A Debate In Parliament Is Preferable To Public Disorder

Grievances that are not aired in Parliament tend to spill out on to the streets. The political class appears to have forgotten that Parliament is the forum where citizens hold the executive accountable through their elected representatives. Without the safety valve of parliamentary debates, citizens’ frustrations will manifest as civil unrest. The ongoing protest by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) against exam breaches in the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) for medical colleges is a case in point.

“Parliament is not just a legislative but a deliberative body,” observed Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan, India’s first president, in 1952. As the highest representative body, it is by definition a space for dissent and for raising public issues. The deliberative function of the Houses of Parliament is underlined by the very fact that a plethora of devices, such as Zero Hour, adjournment motions, short-duration discussions, and so on, were instituted to enable Members of Parliament to bring up urgent matters in the two Houses.

In the words of philosopher-politician John Stuart Mill, the most important function of a representative assembly is “to watch and control the government; to throw the light of publicity on its acts; to compel a full exposition and justification of all of them which anyone considers questionable; to censure them if found condemnable”. In other words, the government is accountable to each and every member of the House because she represents the people and not just a political party. Mills adds that the very meaning of representative democracy is that every citizen should be able to count on someone who will give voice to her views.

There can be no doubt that the compromised NEET test is of sufficient importance to merit a debate in Parliament. Even after two paper leaks came to light, the government has been dilatory in engaging with the Opposition on the issue. With some 23 lakh hopefuls sitting for the exam after months—if not years—of intense preparation, the integrity of the process should be unquestionable. That two subject experts retained by the National Testing Agency (NTA) shared the question papers with students attending their coaching classes is an egregious breach of security.

Arresting the perpetrators is not enough, given the enormity of the administrative failure. Someone must take responsibility, and the buck stops with the minister for education, as the NTA, although autonomous, is a government-appointed body. Quoting from the ministry’s website: “The Ministry of Education (MoE), Government of India (GoI), has established the National Testing Agency (NTA)…for conducting efficient, transparent, and international standardized tests”. Thus, the concerned minister must answer to the Parliament.

The constraint here is that multiple petitions on the NEET imbroglio have been filed before the Supreme Court. Matters that are sub judice—except for Bills and issues of privilege—are generally not debated in Parliament to avoid interference with the judicial process. While there is no explicit ban, Speakers usually follow the self-regulatory convention of disallowing matters that are before the courts. However, the convention applies only to the specific issues before the court, allowing some leeway for debate. Ultimately, the discretion lies with the Speaker, who can suspend rules in order to allow a discussion and give primacy to freedom of speech over ‘res sub judice’.

In 2024, the Opposition requested a discussion in Parliament on allegations that the NTA’s procedures were suspect. Then, as now, it was found that the NEET paper had been leaked minutes before the exam was to be held. At the time, the Supreme Court declined to hold a re-test, as the leak was found to be localised and the ‘beneficiaries’ of the illegal disclosure of the exam paper had been identified. The government was not inclined to debate the matter in Parliament, prompting the Leader of the Opposition, Rahul Gandhi, to make a direct request to Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Just 22 months later, we had a NEET-redux. The apex court, confronted with a second leak, advised the government to take measures that would “develop and retain institutional memory” so as to avoid compromising tests in future. This time, there was a re-test and strident demands for the sacking of the education minister. The Opposition again demanded a debate in Parliament. It was only after the CJP protest took a violent turn that a Union minister assured the media that the government was ready for a debate in the House.

The narrowing of Parliament’s deliberative function owes as much to the Opposition as the government. Empty rhetoric and theatrics are no substitute for substantive interventions. “Meaningless disruptions on flimsy grounds have rendered the Parliament, a fundamental pillar of Indian democracy, ineffective… These can hardly be considered effective parliamentary interventions, and are indeed the ultimate betrayal of commitment to the people of India,” the late President, Pranab Mukherjee, wrote in his autobiography. “I have consistently maintained that disruption hurts the Opposition more than the government, as a disruptive Opposition loses the moral authority to put the government on the mat.”

In the NEET case, the Opposition must allow a structured debate to take place, without disruptions. Forcing adjournments merely lets the government off the hook. Rather than foregrounding the demand for the resignation of the education minister, it should do the preparatory research to show why he should do so.

Congress MP Shashi Tharoor was quite right in saying that Parliament is “the place where we can ventilate the voice of the people” and not a notice board. For the government, too, a debate makes eminent sense. Why give the Opposition opportunities for grandstanding, like holding a dharna outside the PM’s residence? But MPs on both sides must be conscious that they are speaking for their constituents and not for narrow political ends.

Bhavdeep Kang is a senior journalist with 35 years of experience in working with major newspapers and magazines. She is now an independent writer and author.

Published on: Wednesday, July 22, 2026, 09:19 PM IST