By Ajay Jain
The recent developments surrounding the Jagat Jot Shri Guru Granth Sahib Amendment Act, culminating in the summoning of legislators to the Akal Takht, have generated intense public discussion across the country. Regardless of one’s views on the religious proceedings or the merits of the legislation itself, one aspect of the episode deserves serious national introspection. Some legislators reportedly acknowledged before the Akal Takht that they had neither carefully read nor fully understood the provisions of the legislation before supporting it in the Legislature.
Such admissions are far more than an embarrassment for the legislators concerned. They raise fundamental constitutional questions about the manner in which laws are increasingly enacted in Parliament and State Legislatures. The episode should therefore be viewed not as a controversy confined to Punjab but as a wake-up call for India’s democratic institutions.
The Constitution of India confers upon Parliament and the State Legislatures one of the most sacred responsibilities in a constitutional democracy—the power to make laws governing the lives, liberties and rights of more than 1.4 billion citizens. Every law enacted by these institutions has far-reaching consequences for present and future generations. Legislative power is therefore not merely a political privilege; it is a constitutional trust.
The framers of our Constitution clearly understood this responsibility. The Constituent Assembly debated every important constitutional provision with extraordinary patience and intellectual rigour. Members frequently disagreed, moved amendments and participated in exhaustive discussions before arriving at a consensus. The intention was never that legislation should become a mere exercise in numerical strength. The vision was of legislatures functioning as vibrant forums of scholarship, debate and reasoned decision-making.
Unfortunately, that vision is steadily fading.
It has become increasingly common for legislators to receive copies of Bills or Ordinances only a few hours before they are taken up for consideration. Sometimes the copies are circulated at the very last moment, virtually denying legislators any meaningful opportunity even to read, much less critically examine, the provisions. Complex legislative proposals running into hundreds of pages cannot possibly be understood within a matter of hours.
The inevitable consequence is that legislative approval often becomes a ritual rather than an informed constitutional exercise.
This unhealthy practice is not confined to one political party or one State. It has become increasingly visible in Parliament as well as in several State Legislatures across India. Political parties frequently expect legislators to endorse decisions already taken by the party leadership. Individual judgment, reasoned dissent and constructive criticism are gradually giving way to unquestioning political conformity.
Legislators are not elected to function as a herd moving in one direction at the command of political leadership. They are elected because the Constitution expects them to apply their independent judgment, represent the concerns of their constituents, scrutinise every legislative proposal and participate meaningfully in debates before exercising their vote.
The recent statements reportedly made before the Akal Takht by legislators admitting that they had not gone through the provisions of the Jagat Jot Shri Guru Granth Sahib Amendment Act should therefore concern every citizen irrespective of political affiliation. If legislators themselves acknowledge that they voted without fully understanding the legislation, the larger issue is not one particular Act but the health of our legislative process.
One of the greatest casualties of recent legislative practice has been the gradual marginalisation of Select Committees and Department-related Standing Committees. These committees constitute perhaps the finest institutional mechanism for detailed legislative scrutiny. Within committee rooms, political rhetoric often gives way to informed discussion. Subject experts, constitutional scholars, economists, industry representatives, administrators, civil society organisations and affected stakeholders can present their views. Drafting errors, constitutional inconsistencies and practical difficulties can often be identified and corrected before a Bill becomes law.
Unfortunately, many important Bills now bypass committee scrutiny altogether. This tendency weakens legislative quality and frequently results in avoidable constitutional challenges before the High Courts and the Supreme Court.
Every major legislation should ordinarily be referred to a Select Committee unless exceptional circumstances genuinely require otherwise. Committees should actively invite public participation. Universities, professional bodies, retired judges, senior advocates, administrators, economists, scientists, technologists, social scientists and representatives of affected communities should all be encouraged to contribute their expertise. Better consultation invariably produces better legislation.
The same principle should govern the ordinance-making process. The Constitution permits the promulgation of Ordinances only to meet extraordinary situations requiring immediate legislative action. However, once an Ordinance is promulgated, it should automatically stand referred to a Select Committee immediately after being laid before the Legislature. Such scrutiny would preserve executive flexibility while ensuring democratic accountability and public participation.
The quality of legislation depends equally upon the quality of executive decision-making. Before recommending any Bill or Ordinance, every Cabinet should receive comprehensive presentations from independent subject experts regarding constitutional validity, financial implications, administrative feasibility, technological impact and comparative international practices. Cabinet deliberations should be informed by evidence rather than confined to political considerations.
India must also initiate a mature national debate regarding the educational preparedness of legislators. Modern law-making increasingly involves highly specialised subjects such as artificial intelligence, cyber security, biotechnology, environmental governance, financial regulation and digital privacy. While democratic representation must always remain inclusive, there is a compelling case either for prescribing minimum educational qualifications or, at the very least, making comprehensive legislative orientation and continuing education programmes compulsory for all elected representatives. An informed legislature is indispensable for an informed democracy.
There is another aspect that deserves equal emphasis. Parliamentary and legislative debates are not merely political speeches delivered for immediate public consumption. They constitute an important part of legislative history. While interpreting statutes, the High Courts and the Supreme Court frequently refer to parliamentary debates, committee reports and the Statement of Objects and Reasons to ascertain the legislative intent behind an enactment. Poor debates deprive the judiciary of valuable interpretative material, whereas informed discussions strengthen constitutional adjudication.
Those who study the parliamentary proceedings of the 1950s, 1960s and early 1970s cannot fail to admire their remarkable quality. Leaders across ideological lines combined scholarship with statesmanship. Differences were expressed with civility and constitutional maturity. Parliament functioned as the nation’s foremost forum of ideas. Those debates continue to guide lawyers, judges, scholars and legislators even today.
Political parties across the ideological spectrum must therefore introspect. Party discipline is undoubtedly necessary in a parliamentary democracy, but discipline cannot become a substitute for deliberation. Strong governments do not fear informed debate; they welcome it because rigorous scrutiny invariably strengthens legislation and enhances public confidence.
The recent Akal Takht episode should not be remembered merely as a political controversy. It should be remembered as an opportunity for institutional reform. It reminds us that democracy derives its legitimacy not merely from electoral victories but from the quality of the legislative process through which laws are enacted.
India inherited magnificent legislative institutions from the framers of the Constitution. Those institutions were intended to be centres of constitutional wisdom, scholarship and reasoned debate. It is time to restore that glorious tradition.
A democracy is judged not merely by the laws it enacts, but by the care, scholarship and constitutional conscience with which those laws are made. The Akal Takht episode should become the catalyst for restoring the dignity, independence and deliberative character of India’s legislatures.
The writer is a practising advocate at the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Copyright © © 2022 Copyright. All Rights Reserved with Arth Parkash