Maha Bharat: Episode 34

Joint sessions of parliament – what is the big deal?

← See all episodes

The Central Hall of the Indian parliament, the room where the British transferred power to India when we got our Independence in 1947, is a historic room, and the location for the joint sessions of the Indian parliament. Only 3 bills in have been passed in the history of independent India in a joint session of the 2 houses, and each of them has had a significant impact on India.

This episode tells you why we have joint sessions, what happens during these sessions, and why they are a big deal.

Show Notes

All clips and voices used in this podcast are owned by the original creators

Links to clips used in this episode —

Full Transcript of Episode 34 –

Imagine you’re in the Indian Parliament building. Not the Lok Sabha or the Rajya Sabha, but the Central Hall of the Indian Parliament, hamara Sansad. This hall is bigger than the other two houses…why? Because here, both houses of the Parliament meet. And that’s where I want to take you today.

In this episode, I want you to imagine that you’re sitting in the Central Hall of the Indian parliament. And remember, when you’re sitting in the Central Hall, you are witnessing something historical. This is the room where the British transferred power to India when we got our Independence in 1947. 

And we’ll also go behind the scenes, through the relationship between both houses of our parliament to find out: what’s the big deal about these joint sessions of the Parliament?

Joint sessions of the Parliament, jisko hum hindi mein sansad ka sanyukt satr kehte hai, is actually an answer to the following question: what if the two houses of the parliament disagree?

While drafting the constitution, our leaders were extremely clear about the functions of both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha. One of the most important of these functions was to introduce bills in the house, which would later go on to become acts. 

These acts then become law. So, it was decided that for most bills, both the houses have to pass it, before it becomes an act. And so, the same question again: what if both houses disagree?

Well, if one house rejects a bill, then the bill gets dropped. 

However, there is an exception to this: the money bill or a constitutional amendment bill. In case of the money bill, the Lok Sabha can pass it even if the Rajya Sabha rejects the bill or keeps it pending.

For most bills, if there’s a disagreement between the two houses, the bill gets dropped. 

But the writers of our constitution also gave us another option, in Article 108: the joint sessions or as we often call them, the joint sittings of the parliament. A parliament session that has all the members of both houses — the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha.

There’s three situations where the parliament uses this article. 

Pehla — when one of the houses rejects a bill passed by the other. Second, if both the houses disagree on the amendments made to a bill. And third, if a bill has been sent to a house, and there has been no response for six months.

So, when any of these three situations occur, and the president thinks that it’s necessary to discuss these bills again — that’s when he or she may call a Joint Sitting of both houses. 

Just like a session in any of the other two houses, here too, the bill is passed if a majority of the members present in the session have voted in favour of it. 

In the past, these joint sessions have been held for three bills, all three of which were rejected by the Rajya Sabha.

These are joint sessions that are held in the event of a disagreement. But apart from these, our President usually addressed both the houses in joint sessions when a new government is formed, or at the beginning of a new session, like the Budget. 

[We hear the voice of President Ram Nath Kovind addressing the Joint Session of the Parliament]

But today, we’ll take a look at the joint sessions that were called to solve a deadlock — and find out ke aisa toh kya hua, that a joint sitting had to be called!

The first joint session was called in 1961, when Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru’s government was ruling. And the reason? A disagreement about the Dowry Prohibition Act. 

On first thought, you’re probably thinking…what’s the disagreement? Who would have an objection to the prohibition of dowry?

Yes, you’re right — and many members agreed that Dowry had to be prohibited. But it was the details of this act that they disagreed on. And this is exactly why a joint session was called: the act was so important, that the difference in opinion needed to be discussed, so that a common ground could be established.

Clearly, the government felt that this bill could not be dropped.

I know we’re only in the beginning of our story, but you could say that this is one of the most important reasons that Joint Sessions are a big deal — it gives both the houses a chance to re-evaluate and come to a joint decision on important matters. 

When both the houses came together in May 1961, a surprising thing happened: Pt. Nehru didn’t give his party a “whip” (say this word in English itself). Matlab? A “whip” is a command: the party leader instructs the members of his or her party to vote for or against a motion, and they must follow this instruction even if they don’t agree with it. But in this joint session, Nehru allowed the members to speak honestly and vote without a whip. 

So, what exactly was the disagreement? When the Dowry Prohibition Bill was drawn up in 1959 and passed in the Lok Sabha, it banned direct payments made to a bridegroom’s family as dowry. When this bill came to the Rajya Sabha, the house amended it and also banned indirect payments — matlab, clothes, jewellery, vehicles that might be gifted in the form of dowry. The Lok Sabha did not agree with this — it thought banning indirect payments such as these is “oppressive” (ek atyachaar).

To sort out this disagreement, the houses met in the central hall, for what would be a historical session. 

There were many members who were completely opposed to the bill in the first place. The joint session gave them an opportunity to appeal to the members of both houses. If you were sitting in this central hall, you would have heard Shri Jaipal Singh of the Janata party talk about the Adivasi community of Jharkhand, that he belongs to. In this tribe, the custom of Dowry is considered to be beautiful. So, a law such as this can be offensive to their community. And at the same time, Shrimati Pushpalata Das (पुष्पलता दास) narrated a story of the Hill Miri (मीरी) tribe of Assam also called the Meesing (मीसिंग) people, and said how women, even in remote areas of the country, need empowerment that will come because of this law. 

The houses discussed the amendments suggested, and why they must be made. Shri Rajabhau Khobaragde (राजाभाऊ खोबरागड़े) defended the Rajya Sabha’s views, saying that any person who wanted to avoid the consequences of this law can do so by taking dowry in the form of gold, or even a mangalsutra! Rajya Sabha’s amendments will ensure this doesn’t happen. 

Doston, what’s different about these sessions from the ones we normally have in the Lok Sabha or the Rajya Sabha?

The same kind of debates and persuasion that happen in the house also takes place in the joint sessions. In the end, all the members vote to pass or reject the bill. More or less the same…except the joint session brings the houses together. This time, the majority of the members agreed on the amendments suggested by Rajya Sabha, and passed the bill. 

The Dowry Prohibition Act went on to have many amendments over the years. But this was how it started.

Accha, let’s go to the next joint session …

Shri T.A. Pai, a Lok Sabha Member from the Indian National Congress,  in the next Joint Session of 1978, called this topic “Unnecessarily Controversial”. 

But before we talk about what happened in 1978, let’s talk about a criticism of these Joint Sessions. 

I have told you that in the 73 years that we have been an independent country, only 3 bills have been debated in a joint session. 

This is partly because the Joint Session is a long, complicated process. The President of India and the ruling party thinks carefully before choosing to call a Joint Session. 

But there is a very specific criticism about these joint sessions – that it is used to bypass the parliament. 

The Lok Sabha with 545 members has more members than the Rajya Sabha which has only 250 — so when there is a Joint Session, there are more Lok Sabha members present than Rajya Sabha members. When a bill is passed by the Lok Sabha but rejected by the Rajya Sabha, there is a higher chance for it to get passed in a Joint Session. 

In 2015, the Lok Sabha passed the Coal Mines Act, but it received a lot of opposition in the Rajya Sabha…like from Congress’s Digvijay Singh:

[We hear the voice of Digvijay Singh arguing in the parliament]

At this time, the Finance Minister Arun Jaitley hinted that the government might call a Joint Session to get this important bill through. However, this did not happen, since Rajya Sabha eventually passed this bill in 2015.

But a similar situation happened when a joint session was really called for, in 1978.

This was the Banking Services Commission Repeal (रिपील) Act of 1978. Haan, you heard that right — repeal. 

This was a bill introduced in the Lok Sabha to remove the Banking Services Commission, which had been formed only 3 years ago. What you need to know here is that this Banking Services Commission was like the UPSC for public sector banks — it was a group that would select people to work at public sector banks across the country, through examination and interviews. In 1977, the government decided that this commission was not serving the purpose it should have been, and drafted a short legislation to remove it. The Lok Sabha passed the bill — the Rajya Sabha, on the other hand, directly rejected it. The majority of Rajya Sabha members were against the bill.

What was so “unnecessarily controversial” about it, that only a joint session could resolve the issue?

The Lok Sabha’s argument was this: The Banking Services Commission does not recruit members from all parts of the country — the process of examination is long, difficult and unnecessary. This commission itself is not required anymore. But Rajya Sabha, on the other hand, believed that this commission was necessary, because it had reserved seats for the members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe communities. It provided a standard procedure for recruitment. 

In the end, both parties came to an agreement to pass the bill with certain small amendments — these amendments were related to the chairman and the funds of the commission. The Janata Dal, which was in power, assured the houses that it would set up regional boards for the recruitment of workers. It is important to note that the Janata Dal had the required number of members to pass the bill in the joint session but not enough to pass it in the Rajya Sabha alone.

So far, we’ve talked about the Joint Session as the solution to a problem. Certainly, because the writers of our constitution also wanted Article 108 to be the resolution where there is a deadlock. This is one of the reasons these sessions are a big deal: they are a constitutional solution!

But does this mean that every joint session ends in peaceful agreement? Definitely not.

Take 2001, for instance. Do you remember the events that happened this year? There was a destructive earthquake in Bhuj and later in the year, the 9/11 tragedy struck the U.S. 

A few months later, in December, there would be a terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament. But even before that, the NDA, the ruling party at the time, became concerned about terrorist activities. As a result, it passed the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance.

Yaha pe ek quick law lesson lete hain: an ordinance is basically a legislation that is passed by the President, instead of the Parliament. This happens when there is an urgent need to pass a law, and the parliament is not in session. But this ordinance has to be passed in the Parliament as soon as it is in session!

The ordinance was passed, but when it was time to pass the bill in both houses, it did not work. The Lok Sabha passed the bill, but the Rajya Sabha opposed it strongly. But when the bill went to the Joint Session, it was passed.

If you’re imagining yourself in the Central hall for the third joint session, in the end, you would have seen the congress members walk out in protest.

But, let’s take a few steps back.

What is the Prevention of Terrorism Act or POTA? 

This act laid down the conditions for the arrest and punishment of any person believed to be involved in terrorist acts. The opposition, which was the Congress at the time  — as well as the public in general — criticized this act, because it defined “terrorism” very broadly. It also allowed the police to detain a suspect for 180 days, without a chargesheet. 

After getting rejected in the Rajya Sabha, the bill made its way to the third joint session in our history.

Doston, a law such as the POTA was very relevant in those times, as it would be today, too. Only within 4 months of enacting this law, 250 people were arrested. The opposition argued that this law can be misused to arrest political opponents and minorities. But because of the recent Parliamentary attacks, the NDA government argued that this law was necessary. 

During this debate, Congress president Sonia Gandhi spoke against the bill: 

[We hear the voice of Ms. Sonia Gandhi speaking in the Parliament]

She asked the Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee: “will he be weak in his leadership, or uphold the prestige of his office”?

In the end, the majority of members in the session voted for the passing of the bill. The opposition walked out, and for weeks after the session, publicly opposed the bill. The common belief, even from leaders such as Pranab Mukherjee, was that it was passed because the NDA has the necessary numbers in the session to get a majority vote. In 2004, this act was repealed or removed by the UPA government. 

Mudda yeh hai, ki in this situation, a joint session did not lead to the peaceful resolution of a deadlock. In fact, there was a lot of criticism that the joint session was misused.

Let’s fast forward to today. 

We now know why these joint sessions were held, and what happened in the sessions. It allowed for influential bills to pass. It allowed both houses to interact, a rare occasion for the parliament. It’s a big deal — and in fact, India is one of the only countries where a joint session is such a big deal. 

In the US, the joint sessions of the two houses — the House of Senate and the House of Representatives — is held when the President wishes to address both houses, or when they count the votes in the Presidential election. Sometimes, these sessions are held when foreign dignitaries address the houses. U.K. mein bhi kuch aisa hi hai — the upper and lower houses meet when the Queen or the other monarchs want to address them. 

No legislative decisions are taken in a joint session in these countries. 

In comparison, the joint Sessions that are called to sort out a disagreement between both the houses — these are much more important, don’t you agree?

Yahi kaaran hai, that these joint sessions must not be misused. 

When we talk about the Joint Sessions of our parliament, we’re not only talking about bills or disagreements — but also, the relationship between the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha. 

Ek quick recap: the Lok Sabha is the house of people, where the ruling party has a majority. Currently, this is the NDA. In the Rajya Sabha, however, the opposition can also have the majority. One of the most important functions of the Rajya Sabha is to keep the government in check. It looks over Lok Sabha’s bill and makes sure there is balance.

So, which party has a majority in the Rajya Sabha is quite important.  

I want to talk about one interesting example. In 2015, the NDA government wished to make amendments to a certain act passed by the UPA government in 2013. This was called, in short, the Land Acquisition Act of 2013. The NDA government passed an ordinance (ऑर्डिनेंस) with 9 changes to this act. But when it was time to make this ordinance a bill, it remained pending in the Rajya Sabha. Let me remind you: at this time, the NDA government did not have a majority in the Rajya Sabha.

So, at this time, Arun Jaitley, the Finance Minister was asked what the Government would do, if the bill wasn’t passed in the Rajya Sabha:

[We hear the voice of Arun Jaitley answering a question in an interview]

And this makes sense, right? Because when both houses meet, the numbers would be in favour of the NDA government. It would be likely that the bill would be passed. Even in the case of the Coal Mines Act in the same year, the government was critical of the Rajya Sabha — it seemed as if the Rajya Sabha was slowing laws down. 

Anyway, the land acquisition bill was never passed — in the end, the NDA government agreed to take back the amendments that were opposed. It came to a consensus with the Opposition regarding this bill — a joint session never happened.

So, clearly, the joint sessions are dependent heavily on the relationship between the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, and the numbers, of course. 

So, what’s the big deal about the Joint Sessions?

I’d say that these sessions are something of a big deal, because they are a last resort. Even in the case of the Land Acquisition bill, the ruling and opposition party chose to resolve the problem amongst themselves instead of going to a joint session. Because once a bill is passed in the joint session, there’s almost nothing that can be done — until a new ruling party comes into power. These sessions involve a fair bit of strategy — and they’re not always peaceful, like we saw. 

But other than this, we saw what happens inside joint sessions — and it’s quite similar to regular parliamentary sessions. Debates, argument, voting…and even walkouts. 

But now that we know the ins and outs of these rare, historical events of our parliamentary history, we know the ways in which these sittings are special, and the situations when they are required. The next time it happens, we’ll know just what to think!

That’s it from me for this week. I’ll be back next week with a brand new episode of Maha Bharat!

Credits

Narrated by – Dhruv Rathee
Producer – Gaurav Vaz
Written by – Anushka Mukherjee and Gaurav Vaz
Edited by – Medha V
Title Track Design – Abhijith Nath
Audio Production – Madhav Ayachit