Govt gets cold feet on fixed terms

The UPA is having second thoughts on whether to have fixed terms of 120 days for Parliament and 60 days for legislatures. 

The government was forced to think of bringing in a legislation to fix the number of sittings after a public outcry against frequent disruptions in Parliament. Since 1999, there’s been a steady fall in the number of working days in Lok Sabha.

In 1999, it met for just 51 days. The number rose to 85 in 2000, and fell slightly to 81 in 2002. In 2003, Parliament just met for 74 days. In 2004, an election year, Parliament recorded a dismal 53 working days. Last year, Parliament had just 46 working days. These numbers look poor when compared to the UK and Canada where the Parliaments meet for a mandatory 140 days. The US Congress sits for 150 days.

The demand for fixed terms cropped up again during the Budget session in the backdrop of a Private Members Bill brought in Rajya Sabha by Samajwadi Party’s Mahendra Mohan. Though the debate on this bill remained inconclusive, it encouraged Upper House chairman and vice-president Hamid Ansari to take up the issue of mandatory sittings with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Ansari has been demanding a 130-day term for Parliament to “restore its deliberative role”.

Singh was keen on it, but the government seemed unwilling to commit itself to a Constitutional amendment. Though the UPA is not averse to more working days, it is not ready for a fixed term. According to sources in the parliamentary affairs ministry, the government will try to persuade Mohan to withdraw the Bill during the winter session with a promise that it will take the initiative to have Parliament meet for longer. The six-week winter session will be touted as the UPA’s commitment on extending working days.