“The growth of cabinet system has practically resulted in the marginalisation of the parliamentary supremacy.” Elucidate.

Introduction

The cabinet system, a hallmark of parliamentary democracy, is designed to ensure collective responsibility to the legislature. However, over time, the executive dominance within the system has raised concerns about the erosion of parliamentary supremacy. This trend is particularly evident in India, where the Westminster model has evolved under unique socio-political conditions.

Key Dimensions of the Cabinet-Parliament Relationship

Factors Leading to Marginalisation of Parliamentary Supremacy

1. Concentration of Power in the Cabinet

• The Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) has emerged as a centralised authority, overshadowing the collective nature of the cabinet.
• Example: The Indira Gandhi era saw the rise of the "committed bureaucracy" and a highly centralised PMO.
• ★ This undermines the parliament’s role in scrutinising executive decisions.

2. Frequent Use of Ordinances

• The cabinet often bypasses parliamentary debate by promulgating ordinances under Article 123 of the Constitution.
• Example: The Farm Laws (2020) were introduced as ordinances before being tabled in Parliament.
• This practice dilutes the legislative supremacy of Parliament.

3. Decline in Parliamentary Deliberations

• Reduced number of sittings and limited time for debates on bills.
• Example: In 2021, only 13% of bills were referred to parliamentary committees, compared to 60% in the 15th Lok Sabha.
• This curtails the legislative oversight function of Parliament.

4. Party Whip System

• The anti-defection law (Tenth Schedule) enforces strict party discipline, reducing the autonomy of MPs.
• MPs often act as rubber stamps for the cabinet’s decisions, undermining the spirit of debate.

5. Dominance of Money Bills

• The misuse of Article 110 to classify bills as money bills limits the Rajya Sabha’s role in legislative scrutiny.
• Example: The Aadhaar Act (2016) was passed as a money bill, bypassing detailed deliberation in the Rajya Sabha.

6. Weakening of Parliamentary Committees

• Parliamentary committees, which are crucial for detailed scrutiny, are often underutilised or ignored.
• Example: The Data Protection Bill (2019) was withdrawn without adequate committee review.

Counterarguments: Parliamentary Supremacy Still Exists

• Question Hour and Zero Hour: Parliament retains tools to hold the cabinet accountable.
• Judicial Oversight: The judiciary has intervened to uphold parliamentary supremacy, as seen in the Kihoto Hollohan case (1992) on anti-defection law.
• Public Mandate: The cabinet derives its legitimacy from the elected majority in Parliament.

Way Forward

• Strengthening Parliamentary Committees: Mandate the referral of all major bills to committees for detailed scrutiny.
• Revisiting the Anti-Defection Law: Allow greater freedom for MPs to express dissent without fear of disqualification.
• Increasing Parliamentary Sittings: Ensure adequate time for debates and discussions.
• Judicial Safeguards: Strengthen judicial review to prevent misuse of ordinances and money bills.

Conclusion

While the cabinet system has evolved to meet the demands of governance, its dominance over Parliament risks undermining the spirit of democracy. A balance must be restored to ensure that the legislature remains the supreme deliberative body, as envisioned in the Constitution. This is essential to uphold the principles of accountability and transparency in governance.