“Why should the timetable of one who enjoys the mandate of the people be truncated because of the timetable of another? It makes no sense. In a parliamentary system, you cannot have fixed terms. The reason that fixed terms since 1952 ended is because of the fact that we have in our country a parliamentary system… different Houses, different majorities, different coalitions, may rise and fall at different times,” Tharoor explained.He further argued that changing the system in this manner was unnecessary and impractical, as it would likely lead to similar issues when a future government at the Centre or in the states loses the confidence of the majority. “My view is that this entire thing is a folly. In any case, the votes today have demonstrated that the BJP does not have the two-thirds majority required to pass a constitutional amendment,” he remarked.Tharoor also pointed out that while the government might structure a parliamentary joint committee to secure a majority, the lack of a two-thirds majority in the House would prevent a constitutional amendment. “So this discussion is increasingly futile,” he concluded.
Source link
