'Nobody Knows What Government Is Thinking. It's Unusual'

'When the House adjourned, they were not yet getting 360. They were short of that, maybe by six or seven or ten.'
'So they wanted to break more parties and get their support, and they were engaged in that.'

Forty seven days after both Houses of Parliament were adjourned sine die on August 13, the Monsoon Session has still not been prorogued. Normally that formality is over within a week.

The Opposition suspects the government is short of the two-thirds majority it needs to revive the delimitation-linked constitutional amendment that failed in the Lok Sabha in April, and is keeping the session alive so it can recall the House at short notice.

Former Lok Sabha secretary general P D T Achari tells Rediff that the Constitution forbids nothing here, but he has never seen it done before.

'Now, the only disadvantage in this is that during this period the government will not be able to...'

You have called this gap between adjournment and prorogation a new record. From the point of view of parliamentary procedure, how unusual is it? And why would any government want to keep a session un-prorogued for so long?

The normal practice is to prorogue the House, or the Houses, within a week's time.

If the government thinks that something needs to be done immediately, then it may not prorogue. It will only adjourn the House sine die. Suppose they want to bring a Bill which was not ready, or perhaps they were not able to work out a consensus.

The consensus was not yet ready when the House adjourned.

In that case, they may not prorogue it immediately, hoping that in the meantime a consensus could be arrived at. Then the House can be reconvened.

If it is not prorogued, it is the Speaker who will convene the House. If it is prorogued, then it is the President of India.

So there is a chance that a session can be called again. What do you think the government is trying to do?

The obvious thing is that we actually don't know what exactly the government is thinking. Nobody knows.

But my feeling is that they want to bring that delimitation Bill [the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill and the Delimitation Bill, 2026, which failed to pass the Lok Sabha in April], and perhaps they are trying to get adequate support.

That is around 360, a little above 360 (the two-thirds majority a Constitutional amendment needs in a House of 543).

When the House adjourned, they were not yet getting 360. They were short of that, maybe by six or seven or ten. So they wanted to break more parties and get their support, and they were engaged in that.

My guess is that they were very sincerely hoping they would succeed and get the full support. That is why they did not prorogue the Houses.

But the Houses have been adjourned sine die...

But that is done by the Speaker. After that, it is actually the President who prorogues the Houses on the advice of the government. That is how it is. It is the privilege of the President.

Since the session is technically still alive, what powers and procedural options remain available to the government?

Now, the only disadvantage in this is that during this period the government will not be able to promulgate any ordinance. An ordinance can be promulgated only when the Houses are not in session, that is, when they have been prorogued (Article 123 of the Constitution).

'They will not prorogue this House because they want to bring'

Could the government then bring a Bill before Parliament simply by recalling the Houses during this existing session, without formally summoning a fresh one?

Yes, they can do that. That is why they did not prorogue it. Otherwise, they will have to go through a lot of formalities. The President will have to issue the summons, and a certain number of days will have to be there before the session begins. A fifteen-day gap is required.

What is the procedural difference between doing that and calling a new session?

Calling a new session means the President will have to summon the Houses, and for that a certain number of days' notice is required. For example, MPs will have to submit their questions. The notice period for questions is 15 days.

So, if summons are issued today, the House will meet 15 days after that, because in the meantime the members must be able to put their questions.

That is what is kept in mind when a session is called. Earlier it was 21 days. Now it has been reduced to 15 days, but a 15-day gap is still required.

There is speculation that the government is keeping the Monsoon Session alive to bring in the women's reservation Bill and the delimitation Bill linked to it.
Is keeping a session un-prorogued for such a long period a legitimate parliamentary strategy, or does it stretch established conventions?

These are notional things. Even if they prorogue the House, nothing happens. They can summon the House again. There is no problem. But I don't know what the thinking of this government is. We are not able to understand what the government is thinking and why it is doing this.

Ever since we started this exercise in 1952, every time the Houses have been adjourned sine die, they have been prorogued soon after. This kind of a thing was never done. It is unusual. Perhaps they enjoy doing things.

But is there any Constitutional constraint?

No. There is no Constitutional constraint on that.

So is this a grey area which the government is using?

There is a lot of flexibility on this. The Constitution simply says the President shall prorogue the House [Article 85(2)]. When she/he shall prorogue the House is left to the government.

Would you regard this as merely using the flexibility the Constitution provides, or is the government trying to exploit a procedural grey area?

Well, that is what I feel. That is the impression I am getting. They will not prorogue this House because they want to bring the Bill. Otherwise, there is no reason why they should keep it un-prorogued.

'Accountability is becoming irrelevant now'

Does it cost the nation anything?

Nothing. It is costless.

Could keeping Parliament technically in session for more than 40 days after it has stopped sitting have any implications for parliamentary accountability?
For example, there are no questions or motions, and the Opposition cannot demand that Parliament actually meet. Or is all of that almost meaningless until the Houses are called?

These are becoming irrelevant now. Nobody talks about accountability. Parliament is looked at from a very technical point of view. They are looking only at the passing of legislation.

If there were a provision in the Constitution that the President can approve a Bill directly, they would not come before the House at all.

If passing the Bill is the government's intention, what procedure will it have to follow now that the Houses are adjourned sine die but not yet prorogued?

They will reconvene the House. The Speaker will reconvene the House.

So the Speaker will take the initiative? We just wanted to understand the procedure.

The government will ask the Speaker to reconvene the House, and the Speaker will issue a notification. That's all. No summons needs to be issued. Members will be informed electronically, or through e-mail or whatever. That is all.