Restoring Parliamentary sanctity through constitutional reform
The hallowed halls of Indian Parliament – the very sanctum of our democracy – are increasingly indistinguishable from a chaotic fish market.
This may be a harsh assessment, but a necessary one.
Today, when key members from both the ruling party and the opposition rise to speak, the din of shouting and desk-thumping makes it impossible to discern much of what they say.
It has become a theater of rhetoric over reason.
Conversely, when the ‘ordinary’ members speak, the benches are often empty; a monologue is delivered to an empty room where no one listens, and nothing is learned.
The consequence of this dysfunction is grave: critical bills, which will govern the lives of 140 crore people, are frequently passed without substantive debate.
They are pushed through amidst a sea of placards and slogans, reducing the legislative process to a mere formality.
And neither side seems to be unhappy about it.
This is not what is expected of the world’s largest democracy.
As India wants to project itself as a Vishwa Guru (Global Teacher) or a Vishwa Mitra (Global Friend), the optics of a paralyzed legislature carry a heavy price.
When the opposition repeatedly claims, both inside and outside the House, that their voice is being muzzled, the message doesn’t stay with India; it reaches the entire world.
Over time, the international community – and more importantly, the international markets – begins to believe that there is likely to be some substance to these claims.
This perception directly affects the image of Indian democracy, and with it, the flow of FDI, FII, and FPI.
Global capital seeks stability and the rule of law; it flees from institutional chaos.
To allow this to continue is a betrayal of the national interest.
The government should take the initiative and find a way to resolve this standoff, treating it as a national priority.
As a default solution, I propose an offbeat suggestion of a constitutional amendment.
The referee problem: The jersey under the robe
The current friction stems from the Speaker’s role.
Under our Westminster-style of governance, the Speaker is typically a member of the ruling party.
Once elected, she/ he is expected to function impartially, but the opposition often question If they do.
This is due to an inherent conflict of interest.
The Speaker has to decide frequently whether what is said by any of the members is permissible or not, whether to allow a motion, etc.
If the opposition views the decision through the lens of political bias, they can’t be faulted.
When the referee is perceived to be wearing the jersey of the home team, the visiting team stops playing the game and starts attacking the referee.
We should avoid politicians policing politics; we need an unimpeachable referee (pun not intended).
The proposal: A 9-member neutral bench of constitutional experts
To restore the sanctity of the House, we must amend the Constitution to provide the Speaker with a permanent, non-political advisory body.
This is not a committee of politicians, but a body of constitutional experts who serve as non-voting Members of the Parliament.
The 3-3-3 selection formula:
- Group A (3 Experts): Selected by the Government.
- Group B (3 Experts): Selected by the Combined Opposition.
- Group C (3 Neutral Experts): Selected jointly by the above 6 members.
Safety valve: To ensure total neutrality, these 6 experts must be non-members of any political party.
If they cannot agree on one or more of the final 3, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) can make the selection.
The ‘referee’ mechanism
At any point in time, a 3-member bench (one from each group) will sit in the House. Their role is to act as the ‘referee’ in real-time.
- The ruling: The Speaker manages the House as they do now.
- The challenge: If the Leader of the House or the Leader of the opposition believes a ruling is wrong, they can seek a ruling from this expert group.
- The verdict: The experts deliberate and provide a factual, law-based decision in real-time. Because the bench includes an expert chosen by the protesting party, the ‘muzzled’ narrative loses its teeth.
If the law is on your side, you don’t need to shout.
If the law isn’t on your side, shouting won’t help.
This proposal needs to be crafted appropriately, as there are many things not envisaged in the Constitution.
Ensuring absolute integrity
To prevent these experts from being biased, two ironclad conditions must be met:
- Apolitical status: No member of this body can be an active or former member of a political party.
- The cooling-off period: To prevent ‘future favors’, these experts must undergo a strict 3 to 5-year cooling-off period after their tenure, during which they cannot accept any government-appointed post or join any political party.
Conclusion: National interest above noise
By embedding these experts into the very fabric of our legislatures, we provide a ‘safety valve’ for democratic frustration.
Slogan shouting, walkouts, and the ‘fish market’ atmosphere become unjustified when a neutral, legal channel for grievance redressal exists.
This way, we can move from the ‘might of the majority’ to the ‘merit of the law’.
The ‘referee’ model ensures that while the majority may have its way, the minority will always have its say, and the Indian Constitution always has the final word.
This will help avoid many of the unpleasant situations arising in the functioning of the Parliament.
The same can apply equally to State Assemblies.
Let the politicians debate the future of the nation, but let the experts defend the sanctity of the Constitution.
Note:
1. Text in Blue points to additional data on the topic.
2. The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of PGurus.
For all the latest updates, download PGurus App.
- Can our Parliament be more civil? - February 14, 2026
- Is every farm trade anti-farmer? - February 13, 2026
- We can become more competitive, by not exporting inefficiency - February 12, 2026
