Shouting over Democracy- the death of debates in Indian Parliament
Dr VK Bahuguna
February 17, 2026
The Indian Parliament, once heralded as the "temple of democracy," has increasingly begun to resemble a gladiatorial arena (the term is used metaphorically now for any competitive public space, like a political arena and court battle) where reason goes to die and shouting matches are the only way to combat. The Indian Constitution provides a framework for the smooth functioning of Parliament, specifically empowering presiding officers to deal with unruly disruptions. While the Constitution lays the foundation for this, the very idea of democracy and freedom of speech is being violated by uproar in Parliament. The recent spectacle of "frivolous disputes" in Parliament has reached the lowest ebb of parliamentary conduct. When the "temple of democracy" becomes a place of "competitive noise," ordinary citizens lose more than just tax money; they lose faith in the institution itself. The current disruptions are not a sign of a strong opposition or a strong government; they are a sign of a broken system. The opposition blocks the House because they believe the floor is a platform for protest, not debate. The government passes important legislation in the "din," ignoring the scrutiny of standing committees. This is not governance; it is shirking one's duty. Our law makers need to ponder over specially the speaker of Lok Sabha and Chairman of Rajya Sabha and need to take the steps to maintain the confidence of the people in Parliament.
There are key constitutional and procedural rules to deal with unruly disruptions in Parliament. Article 118: Empowers each House of Parliament to make rules to regulate its business and conduct, thereby maintaining internal discipline. Article 105: Deals with the powers, privileges, and immunities of Parliament and its members. It allows the House to punish members for breach or contempt of privileges, including misconduct such as vandalism or violent behaviour, for which they cannot claim immunity. Article 122: States that the validity of any proceedings in Parliament cannot be questioned in any court on the basis of any alleged defect in procedure, thereby ensuring internal autonomy. If this is the condition why our presiding officers are allowing such Mobocracy in the hallowed building meant for debate and law making. Parliament was always meant to engage with and undertake the legislative and deliberative business, representing the people of India. The In Sita Soren v. Union of India (2024), a seven-judge Supreme Court bench ruled that lawmakers (MPs/MLAs) do not enjoy immunity from prosecution for bribery to vote or speak in Parliament/Assemblies, overturning the 1998 P.V. Narsimha Rao verdict. The court clarified that acts of vandalism and violence (disruptions) are not protected by parliamentary privilege, asserting they violate constitutional, not legislative, norms. Supreme Court thus held that legislators who indulge in vandalism and general mayhem cannot claim parliamentary privilege and immunity from criminal prosecution and Parliamentary privileges and immunities are not ‘gateways’ for legislators to claim exceptions from the law of the land, especially criminal law. Vandalism on the Assembly floor could not be equated with the right to protest by opposition legislators.
The legislators both in ruling dispensations and opposition should act within the parameters of the public trust imposed on them to do their duty. They had taken office swearing true allegiance to the Constitution. They had to uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India and had to perform the duty imposed on them by the people who elected them. It was definitely not for them to “betray the trust of the people” who elected them to make laws by engaging in wanton destruction of public trust in the Assembly and then claim privilege and immunity from the very process of law. When elected representatives enter the Well, tear papers, and physically obstruct their peers, they are not acting as legislators; they are acting as a mob.
Now therefore, the time has come as strong public opinion is building up for taking strict Disciplinary Action by Presiding Officers namely by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha as well as Presiding officers of state assemblies to exercise powers vested with them to deal with misconduct under the "Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business under Rules 373 and 374 in the Lok Sabha and Rules 255 and 256 in the Rajya Sabha. Further, Under Rule 374A in the Lok Sabha, the Speaker can automatically suspend a member for a specified period, without any motion, for actions such as entering the well or shouting slogans but this provision is rarely invoked but people want it as a regular option as they are fed up with such tactics in the name of democracy. For excessive disruptions and unruly behaviour Parliament can expel members and but seldom opted.
There is urgent need to impose financial disincentives and Implement a "no work, no pay" rule. If the House is adjourned due to deliberate disruption, the per-dem allowance of every member present in the Well should be forfeited. Further, no bill should be passed in an "uproar." If a bill cannot be debated on the Floor for at least four hours, it must be referred to a Standing Committee for at least 30 days. If a member quotes from an unverified or "disputed" external text, the Speaker's office should have the authority to remove it from the permanent record unless the member officially produces the document within one hour. Mahatma Gandhi once warned that if public opinion is not mature, democracy can easily convert into a Mobocracy. In a Mobocracy, the crowd has no "mind or premeditation" it acts in frenzy. This frenzy need to firmly curtail with iron hand as people are losing faith fast. Let us hope good sense prevails and Indian democracy thrives well.
(The writer is former IFS officer and Chairman of Centre for Resource Management and Environment)
(Tripurainfo)
more articles...