LegislatureClass 11 India Constitution At Work NCERT Solutions
10 Solutions
Generated by KedovoAI
Solution 1 of 10
Q1Exercises
Alok thinks that a country needs an efficient government that looks after the welfare of the people. So, if we simply elected our Prime Minister and Ministers and left to them the task of government, we will not need a legislature. Do you agree? Give reasons for your answer.
Solution
I do not agree with Alok's view. While an efficient government is necessary, a legislature is indispensable for a democracy for the following reasons:
-
Ensuring Accountability: The most vital function of a legislature is to ensure that the executive (the Prime Minister and Ministers) does not overstep its authority and remains accountable to the people. A government without a legislature could become dictatorial. The legislature exercises control through question hour, debates, and the no-confidence motion.
-
Representation: The legislature is the most representative of all organs of government. It represents the diverse views of members from different regional, social, economic, and religious groups. This ensures that the laws and policies made by the government consider the needs and aspirations of all sections of society.
-
Law-Making and Deliberation: The legislature is not just a rubber stamp for the government. It is the highest forum for debate and discussion. Every bill is scrutinised, debated, and voted upon. This process helps in making better and more effective laws. As the chapter states, "a genuine democracy is inconceivable without a representative, efficient and effective legislature."
-
Control over Finances: The legislature controls the finances of the country. The government cannot impose any tax or spend money without the approval of the legislature. This financial control is a key tool to keep a check on the government's activities.
Therefore, simply electing an executive and leaving them to govern would undermine the very basis of representative democracy, which rests on continuous accountability of the rulers to the ruled, a function performed by the legislature.
Q2Exercises
A class was debating the merits of a bicameral system. The following points were made during the discussion. Read the arguments and say if you agree or disagree with each of them, giving reasons. √ Neha said that bicameral legislature does not serve any purpose. √ Shama argued that experts should be nominated in the second chamber. √ Tridib said that if a country is not a federation, then there is no need to have a second chamber.
Solution
Here is an analysis of the arguments made during the discussion:
-
Neha: "bicameral legislature does not serve any purpose." I disagree with this statement. A bicameral legislature serves several important purposes as mentioned in the chapter. Firstly, it gives representation to diverse sections of society and geographical regions, which is crucial for a large and diverse country like India. Secondly, it allows for a double check on every piece of legislation. Every bill is discussed and passed by both Houses, which prevents the passing of hasty or poorly conceived laws. It allows for reconsideration and refinement of policies.
-
Shama: "experts should be nominated in the second chamber." I agree with this argument. The second chamber can be a platform for experts and distinguished individuals who may not be suited for the 'rough and tumble' of direct elections. In India, the President nominates 12 members to the Rajya Sabha from fields like literature, science, art, and social service. This allows their expertise and wisdom to be utilized in the legislative process, enriching the quality of debates and law-making.
-
Tridib: "if a country is not a federation, then there is no need to have a second chamber." I partially disagree with this statement. While providing representation to the states is a key function of the second chamber in a federation (like the Rajya Sabha in India), it is not the only reason for its existence. As mentioned above, a second chamber also serves as a revising body to prevent hasty legislation and can accommodate experts. These functions are valuable even in a unitary state. However, it is true that the primary justification for a second chamber in countries like India and the USA is to represent the interests of the constituent states, which is a feature of their federal structure.
Q3Exercises
Why can the Lok Sabha control the executive more effectively than the Rajya Sabha can?
Solution
The Lok Sabha can control the executive more effectively than the Rajya Sabha primarily because it has greater democratic legitimacy and is vested with specific constitutional powers to ensure the executive's accountability.
-
Direct Election and Responsibility: The Lok Sabha is directly elected by the people, whereas the Rajya Sabha is indirectly elected by the State Legislative Assemblies. In a democracy, the government is responsible to the representatives of the people. The Constitution makes the Council of Ministers collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha, not the Rajya Sabha.
-
Power of No-Confidence Motion: The most powerful tool to ensure executive accountability is the no-confidence motion. Only the Lok Sabha can introduce and pass a no-confidence motion. If this motion is passed, the government must resign. The Rajya Sabha does not have this power; it can criticise the government but cannot remove it.
-
Financial Control: The Lok Sabha has superior powers in financial matters. A money bill can only be introduced in the Lok Sabha. The Rajya Sabha cannot reject or amend a money bill; it can only suggest changes (which the Lok Sabha may or may not accept) or delay it for a maximum of 14 days. Since control over finances is a crucial aspect of controlling the government, this gives the Lok Sabha a significant advantage.
Because of these constitutional provisions, the survival of the government depends on its ability to command the support of the majority in the Lok Sabha, making its control over the executive direct and decisive.
Q4Exercises
Rather than effective control of the executive, the Lok Sabha is a platform for the expression of popular sentiments and people's expectations. Do you agree? Give reasons.
Solution
I agree that the Lok Sabha is a crucial platform for expressing popular sentiments, but I do not agree that this role comes at the cost of its function of exercising effective control over the executive. In fact, both functions are interconnected.
Lok Sabha as a platform for expression:
- Representation: As a body directly elected by the people from 543 constituencies, the Lok Sabha is the most representative organ of the government. Its members reflect the country's vast diversity and articulate the divergent views, grievances, and aspirations of their constituents.
- Debating Function: The chapter highlights that Parliament is the "highest forum of debate in the country." Through discussions, Question Hour, Zero Hour, and adjournment motions, members raise issues of public importance, from price rise to atrocities on weaker sections, thereby voicing the concerns of the people.
Lok Sabha as an instrument of effective control:
- The expression of popular sentiment is not merely for show; it is a tool for exercising control. When members criticise government policies, they are holding the executive accountable.
- The Lok Sabha possesses powerful tools of control that go beyond mere expression. It can reject a bill proposed by the government, refuse to approve the budget (financial control), and most importantly, remove the government through a no-confidence motion.
- The examples in the chapter, such as the government being forced to roll back increases in fertilizer prices due to intense opposition pressure, demonstrate how the expression of dissent on the floor of the House translates into effective control over executive actions.
Therefore, the Lok Sabha is both a platform for expressing popular will and a body that exercises effective control. The former reinforces the latter, making it a cornerstone of India's parliamentary democracy.
Q5Exercises
The following are some proposals for making the Parliament more effective. State if you agree or disagree with each of them and give your reasons. Explain what would be the effect if these suggestions were accepted. √ Parliament should work for longer period. √ Attendance should be made compulsory for members of Parliament. √ Speakers should be empowered to penalise members for interrupting the proceedings of the House.
Solution
Here is an analysis of the proposals for making Parliament more effective:
-
Parliament should work for longer period. Agreement: I agree with this proposal. Reason: The chapter notes that in the last two decades, there has been a "gradual decline in sessions of the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies and time spent on debates." A complex legislative proposal requires in-depth discussion, which is often not possible in short sessions. Effect: If this were accepted, Parliament would have more time for thorough deliberation on bills, scrutiny of the budget, and discussion of national issues. This would improve the quality of legislation and enhance executive accountability.
-
Attendance should be made compulsory for members of Parliament. Agreement: I agree with this proposal. Reason: The text mentions that the Houses have been "plagued by absence of quorum." Low attendance undermines the representative character of parliamentary proceedings and can lead to delays. Effect: Making attendance compulsory would ensure that debates and voting reflect the considered will of a larger number of representatives. It would enhance the seriousness and legitimacy of parliamentary work and ensure that MPs are fulfilling the primary duty for which they are elected.
-
Speakers should be empowered to penalise members for interrupting the proceedings of the House. Agreement: I agree with this proposal, with some caution. Reason: The chapter mentions that frequent walkouts, protests, and disruptions lead to a "considerable loss of legislative time." Orderly and meaningful debate is essential for the smooth functioning of Parliament. The Presiding Officer is the final authority in regulating the business of the legislature. Effect: Empowering the Speaker to impose penalties (like suspension for a period) could act as a deterrent against deliberate disruption and ensure that parliamentary time is used productively. However, this power must be used impartially to ensure that it does not stifle legitimate protest, which is also a part of democratic expression in Parliament.
Q6Exercises
Arif wanted to know that if ministers propose most of the important bills and if the majority party often gets the government bills passed, what is the role of the Parliament in the law making process? What answer would you give him?
Solution
I would explain to Arif that while it is true that the executive (the Cabinet) initiates most legislation and a government with a majority can usually ensure its passage, the Parliament's role in the law-making process is still crucial and multi-faceted.
-
Scrutiny and Refinement: No bill is passed without discussion and deliberation. During debates, members of both the ruling party and the opposition scrutinize the bill's provisions. They can point out flaws, suggest amendments, and question the government's intent. This process often leads to significant improvements in the final law.
-
The Role of Committees: A large part of the detailed discussion on bills happens in Parliamentary Committees. The chapter refers to these committees as "miniature legislatures." Here, bills are examined in-depth by members from various parties, away from the public glare. These committees can seek expert opinions and suggest changes, which the Parliament often accepts. This ensures a thorough technical and political examination of the proposed law.
-
Accountability and Justification: The entire legislative process forces the government to justify the necessity and provisions of a bill. Ministers have to answer tough questions from members, which makes the executive accountable to the people's representatives.
-
Influence of the Opposition: Even if the opposition cannot defeat a bill, it can influence it. By highlighting contentious clauses and mobilizing public opinion, the opposition can compel the government to make concessions. As seen in the chapter, intense opposition pressure forced the government to roll back price hikes.
In essence, Parliament's role is not just to pass or defeat bills but to shape, refine, and legitimise them through a process of deliberation and accountability.
Q7Exercises
Which of the following statements you agree with the most? Give your reasons. √ Legislators must be free to join any party they want. √ Anti-defection law has contributed to the domination of the party leaders over the legislators. √ Defection is always for selfish purposes and therefore, a legislator who wants to join another party must be disqualified from being a minister for the next two years.
Solution
I agree most with the statement: "Anti-defection law has contributed to the domination of the party leaders over the legislators."
Reasons:
The chapter provides direct evidence to support this view. It states that the anti-defection amendment "has not been able to curb defections, but it has given additional powers to the party leadership and the presiding officers of the legislatures over the members."
This is because the law defines defection as voting against the party's instructions or voluntarily leaving the party. This forces legislators to adhere strictly to the party line, even if they disagree with a particular policy or believe it goes against the interests of their constituents. This curbs their freedom of expression on the floor of the House and makes them subordinate to the party leadership rather than being independent representatives of the people. It can stifle internal party democracy and prevent a legislator from voting based on their conscience.
Analysis of other options:
- "Legislators must be free to join any party they want." I disagree with this. Unrestricted freedom to switch parties can lead to political instability and corruption, as legislators might defect for personal gain (like a ministerial position or money), thereby betraying the electoral mandate given to them by voters based on their original party platform.
- "Defection is always for selfish purposes..." While defection is often driven by selfish motives, making a blanket statement that it is always for such purposes might be an oversimplification. A legislator might genuinely disagree with their party's ideology or actions on a matter of principle. The suggestion of disqualification from ministership is a policy proposal, whereas the statement about party leadership domination is an analysis of the existing law's actual effect as described in the textbook.
Q8Exercises
Dolly and Sudha are debating about the efficiency and effectiveness of the Parliament in recent times. Dolly believed that the decline of Indian Parliament is evident in the less time spent on debate and discussion and increase in the disturbances of the functioning of the House and walkouts etc. Sudha contends that the fall of different governments on the floor of Lok Sabha is a proof of its vibrancy. What other arguments can you provide to support or oppose the positions of Dolly and Sudha?
Solution
This is a complex debate with valid points on both sides. Here are further arguments to support both Dolly's and Sudha's positions, based on the chapter's content.
Arguments to Support Dolly (Parliament's Decline):
- Decline in Legislative Scrutiny: The chapter mentions that Parliament has limited time at its disposal. Frequent disruptions, walkouts, and boycotts, as Dolly points out, further reduce the time available for meaningful legislative work. This can lead to bills being passed without adequate debate and scrutiny.
- Absence of Quorum: The text explicitly states that Houses of Parliament have been "plagued by absence of quorum." This indicates a lack of seriousness among members and weakens the legitimacy of the proceedings.
- Cabinet Dominance: The chapter notes the criticism that "the Parliament has declined" and that the "Cabinet initiates policies, sets the agenda for governance and carries them through." In an era of strong single-party majorities, the Parliament can be reduced to a body that merely approves the decisions of the executive.
Arguments to Support Sudha (Parliament's Vibrancy):
- Vigorous Debates and Accountability: Despite disruptions, Parliament remains the "most democratic and open forum of debate." The Question Hour is often heated and effective in keeping the executive on its toes. As the chapter notes, members show great interest and maximum attendance is recorded during this time.
- Power of Parliamentary Committees: The development of a robust committee system since 1983 is a sign of vibrancy. These committees conduct in-depth scrutiny of bills, budgets, and departmental work, ensuring detailed oversight that is not possible on the floor of the House. The text calls them "miniature legislatures."
- Assertiveness in Coalition Eras: Sudha's point about governments falling is particularly relevant in coalition eras. The text notes that after 1989, several governments were forced to resign. This shows that when no single party has a brute majority, Parliament becomes a critical arena for negotiation, compromise, and asserting its power to make or unmake governments.
Q9Exercises
Arrange the different stages of passing of a bill into a law in their correct sequence:. √ A resolution is passed to admit the bill for discussion √ The bill is referred to the President of India - write what happens next if s/he does not sign it √ The bill is referred to other House and is passed √ The bill is passed in the house in which it was proposed √ The bill is read clause by clause and each is voted upon √ The bill is referred to the subcommittee - the committee makes some changes and sends it back to thehouse for discussion √ The concerned minister proposes the need for a bill √ Legislative department in ministry of law, drafts a bill
Solution
The correct sequence of the stages of passing a bill into a law is as follows:
-
The concerned minister proposes the need for a bill: The process begins with the Cabinet deciding on the policy behind the legislation.
-
Legislative department in ministry of law, drafts a bill: Once the policy is approved, the concerned ministry prepares a draft of the proposed law, known as a bill.
-
A resolution is passed to admit the bill for discussion: The bill is introduced in either House of Parliament (unless it is a Money Bill, which can only be introduced in the Lok Sabha). This is the first reading.
-
The bill is referred to the subcommittee - the committee makes some changes and sends it back to the house for discussion: The bill is sent to a relevant parliamentary committee for detailed study and scrutiny. The committee prepares a report and may suggest amendments.
-
The bill is read clause by clause and each is voted upon: This is the second reading, where the House discusses the bill in detail based on the committee's report. Amendments are moved and voted upon.
-
The bill is passed in the house in which it was proposed: After the clause-by-clause discussion, the bill as a whole is put to a vote in the third reading.
-
The bill is referred to other House and is passed: Once passed by one House, the bill goes to the other House, where it undergoes the same procedure.
-
The bill is referred to the President of India - write what happens next if s/he does not sign it: After being passed by both Houses, the bill is sent to the President for assent.
- What happens if the President does not sign it: The President can withhold assent or return the bill (if it is not a Money Bill) to Parliament for reconsideration. If Parliament passes the bill again, with or without amendments, and sends it back to the President, the President must give his/her assent.
Q10Exercises
How has the system of parliamentary committee affected the overseeing and appraisal of legislation by the Parliament?
Solution
The system of parliamentary committees has significantly strengthened and improved the process of overseeing and appraising legislation by the Parliament in several ways:
-
In-depth Scrutiny: The Parliament meets only during sessions and has limited time to discuss complex issues. Committees provide a mechanism for in-depth, detailed, and technical examination of a bill, which is not possible on the floor of the House. The chapter notes that law-making requires a deep study, for which committees are essential.
-
Reduced Burden on Parliament: By handling the detailed scrutiny of legislation, demands for grants, and departmental expenditures, committees reduce the workload of the Parliament. This allows the House to focus on broader policy matters. The text explicitly states, "The committee system has reduced the burden on the Parliament."
-
Expertise and Non-Partisan Deliberation: Discussions within committees are typically more comprehensive and less partisan than debates in the main House. Members have more time to understand the nuances of the proposed law, and they can also invite experts to provide testimony. This leads to more informed and considered recommendations.
-
Enhanced Executive Accountability: Standing Committees supervise the work of various government departments, their budgets, expenditures, and bills. This continuous oversight ensures that the executive is held accountable not just for broad policies but also for their detailed implementation.
-
Influence on Legislation: The recommendations of the committees are taken very seriously by the Parliament. The chapter mentions that Parliament rarely rejects the suggestions made by the committees. This means these "miniature legislatures" play a vital and influential role in shaping the final form of a law, making the appraisal process more effective.