The Evolution of Parliamentary Questions: Rules, Practices, and the ‘Ansari Dilemma’
- Team PressGlobal
- Jan 27
- 4 min read
Parliamentary questions form a cornerstone of accountability and transparency in India’s legislative system. They act as a direct link between elected representatives and the executive, enabling MPs to seek clarification on various governmental activities and policies. However, the history of their regulation reveals a fascinating blend of conventions, practices, and the eventual codification of rules that govern this crucial parliamentary tool.
The evolution of rules surrounding starred and unstarred questions — those answered orally and in writing, respectively — mirrors the growing necessity to formalize parliamentary procedures. Until 1960, no formal rules existed governing the number or nature of parliamentary questions. The presiding officers, with little guidance, exercised discretion to decide the number of questions permitted on any given day, often with little consistency or clarity. This ad hoc arrangement created a system that was prone to ambiguity and inefficiency, undermining the transparency of the legislative process.
The year 1960 marked a turning point in this regard, with the formal establishment of rules for handling starred and unstarred questions. A cap of 20 starred questions per day was introduced for both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, establishing a semblance of order and uniformity. However, this codification was far from perfect, and over the years, inconsistencies crept in. In 1972, the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha reduced the number of starred questions to 15 per day. While this adjustment was meant to streamline operations, it was never officially included in the written procedural rules, leading to a dissonance between practice and codified regulations. This anomaly persisted for decades, complicating parliamentary functioning and raising questions about the consistency of legislative processes.
The issue of procedural inconsistency was highlighted during the tenure of Hamid Ansari, who served as Vice President and Chairman of the Rajya Sabha. Ansari, a seasoned politician and statesman, acknowledged the discrepancies in the handling of starred questions. Under his watch, the practice of entertaining notices for 20 questions, despite the formal 15-question limit, became informally known as the “Ansari Dilemma.” This informal practice embodied a significant gap between the spirit of flexibility and the need for strict adherence to formal rules. On one hand, Ansari’s approach demonstrated a commitment to ensuring that members of Parliament were given adequate space to hold the government accountable, acknowledging that the values of democracy — debate, scrutiny, and transparency — must often be tempered by practical considerations. On the other hand, this practice was also criticized for contributing to procedural ambiguity, with critics arguing that such inconsistencies were detrimental to the credibility and transparency of the parliamentary process. The very essence of parliamentary democracy, they argued, relies on predictable and transparent rules that leave no room for arbitrary decision-making.
Ansari’s leadership was marked by his understanding of the delicate balance between tradition and innovation. He recognized the importance of upholding the values of democracy by ensuring that Parliament remained an open space for dialogue and scrutiny, even when formal rules were ambiguous or insufficient. His tenure was one of constructive flexibility, seeking to ensure that parliamentary proceedings did not become bogged down by rigid formalities. Yet, despite his commendable efforts to maintain operational continuity and uphold democratic values, the “Ansari Dilemma” underscored a critical issue: the need for more clarity and codification in parliamentary procedures.
This dilemma exposed the complexities inherent in the relationship between established practices and formal rules. While conventions, such as Ansari’s informal extension of the 15-question limit, can provide necessary flexibility in the face of evolving parliamentary needs, they also run the risk of creating confusion and undermining the legitimacy of legislative procedures. The challenge, therefore, lies in ensuring that such conventions are either formally recognized or carefully reconsidered to align with the evolving needs of parliamentary democracy.
The evolution of parliamentary questions and the “Ansari Dilemma” serves as a reminder of the need to constantly review and refine legislative processes. As India’s democracy matures, it is imperative that the gaps between formal rules and practical implementation be addressed, to ensure greater transparency and efficiency in the functioning of its parliamentary system. The experience of the Rajya Sabha under Hamid Ansari illustrates the tension between innovation and codification, flexibility and predictability — a tension that all democratic systems must navigate to maintain their credibility and effectiveness.
In conclusion, while the codification of rules surrounding parliamentary questions is an essential step toward ensuring greater accountability, it must also be complemented by a continuous review of practices to ensure they meet the evolving needs of the democratic process. In this context, the legacy of Hamid Ansari’s tenure is a testament to the values of flexibility, debate, and scrutiny, while simultaneously reminding us of the challenges posed by procedural inconsistency. It is only through a careful balancing of both that India’s parliamentary system can continue to strengthen its commitment to democratic principles and ensure that the government remains answerable to the people it serves.
Comments