The governor of Kerala has recently given his assent to delimitation bills dealing with the reorganisation of local body wards. The two amendment bills were earlier tabled and passed in the ongoing assembly session without sufficient discussion or even a motion referring the bills to the subject committee. Members of the Opposition — United Democratic Front (UDF) — criticised this move as unprecedented, highlighting that the government hurriedly passed the bills while Opposition members were protesting an alleged bribery case related to the upcoming liquor policy.
The Opposition used the opportunity to denounce the ruling Left government, led by the Communist Party of India (Marxist), likening their actions to ‘Modi style legislative enactments’ and ‘silencing of Opposition voices’. This entire episode has inadvertently opened a new chapter in the Kerala assembly, and the missed opportunity for Opposition involvement suggests an erosion of participatory democracy practices.
The two amendment bills and delimitation
In the eleventh session of the Kerala assembly in June 2024, the state government passed the Kerala Municipality (Second Amendment) Bill and the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Second Amendment) Bill. These new law aims to facilitate delimitation exercises of local body ‘wards’ in line with the 2011 census data, replacing the 2001 census data. This was earlier suspended due to Covid-19 lockdowns and restrictions.
This law is expected to increase the number of minimum and maximum wards by one in gram panchayat, block panchayat and the district panchayat. As per the new calculation, now there will be a minimum of 14 and maximum of 24 wards in both gram panchayat and block panchayat. In district panchayat the number would be 17 and 33, after aligning with the population increase as per census 2011.
Similarly, now in a municipal area with a population of up to 20,000, there are 25 seats. For every additional 2,500 people, one more seat is added, up to a maximum of 52 seats. For a municipal corporation with a population of up to 400,000, there are now 55 seats. For every increase of 10,000 in the population, 10 additional seats are added, with a cap at 100 councilors.
Following the delimitation under the new law, the number of seats in municipalities and corporations will each increase by one. Municipalities will now have a minimum of 26 and a maximum of 53 seats, while corporations will have a minimum of 56 and a maximum of 101 seats.
Altogether, around 1200 new wards are expected to be added with these above calculations. After getting the bills passed under five minutes, the government had issued a notification on June 14, aligning with section 10 (1) of the Kerala Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 which deals with the process of ward delimitation. The delimitation commission in Kerala has been constituted and granted authority to redraw the boundaries of panchayats and municipalities.
The haste and the un-democratic process of subverting the legislative scrutiny as alleged by the Opposition has raised suspicion when the government is determined to use 13-year-old census data especially when the state is running up to the upcoming 2025 local body elections.
Distractions and overcoming scrutiny
Distractions have always helped people in power. Before our memory of farmers’ protest, parliament and the horrific pandemic fades, we must mull over the monsoon session of 2020 once again. The union government brought the three contentious farm bills and passed it in an ‘unprecedented manner’ amidst complete disregard to parliamentary conventions, misuse of ordinance route, cancellation of the question hour and suspension of members of the parliament.
The Indian Constitution prescribes effective scrutiny of all bills. Article 75 (3) states that ‘the Council of Ministers shall be collectively responsible to the House of the People and this is met through the question hour when the Opposition parties in the parliament publicly scrutinise the executive. However, what we saw was the suspension of the question hour to hide the details of the bill to avoid public scrutiny by the opposition in the house. Moreover, unlike today the parliamentary majority had offered favourable conditions to pursue it.
Similarly, it is to be noted how the union government threaded onto a field of ‘agriculture’ which it had no legislative competence to enact laws. Despite the parliament’s law making power being circumscribed by the words “other than” agriculture income (entry 82) or “exclusive of” agricultural land (entry 86), or “other than” agricultural land (entries 87 and 88) in the union list nothing stopped them from going forward with the bill. It was also seen how a health emergency gave a protective shield, making it appear as a food security issue to marshal a grand plan of agricultural overhaul when the nation was going through a health emergency.
In Kerala, the leader of Opposition and the Congress parliamentary party secretary alleges similar legislative highhandedness as they were denied their right to express their views on the bill and how the local self-government minister had misused the following sections of the Kerala Assembly Rules of Procedure to dodge discussion and scrutiny:
-
Section 76 (1): This section mandates that a bill must be referred to a subject committee for detailed examination.
Advertisement -
Section 77: It outlines the procedures for discussing a bill in the Assembly.
-
Section 237: This details the powers and functions of the subject committee.
-
Section 313: It allows for the suspension of certain rules under specific circumstances.
Advertisement
They claim the above provisions were misused when the Opposition was distracted and squabbling, eventually missing out an opportunity to review or express their dissent to the bill. For instance, the panchayats with 23 wards could only increase by one ward as per the new law, irrespective of their actual population increase. Similarly, the question of why not wait for the 2021 census which would be available soon, was evaded. These questions and possible dissents were circumvented.
Such tactics used by people in power to push in controversial agendas underscore a broader and repetitive pattern where distractions and procedural shortcuts are used to suppress or evade critical review, withhold important information from the public by undermining democratic principles. This imitation of styles would have far reaching impact on the political and administrative equations especially, when the case is related to grass root governance of Kerala.
Need for constructive and vigilant Opposition
Panchayati raj institutions of Kerala are hailed across the length and breadth of the country as a ‘model’ worth replicating. This rich tradition is rooted in the strong local institutions, effective Opposition and participatory governance especially, from the 4 F’s point of view — Fund, Functionaries, Functions and Framework. The diligent and delicate nature of working towards effective use of allotted funds to ensure the highest efficiency has made it exemplary.
The fourth F, the ‘framework’ that is meant to ensure transparency, accountability and participatory governance has to be instilled and integrated to the system from top-to-bottom first with effective checks and balances. In this case, however, by disallowing meaningful debate the government has managed to silence the Opposition on matters related to governance at the state level. This must compel the ruling Left government to introspect on the possible message it would send to the local bodies.
This incident is a great reminder for the need for a proactive and vigilant Opposition to ensure healthy legislative scrutiny. While the Opposition mobilised with their might and energy over the bribery case, another equally important issue slipped through the legislative fissures in front of their eyes. It gave the government an easy walkover with no or minimal resistance.
This episode poses serious questions about the strategies employed by the Opposition in Kerala. The overt focus on the bribery scandal, while important, came at the expense of substantive legislative scrutiny. The Opposition needs to re-orient in a way they find a perfect balance to respond to immediate controversies and long-term policy debates. If not, this could lead to larger repercussions such as setting precedent that could possibly normalise bypassing established legislative procedures, thereby weakening the checks and balances essential for a healthy democracy. When governments time and again use such measures, it not only shrinks the role of Opposition but also erodes the trust of people.
Notably, while the intentions to empower local bodies is impressive, the means by which they are undertaken are equally vital. This worrying departure from established norms reaffirms the further need to have more rigorous legislative procedures, where all voices are heard at the least. As we stride ahead in an uncertain political climate with attempts of de-democratisation and authoritarian tendencies, it is crucial to uphold the established norms and conventions to protect the integrity and spirit of participatory democracy. In fact, that has long been the defining characteristic of Kerala.
Philip Varghese is a Japan Society for Promotion of Science (JSPS) postdoctoral researcher affiliated to UNU-IAS in Tokyo and Akita International University in Akita. His views are personal and can be contacted at post2philip@gmail.com.
