CAN PEOPLE OVERRIDE THE PARLIAMENT AND FORCE IT TO PASS LAWS.

India, the largest democracy is the world, is a country where a population of over 1 billion people from diverse backgrounds and cultures, irrespective of caste, religion, race or stature come together under the shelter of Universal Adult Franchise, solemnly enshrined in our Constitution, to form an electorate, and elect a few hundred men and women to represent them, govern them and provide them with a legal system and the Rule of Law. These few men and women, along with the President, constitute, what the layman would call, the Parliament. Most democratic systems in the world are of two kinds, the Parliamentary and the Presidential. India, being a parliamentary democracy, has a bi cameral central legislature comprising of the Lok Sabha (house of the people or lower house) and the Rajya Sabha (Council of States). The President in India is merely the pivotal head of the state with the actual effective powers being in the hands of the Prime Minister and his Cabinet.

Unlike the British System, India has given to itself a comprehensive written Constitution which not only empowers its Citizens with fundamental rights but at the same time carefully embodies the principle of checks and balances which has time and again been reaffirmed by our Judiciary. The principles of collective responsibility, separation of powers, the division of subjects and the prevalence of the two- party system in India has together effected the formation of a seamless framework for functioning of the Democratic system and ensured that the will of the people is represented, executed, adopted and enforced. The freedom of speech and expression enjoined upon the people and the freedom of Press and media has further ensured that the voice of the people does not go unheard and has given strength and furtherance to recognition of the rights and redressal of grievances of the people. It has made Democracy, in the true spirit, a government OF the people, BY the people and FOR the people. 

The Independence of the election commission ensures fair and unbiased elections and lays down a strong foundation of a sound representative government in
India. However, the orderly system of governance by representation adopted by our constitution requires a certain level of transparency and solidarity between the representatives and the voters. It is narrow line of moral rights and obligations which can prove to be fatal for the nation if crossed by either side, the representatives or the voters. A clean balance is mandatory for the smooth functioning of a democracy, especially in a country like India, where, more than often, decisions and policy making tends to be widely influenced by immoral endeavours and corrupt practices among the rulers.

In such a scenario is it then justified for the people of a democracy to override the Parliament and force it to pass laws? As rightly quoted by Sir Franklin D. Roosevelt, “A Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy is, therefore, Education.” In the light of this quote one should not ignore the fact that almost 25% of the Indian population is uneducated, the repercussions of which are seen when it elects a law making body which is either incompetent and/ or selfish. What is therefore important is to elect wisely since one precious vote is the only tool by which the people can cause their will to be addressed in the most effective manner.

Another peculiar feature of Parliamentary Democracy is Parliamentary Sovereignty. These are the three traits of Parliamentary sovereignty as it exists in England: first, the power of the legislature to alter any law, fundamental or otherwise, as freely and in the same manner as other laws; secondly, the absence of any legal distinction between constitutional and other laws; thirdly, the non-existence of any judicial or other authority having the right to nullify an Act of Parliament, or to treat it as void or unconstitutional.

 In contrast to the English system, the Sovereignty of the Indian Parliament is dimmed under the shadow of various Constitutional provisions limiting the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution and complete prohibition upon altering its basic structure. A clear distinction between fundamental and other laws and the power of the Indian judiciary to strike down a law as “void and unconstitutional” in order to safeguard the fundamental rights of the people of India also forms an embargo upon the unfettered law making powers of the Indian Parliament.

It is of significance to note that this departure from the British system and the suppression of Parliamentary Sovereignty in India signifies the prime importance given to the will of the people over the Parliament, thereby seeking to protect the people against the prospect of the Parliament overriding its powers in ignorance of its moral obligations, eventually leading to the decay of a socialist republican democracy into a brutish form of parliamentary dictatorship.  But does this justify that the people can then, in sheer derogation of the rule of law, override the parliament and force it to pass laws.

An important point of consideration at this stage is what to we mean when we say “override.” It is beyond denial that in a democracy the will of the people is to be given utmost importance. However, there has to be a manner and organised mode of expression of the will of the people. As discussed earlier the media and the press form an effective platform for the people to voice their concerns. A brutish and unorganised system of overriding the Parliament is definitely not acceptable.

One may then argue, that if the Parliament does not respond and has an indifferent attitude towards the grievances of the people then what option are the people left with. One cannot, in following the system and principles of democracy ignore the wellbeing of the nation and cause its downfall by leaving it in the hands of insensitive, selfish and corrupt beaureucats. But then can the reigns of the nation be left in the hands of an unorganised mob which has unfettered power to dictate to the parliament. Another question that arises here is that who decides what is “good” for the nation. What may be good for a particular section of the civil society may not be so for another.

We must not fail to note that our Constitution provides for a detailed and organised system of passing of a bill which eventually becomes the Law of the Land. Putting it briefly, the passing of a bill requires ratification after detailed discussions and debates by both the houses of the parliament before it is presented to the President for his assent to make it a binding Law. Moreover, Money Bills and Bills for amendment of Article 368 of the Constitution are exceptions to the general procedure and have special procedures prescribed by Law. In light of the above, there being already in place a detailed and well knit mechanism of making of Laws in our country, would it be correct for people to override this mechanism. Moreover, when Laws are to be made for a country like India, wherein the same law would bind, equally, a poor farmer or labourer and at the same time a multi-billionaire industrialist, it is a very delicate matter which requires expertise, experience and handling by minds specialised in law-making and not by mere impulsive outrages of people.

So when we say “people” who do we refer to? Can a particular section of the civil society, claim to represent the entire population of 1.5 billion governed by the laws of India and override the Parliament who they themselves have elected? As very rightly exclaimed by Sir George Bernard Shaw, “Democracy is a device that insures we shall be governed no better than we deserve”; it would not be wrong here to say that who we elect to represent us are a reflection of our own intellectual power and sense of judgement. Also, when these “people” attempt to override the parliament in contravention of the well knit mechanism will it not set a precedent for hostile and seditious groups to intervene in the day to day functioning of the law making system in the name of safeguarding the nation from the insensitivity of the parliamentarians.

However, when we face an issue like corruption, which would backfire on the personal benefits of the parliamentarians, can we allow them to take refuge under the “systematic mechanism” of law making and let them go Scott free at the cost of the development and wellbeing of the people of the nation? A question that remains unanswered. A question which requires to be weighed against morality on one arm and effective governance on the other.

In conclusion I would iterate a very noteworthy quote by Sir Abraham Lincoln -“As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy”