legislation.” In the present case it may be argued that whereas the Court was empowered to declare a policy such as FCFS as unconstitutional, it did not have the jurisdiction to direct auctioning of spectrum and other natural resources. The Presidential Reference may conclusively determine the Court’s jurisdiction in this regard. However, it has been urged by a few experts that this Presidential Reference amounts to an appeal against the decision of the Court. They have argued that this could be done only through a Review Petition (which has already been admitted by the Court). The advisory jurisdiction of the Court invoked through Presidential References, is governed by Article 143 of the Constitution. Under Article 143 of the Constitution of India, the President is empowered to refer to the Supreme Court any matter of law or fact. The opinion of the Court may be sought in relation to issues that have arisen or are likely to arise. A Presidential Reference may be made in matters that are of public importance and where it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court. The Court may refuse to answer all or any of the queries raised in the Reference. A Presidential Reference thus requires that the opinion of the Court on the issue should not have been already obtained or decided by the Court. In the Gujarat Election Case[3] the Supreme Court took note of Presidential References that were appellate in nature. Thus, a Presidential Reference cannot be adopted as a means to review or appeal the judgment of the Supreme Court. Against judgments of the Court the mechanisms of review is the only option. This position was also argued by Senior Advocate Fali S. Nariman in the Cauvery Water Case[4], where the Court refused to give an opinion. Whether the Court had the authority to determine a policy, such as FCFS, as unconstitutional is not disputed. However, there are conflicting judgments on the extent to which a Court can interfere with the executive domain. It would be interesting to see whether the Court would give its opinion on this issue. In the event it does, it may bring higher level of clarity to the relationship between the executive and the judiciary.
[1] AIR 2007 SC 1640
[2] AIR2006SC767
[3] (2002) 8 SCC 237
[4] (1993) Supp 1 SCC 96(II)
