Derek O'Brien writes: Cagey in the House

This week, leaders from 17 political parties wrote to the Prime Minister urging him to call a special session of Parliament in June. Within hours of doing so, a skittish government hurriedly announced the dates for a regular monsoon session starting July 21, seemingly turning down the demand for a special session. Normally, the lead time to announce a Parliament session (the number of days between announcement and commencement) has been around 20 days or less. The upcoming monsoon session has been announced 47 days in advance!
At the time of going to press, another 250 MPs from the Opposition are endorsing the letter already dispatched by their party leaders to the Prime Minister. The demand for a special session was first raised by Kapil Sibal, eminent jurist and Independent MP, three days after the tragedy in Pahalgam. Opposition parties took the cue from there.
Convening Parliament sessions: Let us start with the rulebook. Article 85 (1) of the Constitution stipulates, 'The President shall from time to time summon each House of Parliament to meet at such time and place as he thinks fit…'
The letter signed by the Opposition parties has been addressed to the Prime Minister. Yes, calling a special session is a decision the Union government takes. In practice, when MPs ask for a special session, the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs, after assessing the situation, (and accepting the need for a session) prepares a note, proposing the dates and duration. This is placed before the Cabinet Committee on Parliamentary Affairs. If the proposal is approved by the Prime Minister, the ministry then forwards it to the President, who formally approves and announces the session dates. It is another story if the government has what could be called, 'Parliament-ophobia' (noun) — the acute condition that is a morbid fear of facing Parliament.
Precedents for special sessions: Even though there is no mention of a special session in the rulebook, there are numerous precedents. In 1972, a sitting was convened to celebrate 25 years of Independence. In 1992, Parliament held a midnight session to mark 50 years of the Quit India Movement. In 1997, a special session was called to commemorate 50 years of the Republic.
Since 2014, three special sessions have been convened. One, in 2015, a two-day session, to commemorate the adoption of the Constitution in 1949. Two, in 2017, a midnight session, to introduce the Goods and Services Tax. In 2023, a five-day session, to mark the inauguration of the new Parliament building. The Women's Reservation Bill was also passed in the same session.
These sessions to mark celebratory milestones are welcome. But the great halls of Parliament have to go beyond symbolism and anniversaries.
There have been the odd occasions where governments have shown no urgency to break the routine. In 2006, over 180 people were killed in the Mumbai train bombings. Parliament waited for its next scheduled session before responding. After the 2008 Mumbai attacks, Parliament reconvened only when the pre-scheduled session resumed.
Parliament must urgently deliberate and discuss the events that unfolded in Pahalgam, Poonch, Uri, Rajouri, and their aftermath. Here is the most convincing precedent. During the 1962 Sino-Indian War, the Leader of the Opposition, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, then a first-time Rajya Sabha MP, demanded a special session. Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru agreed to this request, and the session was held when the active conflict was still on: 165 members participated in the debate — an open discussion on the war and government policy.
In the past 15 years, many parliamentary precedents have been ignored. Just three examples: One, the position of the Deputy Speaker in Lok Sabha has lain vacant since 2019. Two, from seven out of 10 bills being sent for scrutiny to committees, now only about two out of 10 bills go. Three, Opposition MPs were denied their right to electronic voting during the passage of crucial bills like the farm laws.
This Union government's tendency to cock a snook at the legislature has a history. Look at the track record of the legislative assembly of Gujarat from 2001 to 2012. The state assembly, under the then Chief Minister, sat for fewer times than it did under any previous CM of Gujarat. In this period, the average number of sittings of the Gujarat Assembly was less than 30 a year. Beat that!
Are we surprised that this government has all but ducked out from calling a special session? I am not surprised. But I am reminded of my civics teacher in middle school. It was he who first told me: 'The government is answerable to Parliament. Parliament is answerable to the people.' So when Parliament is sidelined, who is the government answerable to?
The writer is MP and leader, All India Trinamool Congress Parliamentary Party. Additional research: Chahat Mangtani, Ayashman Dey

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The Print

2 hours ago

• The Print

Minister Sivankutty alleges Raj Bhavan behind ABVP protests; BJP accuses CPI(M) of ‘violence'

He warned that if the Left government uses force to suppress protests, it will face retaliation in the same manner. Hitting back at the CPI(M), BJP state president Rajeev Chandrasekhar accused the Left party of trying to suppress protests by resorting to violence against the protestors. Thiruvananthapuram, Jun 22 (PTI) Kerala General Education Minister V Sivankutty on Sunday claimed that the protests by the BJP's youth and student groups against him, over the 'Bharat Mata' controversy, were aimed at causing riots in the state and were allegedly held on instructions of the Raj Bhavan. Earlier in the day, Sivankutty told reporters that he has been attacked and his travels obstructed during the last couple of days after he walked out of a programme at the Raj Bhavan where a portrait of 'Bharat Mata' — as seen in RSS events — was displayed. He said that as a minister, MLA and a citizen, he has the right to protest against the actions of the Governor at the Raj Bhavan and that is what he did. 'The Governor has said that he will continue with it (the portrait) and we have not responded to that,' he added. Subsequently, the BJP youth wing Yuva Morcha and student organisation — Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) — attacked him and obstructed his vehicle at various places in the state during the last two day, the minister claimed. Meanwhile, Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar, in an interview given to BJP mouthpiece Janmabhumi, said that the concept of 'Bharat Mata' became more clear to him when he was jailed during the emergency period in the country. He said that during that time he saw the concept of Bharat Mata as being above ideology and politics. 'I got a strong urge to work more for Bharat Mata. The inspiration to become a 'sangh pracharak' also became stronger during that time,' he said in the interview. Sivankutty, during his press conference in the morning, also alleged that at one such protest, ABVP activists tore apart the national flag, a claim reportedly denied by the student organisation. The minister also alleged that the protests and attacks against him were being carried out on the instructions of the Raj Bhavan, 'but they were unable to gather enough youth for the same'. He said that the protests against him by the two organisations were carried out by a handful of youngsters who acted as 'suicide squads' and jumped in front of his moving vehicle. ABVP and Yuva Morcha activists had waved black flags at the minister's vehicle in Kozhikode on Saturday and also burned his effigy in protest against his walkout from the Raj Bhavan event. Sivankutty said that ABVP and Yuva Morcha should realise that showing support to the Governor, who is allegedly acting contrary to the Constitution, will turn people against them. He also claimed that two hardcore RSS activists in the Raj Bhavan were advising the Governor to act in this manner. The minister said that he will not name them, but everyone knows them very well. The Congress too spoke out against the Governor's recent actions and said the Raj Bhavan should not be turned into a venue for political activities. Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee (KPCC) chief Sunny Joseph also said that protests against the Governor's actions need not be taken to the streets. Later in the day, Chandrasekhar, in a statement, claimed that it was the CPI(M) which was behind the violence against the ABVP and Yuva Morcha protestors because the BJP exposed the Left party's 'anti-nationalism' and 'appeasement politics'. He also accused the Left parties of being 'intolerant' towards protests against them. The BJP leader said that protests against the Governor by the Students Federation of India and the Democratic Youth Federation of India — the student and youth wings of the CPI(M), respectively — were acceptable, but agitations against a Left minister were not. This is an 'authoritarian style' of communist parties, he claimed. He warned that if attacks on BJP and related organisations' workers are not stopped, the Left parties and their leaders will have to pay a heavy price. 'If the CPI(M) is trying to suppress the protesters by taking the law into its own hands, and if the police decide to help them by standing by, then the national movements, including the BJP, will take to the streets,' the BJP leader said. He also said that criticising and insulting the 'Bharat Mata', a sentimental concept for the country, was not acceptable and whosoever dares to do so will face a strong protest in a democratic manner. Chandrasekhar further warned that if the Left government's decision was to suppress the protests by force, there were those on the other side who were capable of retaliating in the same manner. The southern state has been witnessing a tussle between Arlekar and the Marxist party-led LDF government over the display of 'Bharat Mata portrait' during official events at the Raj Bhavan here. PTI HMP HMP ROH This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.

The Print

2 hours ago

• The Print

Emergency was ‘ominous' for country: K N Govindacharya

'The Sangh Parivar gave stability to that movement, kept it going and a ban was also imposed on it and finally there was a change of power,' he told PTI Videos in an interview. The former BJP functionary asserted that the Sangh Parivar gave stability to that movement. New Delhi, Jun 22 (PTI) The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) played an important role in public awakening during the 'ominous' Emergency period with 65,000 people associated with it going to jail, former Sangh pracharak and political thinker N Govindacharya has said. Responding to a question about the role of the RSS in the 'Sampoorna Kranti' movement ahead of the Emergency, Govindacharya said the Sangh had a very big role in that movement. 'Just like Kurma had played a role in maintaining balance during the 'samudra manthan' with Basuki Nag and Mandara Parvat, the RSS had a similar role. In such a situation, Sangh played an important role in public awakening,' he said. According to mythology, Kurma, the tortoise avatar of Lord Vishnu, played an important role during the 'samudra manthan' (churning of ocean) to obtain the nectar of immortality. He said the Emergency imposed by then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on June 25, 1975 was an outcome of her 'lust for power'. 'The Constitution was violated, fundamental rights and freedom of expression were crushed, forced sterilisation took place, censorship was imposed, human freedom and system were attacked. The Emergency was completely ominous and could have been avoided. But such a situation arose due to lust for power,' he said. In response to a question about the circumstances leading to the Sampoorna Kranti movement, Govindacharya said such a situation arose due to issues like inflation, unemployment, bad governance, corruption, poor education. 'It started with the Bihar movement and at that time the students demanded arrangements for better studies, hostel facilities etc. But the then Education Minister of Bihar lathi-charged the students, chased them away and neglected them due to vote bank,' he recalled. Govindacharya said with the arrival of Jayaprakash Narayan, the movement got leadership, gained stature and its credibility was established. Asked about the reasons for imposing Emergency, Govindacharya said Indira Gandhi's insecurity within her party, the atmosphere created by some close people spreading wrong information and her objective of remaining in power by hook or by crook must have been the main reasons and for that morality was set aside. Attacking the then Indira Gandhi led government, he said there was a stagnation in the system. The entire public was against insensitivity, irresponsibility and lack of accountability in the system and this was expressed during the students' movement. In response to a question about his experience during the Emergency, he said he was in jail for two months during the Bihar movement (students' movement) and at the end of the Emergency he also had to go to jail. The former Sangh Pracharak said during the movement, people associated with the Sangh Parivar used to go among the people with different names so that they could avoid arrest. The Sampoorna Kranti movement against the Emergency was an unusual act of ordinary people, he stated. When asked whether the objectives of the Emergency were achieved, Govindacharya said, 'The opposite happened. There was a change of power but the prohibitions were not followed.' Socialist leader Jayaprakash Narayan gave the call for Sampooran Kranti in 1974. The demand for resignation of the then Ghafoor ministry in Bihar ultimately turned into a larger demand for the dismissal of the Indira Gandhi government. PTI DR DIV DV DV This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.

Business Standard

4 hours ago

• Business Standard

Explained: Can Trump go to war in Iran without approval from US Congress?

With US President Donald Trump ordering air strikes on three nuclear facilities in Iran—Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan—debate has intensified over the limits of presidential war powers. The strikes, the boldest US intervention yet in the Iran-Israel conflict, have not been accompanied by a formal declaration of war—prompting legal and political scrutiny in Washington. Could Trump be impeached for bypassing Congress? And what role does the War Powers Resolution of 1973 play in curbing presidential overreach? Why War Powers Resolution was introduced in 1973 The War Powers Resolution (WPR), also known as the War Powers Act, was passed in 1973 in the aftermath of the Vietnam War—a prolonged conflict that saw major US involvement without a formal declaration of war. The resolution was designed to prevent the President from unilaterally engaging American forces in hostilities without Congressional oversight. It sought to restore the balance of power by: Requiring the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops Mandating the withdrawal of troops within 60 days unless Congress approves their continued presence Allowing a 30-day grace period for safe withdrawal What US Constitution says about declaring war The US Constitution clearly assigns Congress the sole authority to declare war (Article I, Section 8), while naming the President as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces (Article II, Section 2). This division was meant to ensure that decisions to enter large-scale military conflicts reflect democratic consensus. In practice, however, modern Presidents have increasingly relied on executive authority to conduct military operations without formal war declarations. Presidential precedents and Trump's Iran strike The US has not declared war since World War II, but has engaged in several major conflicts—Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan—without Congressional war declarations. Trump's own administration has previously carried out strikes in Syria (2017 and 2018) without Congressional approval. In the case of Iran, Trump has framed the air strikes as necessary to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons. US officials say the attacks were 'limited, targeted, and in coordination with Israel'—and not indicative of a wider war effort. Could Trump be impeached over war in Iran? In theory, yes. If Congress believes the President has violated the Constitution or laws such as the War Powers Resolution, it can initiate impeachment proceedings. However, such action would depend heavily on political will. Past presidents—including Barack Obama, George W Bush and Ronald Reagan—have conducted military operations without Congressional declarations of war, and none faced impeachment for it. Legal scholars remain divided over whether violation of the WPR alone constitutes a 'high crime or misdemeanour' under the Constitution's impeachment clause. If Trump were to escalate the Iran conflict into a prolonged war without Congressional authorisation, and if it provokes significant domestic or international fallout, political calls for impeachment could grow louder. However, removal would still require a majority in the House and a two-thirds vote in the Senate—a high bar. Amid mounting tensions with Iran, US lawmakers—both Democrats and some Republicans—have sought to pass resolutions limiting Trump's ability to wage war. These efforts, while symbolically important, face procedural delays and are unlikely to override a presidential veto. The constitutional ambiguity persists: while Congress alone can declare war, the President can, and often does, launch military action unilaterally—especially if framed as a defensive or time-sensitive measure. What happens next? As of now, Trump has insisted the US does not seek regime change in Iran and has framed the strikes as a 'historic moment' to halt nuclear escalation. Iran, meanwhile, has vowed retaliation and hinted at broader regional consequences. If the US becomes drawn into a longer, bloodier conflict, pressure may mount on Congress to act—whether through legislation, funding restrictions, or impeachment. Until then, the line between presidential authority and Congressional war power remains blurred.