Whip System in India Introduction

• Recently, the Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar raised significant concerns about the use of party whips in Parliament, questioning their role in restricting the independent judgment of elected representatives. 
• His remarks have sparked a fresh debate over the balance between party discipline and the freedom of MPs to exercise their judgment on crucial legislative matters.
• While the system is designed to ensure efficient functioning of Parliament and smooth passage of legislation, Vice President Dhankhar contended that it infringes upon the fundamental rights of MPs. 
• According to Dhankhar, the whip system diminishes the autonomy of elected representatives and curtails their freedom of expression, which is essential for the healthy functioning of a democracy.

What is the Whip System?

• A whip is a written instruction issued by a political party to its members, directing them to attend parliamentary sessions and vote according to the party’s position. 
• The whip system is used by political parties to ensure that their MPs attend parliamentary sessions and vote in accordance with the party’s stance on key issues.
•  The whip, an appointed position within the party, is responsible for ensuring that members follow party lines during critical votes. 
• The system is crucial for maintaining party cohesion and discipline, which is essential for the smooth functioning of any democratic institution.

Origin of the Whip System

• Edmund Burke and the British Parliament: The concept of the whip system originated in the British Parliament. Edmund Burke, an influential political philosopher, first referred to the idea of “whipping in” MPs to support a particular vote, especially on critical issues. This concept eventually became formalized into the whip system, which was later adopted by parliamentary systems around the world, including India. 
  • For example, in the UK, during critical votes like the Brexit debate, MPs were often subjected to a three-line whip to ensure party unity.
• Whip System in India: While the Constitution of India and the Rules of the House do not explicitly mention the office of the whip, the role has evolved based on parliamentary conventions. 
  • For example, the All-India Whips Conference, initiated in 1952, is a platform for whips from various political parties to exchange views and strategies regarding parliamentary matters.
  •  The conference, organized by the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs, is vital for facilitating cooperation between political parties in managing legislative business. 

Types of Whips

• One-line whip: This is a general notice informing MPs of a vote. MPs are not required to vote but are expected to attend the session. For instance, during the 2016 demonetization debate, the BJP issued a one-line whip to ensure MPs were present for the crucial discussions but did not mandate how they should vote.
• Two-line whip: This requires MPs to attend the session but does not mandate how they should vote. MPs have the freedom to choose their stance on the issue. A two-line whip was used during the discussions on the Triple Talaq Bill (2019), allowing BJP MPs to be present but leaving their vote up to individual discretion.
• Three-line whip: This is the strictest form of directive. MPs must attend and vote in accordance with the party’s position on the issue. For example, the BJP issued a three-line whip during the 2016 Goods and Services Tax (GST) Bill debate, instructing all members to vote in favor of the legislation, which was passed with overwhelming support from the ruling party. Defying a three-line whip can lead to disqualification under the Anti-Defection Law.

What is Anti Defection Law?

• To ensure the stability of elected governments, the 52nd constitutional amendment introduced the ‘anti-defection’ law through the Tenth Schedule in 1985. 
• This Schedule provides that a member of a House of Parliament or State legislature who voluntarily gives up the membership of their political party or votes against the instructions of their party in a House are liable for disqualification from said House. 
• This instruction with respect to voting is issued by the ‘whip’ of a party. 

How the Whip System Works in India?

• Role of the Whip: Every political party in the Indian Parliament, whether in power or opposition, appoints a Chief Whip and additional whips. The Chief Whip is responsible for ensuring party members’ attendance during important votes and guiding them to vote according to the party’s official stance.
  • For example, in the BJP, the Chief Whip in the Lok Sabha during the 2019 General Elections was Jual Oram, a senior leader. His role was crucial in ensuring that BJP MPs were present and voted in favor of significant issues like the Article 370 repeal. 
• Responsibilities of the Whip: The primary role of the whip is to maintain order within the party and ensure that MPs are present during key votes. If members defy the whip, disciplinary actions can be taken, including disqualification under the Anti-Defection Law (1985). The whip’s role also includes managing MPs’ behavior in Parliament, ensuring they adhere to party policies.
  • For instance, in the 2019 no-confidence motion against the NDA government, the whip system ensured that key coalition partners, including the Shiv Sena, were instructed to vote in favor of the government, ensuring the BJP’s win.
• Positions in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha: In the Lok Sabha, the Chief Whip of the ruling party is usually the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs. In 2019, Prahlad Joshi held this role and played a crucial part in managing the ruling party’s legislative agenda.
  • V. Muraleedharan held this role and had a significant influence on ensuring that key government policies were passed in the Upper House, especially during the Farm Bills debate.

Significance of the Whip System

• Ensuring Party Unity: The whip system helps maintain unity within the party. MPs are expected to vote according to the party’s position, ensuring that the party speaks with one voice on critical issues. For instance, in the 2019 Budget Session, the BJP issued multiple three-line whips to ensure party discipline during the vote on the Finance Bill, ensuring all members followed the party’s stance on economic policies.
• Stability of the Government: The whip system is vital for the stability of the government. If a ruling party loses key votes, it can lose its majority, which could lead to a no-confidence motion or the dissolution of the government. During the 2018 Karnataka elections, the whip system played a key role in ensuring the BJP did not lose its majority in the assembly and avoided a no-confidence motion. By ensuring party discipline, the whip system safeguards the continuity of governance.
• Promoting Coherent Decision-Making: The whip system aligns MPs’ actions with the collective stance of the party, promoting a consistent and cohesive approach to decision-making in Parliament. For example, during the 2020 Farm Bills discussions, the BJP used a three-line whip to ensure that its MPs aligned with the party’s pro-farmer reform policies, even as opposition parties strongly opposed the legislation.
• Legal Backing: The Supreme Court of India has upheld the importance of the whip system, considering it essential for preserving party unity and parliamentary discipline. In the 1992 Kihoto Hollohan case, the Supreme Court ruled that MPs who defy a party’s whip on critical votes can face disqualification under the Anti-Defection Law.

Arguments in Favor of the Whip System

• Allegiance to Party Ideology: MPs are elected on the basis of their party’s ideology and manifesto. It is important that they vote in alignment with the party’s collective stance to preserve the party’s credibility and policy coherence. For example, Sonia Gandhi, the Congress leader, emphasized the need for a strict whip during the 2008 Nuclear Deal vote to ensure that MPs supported the Congress-led government despite opposition protests.
• Ensuring Party Discipline: The whip system prevents MPs from acting in ways that contradict the party’s position, which could lead to confusion or fragmentation within the party ranks. During the 2019 Citizenship Amendment Bill debate, the BJP successfully enforced party discipline through the whip system, ensuring that members voted along party lines, despite strong protests from the opposition.
• Internal Platforms for Dissent: If an MP disagrees with the party’s stance, internal party forums are available to discuss and resolve differences. Public defiance of the party can undermine the party’s unity and stability. For instance, the Congress Party used its internal forums to resolve differences over economic policies in 2019, rather than allowing MPs to publicly defy the party whip.
• Democratic Balance: While the whip system requires MPs to vote along party lines, it provides a balance between democratic representation and the need for party unity, ensuring that the party operates efficiently in the legislature.

Arguments Against the Whip System

• Limits MPs’ Independence: Critics argue that the whip system restricts MPs’ ability to act according to their own judgment. MPs may feel pressured to vote against their own views or the interests of their constituents, which undermines their role as independent representatives. A notable example of this was during the 2016 Land Acquisition Bill debate, where several Congress Party MPs, despite their personal reservations, felt compelled to follow the party whip and vote in favor of the bill, even though they disagreed with its provisions
• Infringes on Fundamental Rights: The whip system can be seen as infringing upon the fundamental rights of MPs, particularly their freedom of speech and freedom of conscience, which are enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The system of issuing a whip subjects lawmakers to “servility,” implying that their primary allegiance becomes the party line rather than the interests of their constituents.
• Stifles Debate and Dissent: The strict adherence to party lines can suppress internal party debates and discourage dissent. MPs may avoid expressing their views openly for fear of disciplinary action, which can reduce the vibrancy of democratic discourse within political parties. This was evident in 2018 National Medical Commission Bill debate, where several MPs from the Congress refrained from openly criticizing the bill despite concerns within the party, fearing the consequences of speaking out against the leadership’s stance.
• Concentrates Power in Party Leadership: The whip system can centralize power in the hands of party leaders. This diminishes the autonomy of individual MPs and potentially undermines their capacity to make independent decisions. 
• Potential Disconnect with Constituents: Critics suggest that MPs, under the pressure of the whip system, may prioritize party loyalty over accountability to their constituents, leading to decisions that are out of sync with the needs of the people they represent. For example, during the 2017 Right to Information (RTI) Amendment Bill debate, MPs from the BJP were pressured to vote in favor, even though many of their constituents were vocal about concerns that the amendments would weaken the RTI Act and hinder transparency, showing a disconnect between the MPs’ votes and the public’s demands.