1. Parliament for Delivery, Not Drama: The Decline of Legislative Deliberation
1. Syllabus
GS-II: Parliament and State Legislatures—structure, functioning, conduct of business, powers & privileges and issues arising out of these.
2. Context
The editorial analyzed the remarks made by the Prime Minister ahead of the Winter Session, accusing the Opposition of using Parliament for “drama” and “venting frustration after defeat” instead of focusing on “neeti” (policy) and “delivery”. The remarks drew counter-accusations of government hypocrisy and trampling on parliamentary decorum.
3. Main Body in Multi-Dimensional Analysis
The exchange reflects the deepening crisis of parliamentary efficacy and the breakdown of consensus between the government and the Opposition regarding the conduct of the House.
- The PM’s Argument: The core concern is the time wasted due to disruptions. The Prime Minister argued that the House should be a platform for constructive policy formulation (delivery) and nation-building, not a stage for political theatrics or settling electoral scores. He also highlighted the missed opportunity for young MPs to showcase their talent.
- The Opposition’s Counter-Argument: The Opposition contends that the government minimizes their role by pushing key legislation without referring them to Parliamentary Standing Committees and often refuses to debate pressing issues (like electoral reforms or economic distress). Disruption, they argue, is often the only available tool to force the government’s hand on important matters.
- The Core Issue: Decline in Scrutiny: The real casualty is the quality of lawmaking. The number of Bills referred to committees has plummeted, and the time spent debating critical legislation has decreased. Both sides contribute to this malaise: the government by its legislative push, and the Opposition by its disruptive tactics.
- Need for Responsible Governance: The editorial concluded that ‘delivery’ requires more than just passing Bills; it requires passing robust, well-debated laws. This necessitates the government actively seeking consensus and the Opposition exercising its right to dissent through constructive debate rather than repeated disruption.
4. Implications
The continued erosion of the deliberative function of Parliament weakens the executive’s accountability and results in suboptimal legislation, ultimately affecting public trust in democratic institutions.
5. Way Forward
The Presiding Officers of both Houses must enforce rules impartially, and both the government and the Opposition must find a middle ground—the government must allow time for discussion on Opposition-led issues, and the Opposition must ensure their protests do not perpetually paralyze the House.
2. Pushback and Bail: The Humanitarian Angle in Citizenship and Deportation
1. Syllabus
GS-II: Government policies and interventions for development in various sectors and issues arising out of their design and implementation; Social Justice.
2. Context
The editorial focused on the case of Sunali Khatun, a heavily pregnant ragpicker who was allegedly ‘pushed back’ or deported by Indian authorities to Bangladesh and subsequently jailed there for illegal entry. The Supreme Court’s intervention on “humanitarian grounds” to consider her return underscored the ethical crisis in the current deportation process.
3. Main Body in Multi-Dimensional Analysis
The case exposes the brutal, often extra-legal, consequences of citizenship ambiguity and harsh deportation policies, particularly affecting vulnerable and marginalized populations.
- The Humanitarian Crisis: The core of the issue is the plight of Sunali and her family—allegedly Indian citizens with Aadhaar cards and residential proof, who were summarily deported on suspicion of being illegal immigrants. Being jailed in a foreign country, especially in an advanced stage of pregnancy, raises severe human rights violations and violates the spirit of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).
- Procedural Lapses and Justice: The Calcutta High Court had earlier ordered her return, but the Centre challenged the order, prioritizing the precedent of border control over human life. The fact that a Bangladeshi court declared her an Indian citizen based on Indian ID documents highlights the procedural chaos and lack of due diligence by Indian enforcement agencies.
- The Non-Refoulement Principle: The case touches upon the principle of non-refoulement—the prohibition of returning persons to a place where they would face danger. While this is primarily a refugee law concept, the ethical imperative to protect one’s own citizens, especially vulnerable ones, is paramount.
- Supreme Court’s Role: The Supreme Court, by asking the Central government to consider the case on humanitarian grounds, served as the guardian of fundamental rights, injecting much-needed ethical consideration into a process often dominated by security and political narratives.
4. Implications
This issue requires a re-evaluation of the entire process of identifying and deporting suspected illegal immigrants, ensuring that human rights standards and due process are strictly followed, irrespective of the person’s economic status.
5. Way Forward
The government must establish a transparent, judicialized, and time-bound mechanism for verifying the citizenship and identity of detained individuals before deportation, prioritizing the dignity and safety of all persons, particularly women and children.
