0.2299
7667766266
x

UK Supreme Court Ruling on Parliament Prorogation

iasparliament Logo
October 03, 2019

What is the issue?

  • The UK Supreme Court has ruled that the UK PM Boris Johnson's decision to suspend Parliament for 5 weeks was unlawful.
  • The ruling holds larger significance for the judicial review process in Parliamentary democracies.

What is the contention?

  • UK PM insisted he wanted to outline his government's policies in a Queen's Speech on 14 October.
  • To do that, Parliament must be prorogued and a new session started.
  • But, it is widely perceived as a calculated move by the government to conclude the Brexit process with minimal parliamentary scrutiny.
  • There is a view that the suspension was far longer than necessary.
  • Notably, the Boris Johnson-led government had promised to make Britain leave the European Union by October 31 2019, even if that meant an exit without a deal.
  • The PM, who has faced calls to resign, said he "profoundly disagreed" with the Supreme Court ruling but would "respect" it.
  • There is also an opinion that the action by the court had amounted to a "constitutional coup".

What is the judiciary’s rationale?

  • The verdict had the effect of quashing the Queen’s order to prorogue Parliament on the advice of the Prime Minister.
  • U.K.’s Supreme Court found that the actions of Prime Minister Boris Johnson to prorogue Parliament were unlawful.
  • Judges said it was wrong to stop MPs carrying out duties in the run-up to the Brexit deadline.
  • It had the effect of preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification.

Why is it a significant ruling?

  • The prorogation triggered a legal challenge culminating with the Scottish Court of Session finding that the PM had misled the Queen.
  • Simultaneously, the matter was heard by the High Court of England and Wales, which ruled that the prerogative powers of the government were non-justiciable.
  • These conflicting decisions and the appeals emanating from these two courts were heard by the Supreme Court.
  • The matter had come to be heard before a panel of 11 Justices, the permitted maximum quota of serving Justices, of the Supreme Court.
  • The entire judicial approach, in dealing with a matter concerning the “fundamentals of democracy”, underlines the effectiveness of the judicial review process when conducted in a timely manner.
  • The Court’s ruling is an exemplar on how the judiciary views executive actions.
  • By doing so, the U.K. Supreme Court asserted its majesty in the constitutional framework.
  • Following this, other countries, that follow the Westminster system of government, should make increased introspection of executive actions and provide a boost to due parliamentary processes.

What does this hold for India?

  • There have been at least two key executive actions this year that have undermined parliamentary processes:
    1. Reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS)
    2. the Bills passed around Jammu and Kashmir (J&K)
  • The Constitution 103rd Amendment Act 2019 on reservation for EWS was brought for Parliament’s consideration in less than 48 hours from Centre’s decision to do so.
  • By doing so, the government ensured that there was insufficient time for Parliament scrutiny.
  • The Bills around J&K also suffered from a similar defect.
  • The conventional practice is that legislative documents are provided at least a few days before they are tabled.
  • This is done for the MPs to understand the contents of the legislation, seek views and formulate their positions better.
  • But, the J&K Reservation (Second Amendment) Bill, 2019 was suddenly introduced to the ‘Parliamentary List of Business’.
  • Copies of the Bill and the Resolution were provided to MPs only after tabling it.
  • Concerns - Clearly, the above legislations were introduced in Parliament in direct violation of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business.
  • In Rajya Sabha, specifically, Rule 69 talks about ‘Motions after Introduction of Bills’ and ‘Scope of Debate’.
  • According to Rule 69, there is discretion given to the Chairman in exceptional situations.
  • But, there has been no detailed explanation given by the presiding officers as to why the government has been allowed to breach parliamentary rules and convention on more than one occasion.
  • Way forward - It is now for the Indian courts to assess whether executive actions have undermined parliamentary processes.
  • This would largely determine the majesty of the judicial review process in India.

 

Source: The Hindu

Login or Register to Post Comments
There are no reviews yet. Be the first one to review.

ARCHIVES

MONTH/YEARWISE ARCHIVES

sidetext
Free UPSC Interview Guidance Programme
sidetext