LIVE Online Course on NDPS by Riva Pocha and Adv. Taraq Sayed. Starting from 24th May. Register Now!!
The Indian Constitution Courses

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Shree. ( Advocate.)     24 July 2008

Trust Vote motion and Quality of the debate????

Trust Vote motion and Quality of the debate:

After seeing the  trust vote motion debate live on the Television... my first and final response is "is this called democracy??"...its disgusting to see our "honorable" MPs behaving like schools kids (sorry kids for this)..not listening to the pleas of our Speaker and shouting ....fortunately no body was there in my house when i was watching Loksabha proceedings..Other wise they would have certainly worried about my "mental balance"!!!!

And coming to the various speakers who expressed their views on this, It is evident that no body(majority speakers) had any clue about what the nuclear deal is !!! they just spoke loudly and emotionally but not on the nuclear deal..but on the various useless things!!!!! this is what the quality of our democracy!!!!!

The main point here is...the MPs who are elected and authorized to make policy decision on behalf of the people of India really in a position to understand what they are doing???? Is this the trend going to help the world largest demo"cry"cy to become a super power in the next coming years??? Is this what the people of India expecting from the law makers????

Please post your valuable responses.


 15 Replies

veenzar (Advocate)     24 July 2008

Your point is well made. The re-alignment of parties was not on the issue in hand. The members of the parliament failed to address the core issue, viz the merits and de-merits of the nuclear deal in order to enable the people to come to terms with the deal. The media too is interested in focussing on highlighting mudslinging rather than on analysing the issue.

SANJAY DIXIT (Advocate)     24 July 2008

Thanks Shree for raising such an important issue. By the interviews made by many hon. MPs to the media channel outside the parliament; it is clear that many hon. MPs still don't know about the nuclear deal. They don't know about the deal made and the conditions therein. The fight was going on only for the chair.

Hemant Agarwal ( Mumbai : 9820174108)     24 July 2008

Dear All,
My thoughts on the Topic and all the other answers / responses, in context.

- The average rate of voting in a democratic country (like India) is average of 50%.
- Who are these 50% voters ? ... The best probability is 95% of these 50% voters are illiterates and people who have less sense of the country's development.
- Who are the 5% voters of these leftover of 95% of the 50% voters ? ... People who say that they are obliged/conscious of the country's development and WANT to excercise their voting right or so called DUTY.
- How justified are these voters who excercise their rights? ...
- WHY do the other 50% voters (public) refrain from voting ?

AS IT IS, why complain about the kiddo type honourable MP's ...
- Did you not Vote/select them to be elected to the parliament ?
- Are you not yourself to be blamed for selecting them to be elected as a MP ?
- Did you not technically "ABET" their misdeeds and other nuisance, BY VOTING FOR THEM ?

QUESTION to all ?
- WHY COMPLAIN (let's say like a Kid) about such MP's, in the light of the above.

Please note : It is no excuse / reason to say that we cannot be responsible for the acts of the MP's, since you have voluntarily decided to select such persons to be elected as MP's.

CONSIDER THIS : " The good thing about excuses is that we can always find them at the right time. "

Keep Smiling ... Hemant Agarwal

kumar sachin (lawyer)     25 July 2008

dear shree

remember tht it was a confidence motion of the govt. brought for proving its majority and NOT a debate on nuke deal. hence it was obvious tht the MPs would take up issues of their interest also other than the matter of nuke deal only.

waise i m also of the opinion tht most of the MPs have no or very least knowledge of nuke deal.


Kanhaiya Singh (Advocate)     25 July 2008

Certainly not.Thanks Shree for raising the issue.None can praise behaviour of many of our honourable the Parliament session for No Confidence Motion.They depicted that they were only interested for the CHAIR having no indepth knowlege of the Nuclear Deal.Respnsible citizens like us are ashamed for this.Our Country can never be the Super Power in their hands.But,don't worry and be optimistic.

Guest (n/a)     25 July 2008

I dont complwetely agree with sree. The issue before the parliament was not the nuke deal. it was incidental that left parties have withdrawn the support in the name of nuke deal. main issue for debate was the performance of the government and whether the house has trust in council of ministers. the issue of rising prices, terrorism and failure of the government to tackle the same are the other major issues before the house. whether they discussed the issue or not, it is obvious that this government has failed in tackling all these issues. FM was speaking about the record growth rate that this country has achieved during upa's tenure,but what is the use of all these statistics if a common man in this country cant aford 2 squaremeals a day ??? ambanis and tatas have grown in crores, but aaam admi has no money even to buy poison...!!! dont u think that the priority of the governement should be welfare of the people ?

Vikram Chandra (Advocate)     25 July 2008

Who ever comes into the power i.e., UPA, NDA, Congress, BJP, SP etc., so called parties nobody will really solve the issues and our's will always be a developing country. However, the core issues like achievement of total literacy and controlling the population, eliminating the poverty, providing minimum necessities of food, shelter & clothing etc., has to be taken care by the Government irrespective of the so called names of the political parties and whoever comes into the power. 

Apart from that each individual should strive his best for self development and should concentrate on society, then the things will change slowly and our's also become a developed country. However, I was going thru the 7th July, 2008 edition of India Today a special issue called ' SPIRIT OF INDIA 50 - PIONEERS OF CHANGE which is very inspiring and which shows how our Proud brother and sister Indians have taken initiative and sacrificed their life and careers for the development of India at their best levels in providing selfless and voluntary services by invoking the hidden talents and encouraging the talented people for overall growth, if any one finds time go thru the issue and then revert back.



Realsolutions (Advocate)     26 July 2008

What an entertainment ! !

What a colorful lot our MPs are! Criminals,

dimwits, cowards, dangerous clowns, idiots,

power hungry, money hungry, fame hungry….


My my.. pure democracy!


We Indians, the common public, should be

ashamed of ourselves for electing such worthless

dumb wits.

Country is caught in the tight grip of worst inflation,

it has ever faced in it’s history. Relentless price hike, poverty, hunger deaths, farmers’ suicides..the list is endless. But the government is not at all worried aboutsuch menial things.

Of course Going ahead with USA on nuke deal is

more important.The purpose of the parliament meet was a debate and trust voting on nuke deal. But what happened..

Almost all the MP’s didn’t and still dont know what this nuke deal talks about. All they cared about was their own personal gains and benefits. Fantastic!

The entire debate went on with abusing each other.What a shame!

Mr. Speaker; This man came to the power only

because of his party. But, he didn’t see the need to resign his post when his party withdrew it’s support to the govt. Well..why should he..considering his age, he cant afford to wait for another glorified powerful post. Ethics , Party, Decency, ideologies everything can go to hell.

‘Oh old man..thy name is vanity’!

Shame on you Mr. Speaker!

Mr. Advani; He needs to brush up his opposition

skills a lot. Everyone is fed up with congress

and it’s poor governance. But this man doesn’t

know how to encash people’s frustration and gain

their trust. In a hindu majority country, why this party finds it hard to find a strong foot hold. The problem is not with the party or it’s ideologies. Butwith it’s lack of charismatic powerful leaders. Modi looks like a suitable one. Some might object on reading this..

But..when a muslim political party able to walk ,

talk and demand things based on it’s religious ideologies, why not a Hindu one?


Owaisi; This MP and his speech in parliament

regarding trust voting is the perfect example

for religion based politics.

Omar Abdullah’s speech was excellent.


Rahul Gandhi; Prince indeed! Such a softy.

He is 38 ..for god’s sake! He ended up flat on his face in his first attempt speech. HE lacked the aggression, the power, the short, the leadership quality. When given a mere 10 minutesat a crucial time, it’s always wiser to talk about the heart of the matter or issue. Catching listener’s attention is the basic trick in politics and boring them with an equally boring story is dumb. Even princes’ r expected to rake their own brains and intelligence at sometimes or other. But I should say that in his second attempt, he did fairly well.


Mr. Prime Minister; What is his personal interest

in this Nuke deal is what every citizen of India

is wondering about. Well…this became an ego issue for him after the spat with Lefts. But going at it with a vengeance is uncalled for..especially when the country is in the worst possible situation..with inflation, high prices, fuel shortage, poverty and all.

What is the hurry? ?

He conveniently forgets that his govt. is a coalition government. Lefts had every right to ask for
  the details. In his speech, PM grumbled about how Lefts expected him to tell them every minute details of this nuke deal. He even accused them of treating him like a bonded slave. Well..He is THE bonded slave.

He is not people’s PM. He is his party’s ‘made out’ PM. Is’nt he a bonded slave to his party supremo? Could he take any decisions on his own? He is a puppet on string and he does well know it. His govt is a coalition govt he should answer his aliies’ questions on important issues and should clear their doubts. It’s his duty..slavery or not.

But what he did do?

He refused to discuss the nuke deal on a national level debate. He refused to discuss some particular controversial clauses in that deal. He refused tobrief the nation on what this nuke deal is all about.

He treated us, the people of India as dimwits.

He put the entire nation under immense pressure..
he gambled on our country’s safety, economy to attain his own goal. Is this the right way to act as the honourable prime minister? He picked the worst time possible to gamble becz..election is around the corner. He knows very well if he doesn’t push this nuke issue now, he wont enjoy the personal  glory of creating some history.


He claims he is one Mr. pure..Mr.Clean. Sheer audacity ! !

What made him go for the confidence motion in

parliament? He knew he can always buy the MPs.

What if he personally didn’t go and offer the money..

He was the reason behind all this horse trading.

He initiated all the shameful , unethical, immoral acts and he should take the responsibility for getting all this publicized to the whole world. A responsible prime minister would have tried his utmost to convincehis allies and if he failed in that.. he would have waited for the election to win in majority to carryon his futuristic plans.

Did he do that?

I wonder how he claims himself as Mr. Clean...

He opened the flood gates of corruption and

created a new history , that India has never ever had the misfortune to endure.


Maybe according to 'his'economic strategy, the ways and means are immaterial as long as u achieve the goal..


Thanks Mr. oh-so-good economist!!

Thanks a lot Mr. Prime minister!!.

Thanks for making India a ‘laughing stock’...


kumar sachin (lawyer)     26 July 2008

i agree with u mr. realsolution


rajvinder (lawter)     28 July 2008

no confidence motion is constitutionally valid .it is necessary as a check to run democracy as in democracy we are ruled by majority of representatives not by minority of representatives .its necessary for running govt. to prove on the floor of parliament when the opposition has a doubt that the existing govt is not having proper majority and to pass the resolution to that effect and run no confidence motion against the govt.

but what has happened on the floor of parliament on the day when voting was called and what happend outside the parliament rather i would say in the court yard of parliament that was shamefull for us being the citizen and voter .

laeders were sleeping in the parliament at the time of this hot debate when the future of the country was decided.shibu saren  who got himself settled with the govt was the person who was sleeping .

lalu parsad yadav was not allowed to speak .where is the discipline .what we are telling to our children ,youth of country .is this democracy where one person is speaking and others rather hearing him are making a noise to stop him in the parliament which is heart and soul of our nation.

and the great insult of our systemwhich i feel is bringing and showing of currency notes before the speaker somnath chaterji.that was not fair.there is a procedure to catch the person giving bribe .but the act of bjp leaders was showing itself that they have taken the money if offered by the other party

i think it was a good time for the members of parliament to make money for them .those who have voted against their party whip are sayig that they have heard their soul voice .this makes me to laugh .really they have heard their soul voice but only for making money in this great opportuinty.

what SAD leaders have done ? a year before they were making speeches that manmohan singh is sikh pm .they feel proud of him to be the first sikh pm of india.SAD party wanted from manmohan singh central grants for the development of punjab on the pretext of his being a sikh prime minister.and they were given good packages by mr.singh .but what happened when he was in the need the same party issued  a whip to vote against the sikh prime minister. is this morally true .no its not good

i can only say politics is a dirty game .i can say 70 %members were not aware of the deal what it is .only few can explain what is a atom .and they are going to vote in favour and against the govt. thats great


K.C.Suresh (Advocate)     29 July 2008


The members of Parliament represent the individual constituencies, the Speaker represents the full authority of the House The office of the Speaker occupies a pivotal position in our parliamentary democracy. He symbolises the dignity and power of the House over which he is presiding.  Even though the Speaker speaks rarely in the House[1], when he does, he speaks for the House as a whole. In India, through the Constitution of the land, through the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha and through the practices and conventions, adequate powers are vested in the office of the Speaker to help him in the smooth conduct of the parliamentary proceedings and for protecting the independence and impartiality of the office. The Constitution of India provides that the Speaker's salary and allowances are not to be voted by Parliament and are to be charged on the Consolidated Fund of India.   The office of the Speaker in India is a living and dynamic institution which deals with the actual needs and problems of Parliament in the performance of its functions. The Speaker is the constitutional and ceremonial head of the House. He is the principal spokesman of the House. It is in him that the responsibility of conducting the business of the House in a manner befitting the place of the institution in a representative democracy is invested. The founding fathers of our Constitution had recognized the importance of this office in our democratic set-up and it was this recognition that guided them in establishing this office as one of the prominent and dignified ones in the scheme of governance of the country.   Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, one of the chief architects of India's freedom and a moving force behind its Constitution, placed the office of the Speaker in India in the proper context when he said:  

The Speaker represents the House. He represents the dignity of the House, the freedom of the House and because the House represents the nation, in a particular way, the Speaker becomes a symbol of nation's freedom and liberty. Therefore, it is right that, that should be an honored position, a free position and should be occupied always by men of outstanding ability and impartiality. This would explain why this office still remains one of the most crucial ones in the life of every Lok Sabha.

Impartiality is some thing different from political faith. One becomes speaker in India not for the only reason that he is efficient, honest, but through party politics. So a speaker becomes speaker only because of his political relationship. Once posted to that post unanimously with enemies votes and when fitted suitably, saying that I cannot vote with enemy against another is a dirty argument which only can be viewed suspiciously. He should have been resigned immediately when his party withdraw support. The most fair and decent step must be the resignation what ever motive or feeling he had. That too  when the party which was responsible for his chair requested so. Why party requested? Why not directed? It is because of the post he holds and due to the value of the chair. He may be impartial while conducting the business-while discharging his official functions. That does not mean that he is not a political figure. To that extent only he is impartial, and he expected to in this country where politics required for even running a pan shop.  Indians have seen the impartiality of the former speakers. Who are all they? Think twice. Answer is nobody above politics. So a speaker also is a soul who eats politics as his breakfast, lunch and dinner.

In Jagjit Singh vs State of Haryana, a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court on December 11, 2006, articulated the shift in public perception about the role of the Speaker.

It said, "The position of the Speaker is and has been held by people of outstanding ability and impartiality. Without meaning any disrespect for any Speaker in the country, but only going by some of the events of the recent past, certain questions have been raised about the confidence in the matter of impartiality on some issues having political overtones which are decided by the Speaker in his capacity as a Tribunal."

[1] Who was  rarely talk in the parliament – Who was always uttering to others interfering- and that it self a reason for wasting the time of the house.

rajvinder (lawter)     29 July 2008

dear K.C.Suresh on the one side you are saying that speaker shgould be impartial and on other side you are sayig he should have resigned for party sake .you are contradicting your own comment of being a impartial person.

once appointed to the post of speaker a person is representing our house ,infact our nation .he should forget about all party politics and should present himself be a impartil person .and somnath chaterji has done this .he has shown the courage at the time of crisis which our nation was facing.

K.C.Suresh (Advocate)     29 July 2008

Dear Raj, Two things a speaker has to keep with him. First his loyalty to the party which made him a BIG SIR. Second to the post he holds. As you said I am not contradicting my self or confusing any body. Indian politics reuqires fairness and honesty to the party first because politics is every where from moon to sky and the party is ofcourse represents people, not the leadres. When a party takes a decision by its leadres that means it is taken for the people and by the people. When his political leadership i.e., the people wants him to withdraw he must obey. That is a question of fairness to his people at central Kolkata at the Mecca of the Indian Marxism.
The other thing about the efficiency of the speaker as he is an MA (Cantab) and Bar at Law and a good parliamentarian there is no doubt that he is fit and efficent till the day of 21st. From that day two opinions emerged in the society about a speaker. Before that there was only one. Why? The sabha was confused by the stand he has taken. A disobeying senior memebr of a party of patriots showing moods of disinterest to wards the party. It is not a question of contradiction but question of faith and belief in political ideology. Speaker was doing his duty impartially and fairly. Then why there was a doubt in Jagjit case by the SC. However thank you very much for your open hearted opinion.
With love and regards
Adv. K.C. Suresh, .A., LL.M., PGDHR, Kerala

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  

Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query