HUNG PARLIAMENT

                                    

ABSTRACT:

           In 1996 India faced its first hung parliament where the Bharatiya Janata Party failed to make their majority in parliament elections and weeks later the United Front coalition was able to secure a parliamentary majority and H.D Deve Gowda of Janata Dal became Prime Minister. The UK has faced hung parliaments in previous elections, with May 2015 being the only time it narrowly avoided this outcome. This situation can lead to multiple potential governments, and the constitutional rules determining who has the first right to form the government can have a significant influence. The UK’s current system generates political controversy and uncertainty, potentially jeopardizing the monarch’s role in the government formation process. Reforms allowing parliament to elect the leader would resolve these issues and provide constitutional clarity.

INTRODUCTION:

                   India’s multi-party Parliament system allows multiple political parties to run for elections, with the government formed by the one with the most votes. However, the absence of a majority in Parliament, either absolute or coalition, seems unfair. Articles 74 and 75 of the Constitution suggest that the Prime Minister doesn’t need an absolute numerical majority, making the term ‘Hung Parliament’ included.

HUNG PARLIAMENT:

A Hung Parliament is a Parliament where no party has a working majority, resulting in an equally balanced Parliament. This leaves no party to assume control over the executive. The government has three options: form a coalition, form a minority government, or conduct re-elections. A Hung Parliament is not time-specific and can occur even when a party or alliance gains majority.  The 1st Hung Parliament in India occurred in 1989 due to a lack of majority seats in the Lok Sabha. The government was formed by the single largest party with external support. The Hung Parliamentary system divides seats among national and regional parties, preventing a hung parliament in future elections.

   A Hung Parliament is primarily caused by the lack of a majority in the Parliament, but there are various reasons for this. Understanding these reasons is crucial for the government to take measures to avoid and reduce the likelihood of dealing with a Hung Parliament.

          The reason for the hung parliament is the regional parties in India have grown in strength, leading to hung parliaments. From 27 seats in 1989 to 159 in 2004, they dominated national politics, making it difficult for national parties to form a government. While some coalitions with regional parties fail, others, if managed carefully, have been successful.

         India’s election turnout rate of 60% since the first elections is stagnating, increasing the risk of a hung parliament.

         India’s Hung parliament system is influenced by international experiences, such as Denmark’s 90% of government formations resulting in a hung parliament, Norway, Sweden, Germany, and Canada’s average government tenure of 1 year and 4 months, which has inspired India’s approach.

  The Indian Constitution’s 10th Schedule allows political parties to change after elections if one-thirds of the members decide to split. If a merger occurs, two-thirds of members must agree, with the Speaker having final say. If a No Confidence motion occurs, fresh elections are held. However, defection laws are not strictly enforced, allowing political parties to gain power.

A hung parliament impacts a country’s administration, roles, and democracy through constitutional aspects. India, for instance, experiences significant effects due to its hung parliament system.

POLITICAL INSTABILITY:

The Hung Parliament leads to political instability as national parties seek regional parties’ help to form the government, often resulting in unfair practices. Incompetent ministers and a government without a majority can lead to trust loss, affecting the democratic aspect of the country. The largest democracy in the world, Hung, is vulnerable to political instability, as it is formed without a majority, affecting the country’s future and the democratic aspects.

TRADE AND COMMERCE:

A hung parliament could lead to a rigid government, causing a lack of strategic planning for trade and commerce policies. The 2004 Lok Sabha election saw a significant stock market decline, indicating a belief in stable governance. A weak trade and commerce sector could negatively impact the economy and hinder economic development.

MINORITY GOVERNMENT:

A minority government is formed even with less than majority seats, formed through a coalition of parties with no majority seats. This creates difficulties in decision-making and a divide between the parties. The government prioritises short-term national benefits and party long-term benefits, often overlooking the country’s prosperity. Unsuccessful coalitions may be detrimental to democracy due to lack of political management and the satisfaction of support groups.

ROLE OF PRESIDENT:

The President’s role is crucial in Hung Parliament situations, as they are empowered to take necessary steps. In India, fresh elections are conducted when no parties can form a government. Before implementing President rule, the President and State Governor allow parties to form a coalition government to avoid fresh elections.

The Sarkaria Commission was appointed to provide guidelines for the President to appoint a Prime Minister in cases of a fractured mandate.

1)The pre-electoral alliance with a majority should be given the first preference.

• The pre-electoral alliance with a majority should be given the first preference
• The second preference should be given to the single largest party without a majority.
• The third preference should be given to the post-electoral alliance with a majority.
• The final preference should be a post-electoral alliance where some partners join the government while others provide external support.

The commission’s classification of the Hungarian government faces issues as it doesn’t consider the party closest to the majority, and the President can invite the single largest party to form the government.

In the year 1989 elections, the following political propositions were advocated:

• A defeated government may appeal to the electorate, but it exhausts its opinion to form a government for the next parliamentary term.
• After the previous government’s defeat, the people desire a new government.             To achieve this, it is crucial to explore the possibility of an alternative government to the recently defeated one.
• The Prime Minister who lost the election must resign, even if their party loses the majority or remains the largest single party after the election, as the resignation will take effect after the selection process.
• The President should first explore the possibility of opposition forming the government, with the person with the most support being given the first choice.
• A leader who unilaterally declares the formation of a government without competition must allow it to test its strength on the House floor.
• If the opposition rejects government formation, the President must explore the possibility of the defeated party forming a government and testing its majority in the House.

The Supreme Court has declared the parliamentary form of government as a fundamental part of the constitution, making the presidential form unsustainable in India. Therefore, the President’s decision holds significant importance in a Hung Parliament, as it contradicts the constitutional principles of democracy and parliamentary freedom.

CONCLUSION:

In India’s Hung Parliament situations, a coalition government is formed instead of holding fresh elections, leading to opposition and potential unconstitutionality. The Indian Constitution allows citizens to form associations, but political parties are subject to restrictions. Defection practices, driven by power clinging and not alliance opportunities, have not been curtailed due to varying interpretations of Anti-defection law. This results in an unstable government. To address this, the Speaker and President should be entrusted with more powers and a statute or set of rules should be framed to regulate political parties in such situations.

FAQ’s 

1)Which statements describes about ‘Hung Parliament’?

1. A Parliament in which no party has clear majority
2. The Prime Minister had been resigned but the Parliament is not dissolved
3. Parliament locks quorums to conduct business
4. A lame duck Parliament

Ans A

2)Who are the Ministers responsible to the Parliament and has to resign if the Lok Sabha loses the confidence.

1. Council of Ministers
2. State Ministers
3. Cabinet Ministers
4. All the above

Ans D

3)A person who is not a member of parliament is appointed as a minister then he to get elected to a house of parliament within _____.

1. A month
2. Three months
3. Six months
4. Stipulated time by the president

Ans C

4)A person who is not the member of either House of the Indian Parliament after being appointed as minister has to become the Member of Parliament within ______________.

1. 3 months
2. 6 months
3. 9 months
4. 12 months or a year

 Ans B

5)Select the Prime Minister who could not face Parliament during his tenure.

1. Chaudhari Devi Lal
2. Chaudhari Charan Singh
3. Chander Shekhar
4. Atal Behari Vajpayee

Ans B

REFERENCES

1. http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l389-Hung-Parliament.html
2. https://www.insightsonindia.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/cnstitutional-law-hung-parliament-and-the-role-of-the-president.pdf
3. https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/52353/8/08_chapter%202.pdf      

Author: Epsi Beula D, a Student at Government Law College, Vellore