Article 94 of our Constitution states: Except as otherwise provided in this Constitution, no question or resolution shall be presented for decision in a meeting of either House of the Federal Parliament unless one-fourth of the total number of its members are present. For the members of our House of Representatives, the lower chamber of the bicameral Parliament, Aug 13 was just another day, so most of them chose to not attend the day’s meeting.

Subsequently, heeding to a request from a member of the HoR, the Speaker opted for a headcount and found only 66 members present in the 275-member chamber, short of the one-fourth of the total strength mentioned in the charter by three heads. If a request for a headcount had not come his way, would the Speaker have gone ahead with his proposal on deliberations over the Information Technology and Cybersecurity Bill?

Also, is it not the duty of the Speaker to scan the chamber, with or without a request, and see whether the required number of heads are present for discussions on matters at hand? What happened in the HoR on August 13 is nothing new, though. In the past, some big names have made their presence felt in national politics by remaining absent from HoR meetings for a record number of days. When even the stalwarts leading the nation a record number of times do not bother to ‘grace’  the parliament with their presence, there may not be much motivation for other ‘lawmakers’ to show up at the ‘talk shop’.

Also, even if the ‘lawmakers’ are physically present in the chamber, their minds appear elsewhere. A tampered Civil Service Bill making it through the chamber and reports about government plans to amend the law to legalize polygamy raise serious questions about the ‘lawmaking’ capabilities of our lawmakers.  

Besides, how many of our ‘lawmakers’ actually read draft laws, ponder over their short and long-term consequences for the country and the people, and suggest changes? How many of them opt for a vote of conscience rather than yielding to party whips? And how many even dare obstruct the House proceedings in the interest of the nation, rather than standing for powerful vested interests?

Arun Jaitley states: Parliament's job is to conduct discussions. But many a time, Parliament is used to ignoring issues, and in such situations, obstruction of Parliament is in the favour of democracy. Therefore, parliamentary obstruction is not undemocratic.

In the words of BR Ambedkar: However good a Constitution may be, if those who are implementing it are not good, it will prove to be bad. However bad a Constitution may be, if those implementing it are good, it will prove to be good. Wrapping up, the vivid image of a President paying his utmost respect to the Constitution during its promulgation in a very hard time comes to mind. Let this image frozen in time inspire our ‘lawmakers’ to take their duties as people’s representatives—and not as some overlords—more seriously.