Absence of accountability

Vidhan Bhavan, the seat of the state legislature, at Nariman Point. FILE PIC

In the recently concluded Maharashtra budget session, ministers' absence from the Assembly and Council cost a total of three hours and 45 minutes of legislative time, accounting for a significant share of the total 8.3 hours lost overall in the four-week session.

The breakdown is telling. In the Assembly, one hour and 15 minutes were lost, of which 60 minutes were lost due to a minister's absence. The Council saw a far greater disruption, losing seven hours and 20 minutes, of which two hours and 45 minutes were due to a minister not turning up.

This was not a disruption caused by protests. Nor was it the result of ideological clashes. It was entirely avoidable.

And that is what makes it serious.

Legislative time is not just about proceedings; it is about public accountability. Every question asked and every issue raised reflect the concerns of citizens. When the House cannot function because a minister is absent, it is not merely a delay in work; it is a failure to respond to the public.

Alongside this, something else is quietly lost: public money.

Running a legislature comes at a cost: salaries, allowances, staff, security, and infrastructure. Every hour carries a financial burden. When time is lost due to absence, taxpayers' money is effectively spent without accountability.

In any corporate or administrative setup, such lapses would invite scrutiny. Responsibility would be fixed, and consequences would follow. In politics, however, the standards often appear more relaxed.

The concern is not just about one incident; it is about what this reflects. For perhaps the first time in Maharashtra's history, both Houses functioned without a Leader of the Opposition, raising serious questions about the strength of debate and institutional balance.

Attendance trends add to the worry. In the Assembly, attendance ranged from a high of 86.53 per cent to a low of 54.69 per cent, averaging 78.84 per cent. In the Council, the variation was even sharper, with attendance dropping from 86.54 per cent to just 36.54 per cent, averaging 73.75 per cent.

Such fluctuations weaken the very foundation of legislative functioning. When attendance falls to nearly one-third, as seen in the Council, debate suffers, and accountability diminishes.

Senior MLA Jayant Patil, with over three decades of experience, underlined this concern. Speaking on the final day of the session, he noted that he had never witnessed a session where key Bills, such as those related to Mumbai's property tax and cooperative sector reforms, were passed without detailed discussion.

This, he suggested, may be a consequence of overwhelming numerical strength. The Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis-led Mahayuti alliance commands 237 MLAs in the 288-member Assembly, giving it a dominant majority.

The government is not the only one at fault. The Opposition, too, has failed to demonstrate the sharpness and persistence needed to effectively hold the government accountable. Several key issues, the controversial Pune land deal, the VSR plane crash, the arrest of a minister's staff in a bribery case, and the LPG and gas crisis, were either weakly raised or not debated to the extent they deserved.

What makes this more striking is the contrast with the government's own messaging. The chief minister and deputy chief minister frequently speak of efficiency, discipline, and fast governance.

If that is the standard, why is it not reflected in the functioning of ministers within the legislature?

Why is something as basic as a minister's presence becoming an issue? Why are there no systems to ensure continuity when one minister is absent?

Governance cannot rely on intent alone. It requires systems, planning, and accountability.

Being a minister is not just about authority; it is about responsibility. It means being present, prepared, and answerable, especially in the legislature, where the government faces scrutiny. This cannot be
treated as optional.

So the question is straightforward: what needs to change?

Should stricter rules ensure ministerial presence? Should alternative ministers be designated to step in? Should repeated absences be formally recorded and acted upon?

These are not unreasonable demands. They are basic expectations in any system that values accountability.

Because ultimately, this is not just about lost hours.

It is about what those lost hours represent: missed accountability, wasted public money, and a widening gap between promises and performance.

And that is something no legislature, and no democracy, can afford to ignore.

Sanjeev Shivadekar is political editor, mid-day. He tweets @SanjeevShivadek
Send your feedback to mailbag@mid-day.com
The views expressed in this column are the individual's and don't represent those of the paper.