During the Winter Session, the Lok Sabha had discussed a Private Member's Resolution after a span of 37 weeks (including 8 weeks of that session period). The resolution was moved by Shafi Parambil urging the government to take appropriate measures to regulate airfares in the country. The discussion could not have been more apposite, given that India had faced one of its steepest crises in its civil aviation sector around that time.
Interestingly, it was the first and the only Private Member's Resolution discussed till the Winter Session of the 18th Lok Sabha since its first sitting on June, 24, 2024. This resolution was moved on July 26 (in the second session of the 18th Lok Sabha), discussed further on March 28, 2025 (in the fourth session of the 18th Lok Sabha), and, finally, concluded on December 12, 2025 (during the sixth session of the 18th Lok Sabha). This remarkably sluggish pace of progress is, arguably, the hallmark of the parliamentary device of Private Member's Resolutions, listed every alternate Friday afternoon during a session period.
Private Member's Resolutions, moved under Rule 28 and Rule 170 of the Lok Sabha Rules, are an important parliamentary device, which afford opportunity to individual members, regardless of their party affiliation, to bring matters which they deem important for the consideration of the House and, thereby, to enquire the state of affairs in that regard from the government. The resolutions are generally framed in the manner of a long statement of facts which form the premise of the issue, succeeded by a precise statement of the demand which is generally in the nature of amending/ enacting any laws on the subject or taking specific remedial steps in that regard. These resolutions, unlike Private Member's Bills (which are draft laws proposed by the MPs on particular issues), are statements of demands put through the House before the government for appropriate redressal as significant instruments of legislative moral pressure upon the executive.
In a deeply divided legislative polity replete with allegations of majoritarianism and stifling of dissenting voices, Private Member's Resolutions can be strategically leveraged by the Opposition to set the deliberative agenda. Moreover, the design of these resolutions enables the possibility of a vote at the end of a discussion, which is often the point of friction on matters of debate between the government and the Opposition.
Yet, despite their immense potential and importance to the deliberative and accountability functions of Parliament, Private Member's Resolutions continue to be a victim of overarching partisan neglect and systemic apathy that, inter alia, manifest in abysmally low attendance of members on Friday afternoons (often leading to adjournment due to lack of quorum), dispensing with private member's business for transacting government business with the consent of the House and indiscriminate disruptions by the Opposition. Such behaviour compounds the structural limitations that undermine the efficacy of this device. The bi-weekly allocation of merely 2.5 hours in a House of 545 members on a day that witnesses lowest attendance is grossly insufficient and robs the opportunity from members to present the issues of their constituents for structured discussions before the House.
There is a fervent need to enhance the parliamentary stature enjoyed by Private Member's Resolutions. First, Rule 26 of Lok Sabha Rules should be amended to mandate four hours for private members business on Fridays. Second, a convention must develop to conclude discussion on a resolution in two turns to ensure timely disposal of issues. Realising the full potency of this device by all sections of the House will enhance meaningful deliberation and ensure executive accountability.
Riddhiman Chandra Agarwal and Atharv Dwivedi study at National Law University, Jodhpur