NEW DELHI: Congress MP Shashi Tharoor criticised the government on Tuesday, stating that voting at the introduction stage of two bills on simultaneous elections in the Lok Sabha revealed that the BJP did not have the two-thirds majority required to pass a constitutional amendment.
The two bills, which propose the mechanism to hold simultaneous elections, were introduced in the Lok Sabha after a heated debate. Opposition parties denounced the draft laws – comprising a Constitution Amendment Bill and an ordinary bill – as an attack on the federal structure, a charge that was rejected by the government.
Tharoor, speaking to reporters on Parliament premises, emphasised the widespread opposition to the bills. "We (the Congress) are not the only ones that have opposed this bill. The vast majority of the opposition parties have opposed this bill, and the grounds are very many. It is a violation of the federal structure of the Constitution. Why should a state government fall if the central government falls?" he said.
"Why should the timetable of one who enjoys the mandate of the people be truncated because of the timetable of another? It makes no sense. In a parliamentary system, you cannot have fixed terms. The reason that fixed terms since 1952 ended is because of the fact that we have in our country a parliamentary system… different Houses, different majorities, different coalitions, may rise and fall at different times," Tharoor explained.
He further argued that changing the system in this manner was unnecessary and impractical, as it would likely lead to similar issues when a future government at the Centre or in the states loses the confidence of the majority. "My view is that this entire thing is a folly. In any case, the votes today have demonstrated that the BJP does not have the two-thirds majority required to pass a constitutional amendment," he remarked.
Tharoor also pointed out that while the government might structure a parliamentary joint committee to secure a majority, the lack of a two-thirds majority in the House would prevent a constitutional amendment. "So this discussion is increasingly futile," he concluded.
