In a democratic setup where the people’s representatives gather in a place to formulate and pass laws; that place is known as a deliberative assembly. In the case of India, it is known as a parliament. Certain practices sanctify the legitimacy of the place as the gathering ground for people’s opinions. These practices are colloquially known as the parliamentary procedures in the Indian context.

Parliamentary procedures have seen changes recently like the shift of the question hours to a different time-slot. In 2011, the Rajya Sabha’s question hour was moved to the afternoon slot. There are many procedural devices under the parliamentary procedures enunciated in the rules of procedures. There is half an hour discussion session, there is a method to raise short notice questions, and there is also a method of zero-hours which is generally placed between the question hour and the business of the upper/lower house(s). The zero-hours is an Indian innovation in the parliamentary modus operandi where the legislators get to ask questions regarding urgent public importance.

The most important procedure in the democratic sense is the Question hour. It has not been defined in the Indian constitution but has been mentioned and described in the Rules of procedures. It is traditionally the first hour which is given to the legislators to ask questions to the ministers and the government. Hence, this methodology provides essentially the almost only means by which the government can be questioned by the representatives of the people. Before taking the discussion further it would be prudent to understand the finer details of the questions asked in the question hour.

There are two types of questions that can be asked in this hour which is generally kept before the zero-hour. They are the starred and unstarred questions. The starred questions require oral answers to which further supplementary questions can be asked. Unstarred questions, on the other hand, need written answers and thus no supplementary questions can be asked for them. For the unstarred and starred questions a minimum notice period of 15 days is allotted, however the speaker of the Lok Sabha or the chairman of the Rajya Sabha can relax the 15 days to protect the interests of the members. A single member is allowed to give notices for five questions (starred and unstarred) in total for a particular day. In a day generally one starred question and five unstarred questions can be asked by a single member. In a day, a total of 20 starred questions and 230 unstarred questions can be asked. This is done to allow for accommodation of questions of as many members of the deliberative assembly as possible. A maximum of 25 questions asked related to any state under president’s rule. This is done to minimize the friction between the centre and the states without sacrificing the room to question the government at the helm.

Rule 32 under the rules of procedures and conduct of business provides for the power of the speaker to direct the question hour of a house, especially the Lok Sabha. Until and unless directed by the Speaker otherwise, the first hour of the house which has historically been from 1100 hours to 1200 hours, is allotted as the question hour. Questions by the parliamentarians cover the matters of generally urgent public substance and significance. Hence, the latest announcement that there will not be any question hour while the upcoming monsoon session begins, comes as a shock to many who believe that it might be a way for the regime to avoid questions.

With the Covid19 pandemic seemingly out of control with the total number of cases having crossed 3.75 million, the dispensation is in an uncomfortable position to face questions. Many political leaders from different parties have compared the step of doing away with the question hour as smothering democracy. While the regime is arguing that it is not running away from debate, the reality present in the national backdrop and the facts paint a different picture.

India, which used to be the envy of the developing world with the fastest growing economy on the globe under Dr. Manmohan Singh, is now a mangled and debilitated economy with a GDP contraction rate of around 24% (-23.9% to be precise as per the National Statistical commission data). The economic decimation was accompanied and complicated by the loss of the geographical labour arbitrage on a national scale due to the unthoughtful and unplanned lockdown which left the migrant laborers without any means of livelihood to fall back. Numerous questions are being raised regarding the PMCARES fund which was supposedly set up to help the public during the pandemic. But setting up a separate fund despite having an institutional fund like PM National relief fund demands an explanation to the need of the CARES fund. When RTI activist ‘Retired Commodore Lokesh Batra’ tried to dig out the rationale behind the PMCARES fund, he was shown section 7(d) of the Right to Information Act of 2005 which says that any information which disproportionately diverts any information from a public office cannot be provided. Monsoon session could have given the vent to these uncomfortable questions. The regime vehemently guarded the fund’s secrecy by saying that it is not a public authority, yet the national emblem was being used with it all the time in direct contradiction of the State Emblem (prohibition of improper use) of India Act, 2005. All these would seem petty when compared to the information slowly emerging about the Indian connection of Raju Sabnani who was at one point of time a terror accused in Paraguay for being an arms supplier and money launderer acting for Hezbollah.

Most people will be shocked to find out the discovered details of this person. What link does Sabnani have with India and with exactly whom in India?

Consequently, in the upcoming session question hours would have given a wide time window to corner the regime with some really tough questions. An important point to note is that only written questions would be allowed to be asked in this monsoon session. Does it sound too convenient since there cannot be any supplementary questions to their answers? Is the suspension due to a shortage of time as argued in a context when the Covid19 has blown out of proportion? The government argues that out of the allotted 162 hours for question hours, only 59 hours were used for the desired purpose. It also argues that in the state assemblies of Punjab, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, there has been no question hours during the lockdown months. Do these arguments hold water? Whether the suspension of the question hour has been done with a clean conscience or is it simply another red herring, only time can unravel that.