DISRUPTION IN PARLIAMENT: DEMOCRATIC OR DESTRUCTIVE?

This Article is written by Simran Goel, Asian Law College, Noida, an intern under Legal Vidhiya.

ABSTRACT

This article looks closely at disruption in parliamentary proceedings. It considers if this disruption is a valid expression of democratic dissent or a serious threat to effective governance. Disruption, especially by opposition parties, can amplify minority voices, hold the government accountable, and raise public awareness of important issues. However, when used excessively, it often leads to legislative gridlock, undermines public trust in democratic institutions, and hampers productive discussion. By examining examples and focusing on the Indian parliamentary context, this analysis explores the factors influencing disruption and suggests ways to minimize its harmful effects while maintaining its democratic value. The article concludes that a balanced understanding is vital for sustaining strong dissent and ensuring a functioning legislature that upholds the principles of representative democracy.

KEYWORDS

Parliamentary disruption, democracy, legislative obstruction, accountability, public trust, Indian Parliament, parliamentary rules, dissent, governance, judiciary, parliamentary privilege, judicial review.

INTRODUCTION

In 2023, the Indian Parliament saw a record level of disruption. During the Monsoon Session, the Lok Sabha (Lower House) operated for only 45% and the Rajya Sabha (Upper House) operated for only 63% of their scheduled time[1]. This statistic reveals a growing global concern: the rising trend of parliamentary disruption. In legislative bodies, “disruption” includes actions like walkouts, organized protests, filibustering, shouting, obstructing proceedings, and using inappropriate language. It is important to differentiate between legitimate dissent – where opposition parties use parliamentary tactics to hold the government accountable or express grievances – and illegitimate obstruction, which seeks to paralyze the legislative process without any constructive purpose. Although lively parliamentary debate is not new, the frequency, intensity, and nature of disruptions seem to be changing significantly. While some forms of disruption can be important democratic tools for accountability and expression, unchecked obstruction ultimately undermines representative democracy, causing legislative standstill and eroding public trust. This article will explore the different forms of parliamentary disruption, look at their causes and consequences, review historical examples and current trends, and suggest possible solutions to create a more respectful and productive parliamentary environment.

THE DEMOCRATIC ARGUMENTS FOR DISRUPTION

Parliamentary disruption, often seen negatively, can serve as a key, if unconventional, tool in a functioning democracy. It gives the minority or opposition a chance to be heard when traditional means fail or are suppressed. In parliamentary systems, where the ruling party usually holds a comfortable majority, the opposition may feel sidelined in legislative discussions. Disruption, in these circumstances, becomes a strong way to express dissent, especially when the government pushes through legislation without proper consultation or overlooks urgent public issues. It acts as a last resort to bring critical matters, ignored by the majority, into public discussion and onto the parliamentary agenda.

A notable example occurred in India’s Parliament during debates over the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) Bill, 2015. The Modi government sought to ease land acquisition, but the opposition, led by the Indian National Congress and farmer organizations, strongly protested, arguing it harmed farmers. Through continuous disruptions and protests, the opposition stalled the bill in the Rajya Sabha, where the government lacked a majority. This pressure forced the government to let the ordinance lapse, effectively pausing the controversial amendments. This demonstrates how disruption can compel governmental reconsideration.

Beyond dissent, disruption also ensures accountability and oversight. It forces ministers to clarify decisions, ensures transparency, and addresses accusations of failure or scandal, acting as a check against the “tyranny of the majority.” This is especially powerful when issues of corruption or mismanagement arise. Disruption also significantly raises public awareness and mobilization. Its dramatic nature captures media attention, informing the public about critical issues and inspiring civic engagement. This aligns with Chantal Mouffe’s concept of agonistic pluralism, where confrontational debate is essential for a lively democracy, bringing conflicting perspectives to light.

Finally, disruption can be a powerful symbolic protest when other means are exhausted. When the minority believes their concerns are continually ignored or their proposals are routinely rejected, a symbolic act of protest through disruption can be a strong statement. It conveys deep grievance and refusal to accept unjust proceedings, influencing public perception and shaping the narrative around government actions. It emphasizes that democracy is not just about majority rule, but also about robustly protecting and amplifying minority voices, even if that means taking unconventional approaches.

THE DESTRUCTIVE ARGUMENTS AGAINST DISRUPTION

While some forms of parliamentary disruption can further democratic goals, unchecked and ongoing obstruction frequently becomes a destructive force, weakening the foundations of representative democracy. The most immediate and visible consequence is legislative paralysis and inefficiency. Constant disruption prevents the passage of important laws, directly affecting governance and public welfare. Bills intended to address urgent national issues, such as economic reforms, infrastructure projects, and social welfare programs, often stall due to a lack of parliamentary time or deliberate obstruction. This legislative gridlock stops the government from fulfilling its responsibilities and effectively responding to citizens’ needs.

A clear example is the Indian Parliament’s struggle to pass key economic reform and social welfare bills due to ongoing disruption. Discussions on essential labor reforms or banking sector amendments have stalled due to unrelated political disputes. Similarly, budget allocation discussions for vital social programs like healthcare or education are often cut short. This legislative gridlock directly affects public welfare, delaying policies that could enhance lives and stimulate economic growth.

Frequent scenes of chaos and inappropriate behavior erode public trust and respect for democratic institutions. When citizens see their elected representatives engaged in shouting matches or blocking proceedings instead of having reasoned debates, they become disillusioned with the political process. The perception shifts from viewing lawmakers as serious public servants to seeing them as self-serving politicians concerned only with scoring points or engaging in childish theatrics. This erosion of trust can have lasting effects, leading to reduced civic involvement, increased cynicism toward democratic values, and potentially weakening the framework of democracy itself.

The financial costs of lost parliamentary time are significant. Salaries and operational costs continue regardless of productivity. Delayed urgent issues can result in larger future financial burdens; postponed economic reforms might deter investment, while stalled social legislation could worsen societal problems. Every hour of lost parliamentary time is a missed opportunity to address national issues and wisely use public money. Pervasive disruption fundamentally hinders deliberation and reasoned debate. Meaningful dialogue is replaced by noise and confrontation, preventing nuanced arguments, consensus-building, or cross-party solutions. This obstruction fosters a more polarized political landscape where rigid ideology overrides pragmatic governance.

Furthermore, Normalizing disruption sets dangerous precedents. When it becomes the standard approach, it creates a cycle where future legislatures are more likely to use similar tactics, making sustainable parliamentary functioning difficult. Finally, when every issue is met with disruption, it becomes hard for the public and even legislators to distinguish genuinely critical matters needing urgent attention from mere political theatrics. The constant noise desensitizes the audience, making it tougher to identify when a real issue is stalling progress, thus overshadowing serious concerns with a barrage of unproductive protest.

INDIAN CONTEXT: DISRUPTION, RULES, AND JUDICIAL SCRUTINY 

The Indian Parliament has witnessed a changing pattern of disruption. In its early years, under Jawaharlal Nehru, debates were largely orderly. However, from the late 1980s onwards, particularly in the 1990s and 2000s, disruptions became more frequent and intense. This shift was fueled by the rise of coalition politics, increased regional party representation, and a more confrontational political culture. Currently, entire sessions are often lost to protests, slogan shouting, and displaying placards, evolving from traditional dissent to outright obstruction. This systemic issue affects governments of all political backgrounds.

To maintain order, the Indian Parliament adheres to specific Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business for both the Lok Sabha[2] and Rajya Sabha[3]. These rules grant presiding officers—the Speaker in the Lok Sabha and the Chairman in the Rajya Sabha – significant authority. Key rules include: Rule 373, allowing the Speaker to direct a member to leave for disorderly conduct; Rule 374, permitting suspension for obstructive behavior; and Rule 374A, automatically suspending a member for five sittings or the session if they enter the Well of the House or repeatedly shout slogans. Similar rules apply in the Rajya Sabha. “Un-parliamentary language” – offensive or disruptive words – is also enforced, with such words removed from records. The Presiding Officer’s decision on these matters is typically considered final within the House.

Despite the principle of parliamentary privilege and the courts’ non-interference in parliamentary proceedings, as stated in Article 122(1) of the Indian Constitution, there have been rare instances of judicial review regarding parliamentary conduct. Article 122(2) further protects officers and members from court jurisdiction concerning their powers to regulate procedure or maintain order. However, this privilege is not absolute. The Supreme Court, in pivotal rulings, has clarified that while courts cannot question “irregularities of procedure,” they can intervene if there is “illegality” or unconstitutionality.

A key case in this context is Raja Ram Pal v. Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha (2007), often referred to as the ‘Cash for Query’ scam case. Here, the Supreme Court recognized parliamentary privilege but stated that the expulsion of MPs could be reviewed by the courts if it involved illegality or gross irrationality, especially where fundamental rights or due process were violated. This judgment indicated that while courts generally respect parliamentary independence, they will intervene to ensure constitutional standards and fairness, acting as a check on Parliament’s internal conduct when fundamental principles are at risk. The balance between parliamentary privilege and judicial review continues to evolve in India. 

INDIAN CASE LAWS

Understanding whether parliamentary disruption in India is democratic or destructive closely relates to the judiciary’s changing view on parliamentary privilege and accountability. Several notable Supreme Court rulings have set boundaries for how Members of Parliament operate, influencing the perception and handling of disruptions. 

1. The case of P.V. NARASIMHA RAO V. STATE (JMM BRIBERY CASE), 1998, was a critical moment, but its interpretation of parliamentary immunity sparked much debate. The Supreme Court, in a 3:2 ruling, decided that Members of Parliament who accepted bribes and then voted or spoke as agreed were immune from prosecution under Article 105(2) of the Constitution, which grants freedom of speech and immunity from proceedings over anything said or any vote in Parliament. This verdict suggested that if bribery was connected to a vote or speech in the House, it was defended, raising enterprises about responsibility.
2. Another directly relevant case is RAJA RAM PAL V. HON’BLE SPEAKER, LOK SABHA (CASH-FOR-QUERY CASE), 2007. In this case, the Supreme Court considered whether Parliament could expel its members for unethical conduct, such as taking money to ask questions. The Court upheld Parliament’s right to expel members for such actions and emphasized that parliamentary proceedings are subject to judicial review if there are claims of illegality or unconstitutionality. This ruling established a “test of legality” for parliamentary actions, including disciplinary measures against disruptive members taken by the Speaker or Chairman. The Court made it clear that although procedural issues within Parliament would not be reviewed, substantive illegality or unconstitutionality could be. 

FACTORS INFLUENCING THE NATURE OF DISRUPTION 

Parliamentary disruption stems from a complex interplay of factors beyond mere party politics. Political culture is foundational; countries with consensus – building traditions, like Scandinavia and Canada, experience less overt disruption than adversarial cultures such as the UK or India. Historical legacies and accepted norms shape what constitutes legitimate dissent versus unacceptable obstruction.

The size of the government’s majority is crucial. A large majority might resist traditional opposition tactics, leading the minority to resort to aggressive disruption to be heard. Conversely, a narrow majority or coalition government could be more vulnerable to disruption, as the opposition sees a greater chance of concessions or even toppling the government. For instance, a government with 400 out of 543 Lok Sabha seats might feel less affected by disruptions than one with just over 272 seats.

The electoral system also plays a subtle role. Commensurable representation systems frequently produce multi-party houses and coalition governments, where concession is essential, potentially reducing inhibition. First- once- the- post systems, still, tend to produce strong majorities and clear government- opposition divides, fostering a more combative terrain where dislocation is appealing for nonage parties.

The Speaker or Presiding Officer is critical in maintaining order. An impartial, firm, and respected Speaker can effectively enforce rules and deter disruptive behavior. A perceived partisan or weak Speaker, conversely, might struggle, inadvertently promoting more frequent and severe disruptions. Their effective use of powers, such as naming members or enforcing suspensions, significantly impacts decorum.

The media landscape significantly amplifies or frames parliamentary disruption. In the age of 24/7 news cycles and social media, dramatic disruption scenes often receive immediate widespread attention, sometimes overshadowing substantive debates. This can incentivize disruptive behavior if parties believe it is the best way to attract public attention or embarrass the government. Public perception of parliamentary conduct is heavily influenced by media representation.

Eventually, specific issues at hand can be major catalysts for dislocation. High- stakes, emotionally charged, or ideologically loaded motifs similar as contentious profitable reforms, social legislation impacting religious or artistic morals, or public security issues frequently spark more violent and prolonged dislocation as parties influence every available tactic. For example, discussions about contentious land acquisition laws or citizenship amendments in India have historically led to high levels of parliamentary disruption.

MITIGATING DESTRUCTIVE DISRUPTION WHILE PRESERVING DEMOCRATIC SPACE  

Maintaining a vibrant democracy requires balancing the right to protest and express dissent with the need for effective governance. Destructive disruption within parliamentary settings, while sometimes a sign of real grievances, can hinder legislative progress and undermine public trust. Addressing this disruption requires a multi-faceted approach that strengthens parliamentary rules, promotes cross-party cooperation, and improves public understanding of democratic processes. 

Strengthening parliamentary rules and their enforcement is essential. This involves reviewing and updating procedures to clearly define “unparliamentary conduct” and specifying penalties for such actions. Empowering the Speaker to enforce these rules impartially is key to ensuring orderly debate. 

At the same time, promoting dialogue and consensus across party lines can reduce the drive for obstruction. Encouraging informal communication and stressing the importance of all-party meetings and committees can nurture a collaborative spirit. Moreover, enhancing committee systems by shifting more detailed legislative scrutiny to these less public arenas can prevent grandstanding and foster productive discussion. 

Beyond Parliament, educating the public is vital. Teaching citizens about the roles of their representatives and the significance of orderly debate can create an informed electorate that demands constructive engagement. Finally, ethical leadership remains crucial, with party leaders setting a positive tone and encouraging constructive participation instead of disruptive tactics. Exploring alternative protest methods, such as dedicated debate time or public hearings for the opposition, can provide effective ways to raise concerns without resorting to obstruction.

CONCLUSION 

Ultimately, navigating the complex relationship between legitimate democratic protest and harmful parliamentary obstruction is an ongoing challenge for any strong democracy. The central argument is clear: although the right to dissent is fundamental, it must not continuously undermine the very institutions it seeks to influence. 

The key democratic advantages of a well-functioning parliament – efficient law-making, thorough scrutiny, and robust representation – stand in stark contrast to the destructive outcomes of unchecked disruption, which include legislative standstills, diminished public trust, and reduced governance capacity. The ongoing challenge for vibrant democracies is to continually reassess and refine the balance between enabling meaningful dissent and ensuring legislative efficiency. This careful balance requires constant attention and adaptation. 

Upholding democratic ideals is a collective responsibility. Members of Parliament must exercise their rights with a commitment to constructive engagement, while citizens should demand accountability and support the principles of reasoned debate. Only through this shared dedication can democratic spaces remain open to diverse voices while effectively serving the public good.

REFERENCES

1. PRS Legislative Research, https://prsindia.org/billtrack/the-right-fair-compensation-and-transparency-land-acquisition-rehabilitation-and-resettlement-bill-2011
2. PRS Legislative Research, https://prsindia.org/policy/report-summaries/labour-codes
3. Vol. 1, Government of India, The Constitution of India [Page No. 56] (Ministry of Law and Justice 2023)
4. Raja Ram Pal v. Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha, AIR 2007 SC (SUPP) 1448, 2007 (3) SCC 184
5. P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE), (1998) 4 SCC 626
6. PW OnlyIAS, https://pwonlyias.com/current-affairs/about-parliamentary-disruption/
7. Medium, https://kateo.medium.com/when-disruption-becomes-destruction-how-the-attack-on-government-infrastructure-threatens-8b5ec31ec3f3

[1] Press Information Bureau, https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1947857 (last visited July 7, 2025).

[2] NITI Aayog Library, https://library.niti.gov.in/cgi-bin/koha/opac-detail.pl?biblionumber=76244&shelfbrowse_itemnumber=87050 (last visited July 8, 2025)

[3] Vol. 9, Rajya Sabha Secretariat, Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Council of States (Rajya Sabha) (Rajya Sabha Secretariat 2010)

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.

Hitesh Prajapat