Writing for The Wire just after the verdict of the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, I had expressed hope that the pressure of coalition politics and the scrutiny of a strengthened opposition might revive the institution of parliament. But then I had tempered my own optimism with the reality check that those interested in taming an institution will always find a way.And this, in essence, is what an objective review of parliament’s functioning in 2025 will reveal – a tamed institution failing to keep the government accountable. The only silver lining is that it didn’t get any worse, possibly because there is no scope for falling below the already low expectations that we now have from the institution of parliament.In this article, I critically analyse 12 major developments from the functioning of the Indian parliament in 2025.Still no deputy speaker in the Lok SabhaArticle 93 of the constitution mandates the election of a speaker and a deputy speaker in the Lok Sabha ‘as soon as possible’ after its formation. The ‘as soon as possible’ hasn’t materialised since May 2019 for the post of deputy speaker. Conventionally this post goes to the opposition, but between 2014 and 2019 it was occupied by an MP from the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, a BJP ally.By keeping the post vacant, the government is clearly indicating that it is neither interested in sharing power with the opposition nor with its own allies. It is also exploiting a constitutional silence – no consequences are prescribed in the Constitution for not electing a deputy speaker. The status quo persists and the government gets away with wantonly violating a constitutional mandate.The unceremonial exit of a former Rajya Sabha chairpersonBut thankfully, the post of deputy chairman is not vacant and he was available to take over the reins of the Rajya Sabha on the first day of the monsoon session of 2025, when former Vice President and Rajya Sabha chairperson Jagdeep Dhankhar suddenly resigned citing health reasons. From blatantly partisan conduct to enabling hasty legislations, Dhankhar left behind a chequered legacy.Even then, if reports are to be believed, it was extremely problematic that his surprise resignation and exit without a formal farewell was due to his acceptance of the impeachment notice moved by the opposition against a sitting high court judge on corruption allegations when the government was keen that its own sponsored motion in the Lok Sabha be admitted first.If true, it only exemplifies the already-known fact that the independence of these high constitutional offices from executive control is nothing but a pipe dream.The absent prime ministerThe post of prime minister is held by Narendra Modi, who is now the second longest-serving prime minister of India. However, he is also likely to have the distinction of being largely absent from parliament, for the few days it is in session anyway.He has never answered any question in parliament and never responded to any legislative debate. His participation is limited to the bare minimum – responding to the debate on the president’s address (ceremonial) and responding to no-confidence motions (constitutional requirement) and some occasional politically expedient speeches. Like during the winter session, when he initiated the debate on ‘Vande Mataram’, but was not present in the country when a crucial Bill related to nuclear energy, a department he is in charge of, was taken up.He holds the portfolio of one ministry and two departments and is responsible for ‘all important policy issues’. This is nothing but an articulation of the ‘collective responsibility’ of the council of ministers, which he heads, to the Lok Sabha as mandated in Article 75(3). He has, however, almost entirely delegated this responsibility to his council of ministers, relieving himself of the mundane tasks of everyday accountability.Missing parliament sittingsIn 2025, parliament managed to be in session for a grand total of 61 days. This is commendable as it was a slight improvement over parliament’s 55 day per annum average during the 17th Lok Sabha (2019-24).The government alone, through the cabinet committee of parliamentary affairs, decides whether, when and how long a parliament session will be and a fewer number of sittings in a year is a clear indication of the government’s own lack of interest in facing parliament.For this reason, the government actively resisted calling a special session of parliament in the aftermath of the Pahalgam terror attack and during Operation Sindoor, despite repeated demands from the opposition and citizens alike.From the pandemic to assembly elections, in the past various excuses have been cited to truncate sessions, which has now been normalised to the extent that no justification is sought or provided anymore.From 14 hours to four minutes – lawmaking reduced to a gameAt the complete discretion of the government, a Bill may either be debated for hours on end or passed within minutes. In the budget session, the Waqf Amendment Bill was debated for 12 hours in Lok Sabha and 14 hours in Rajya Sabha. But the Income Tax Bill, running into 500+ clauses, was passed without any debate in the monsoon session within four minutes while the opposition was protesting and demanding a debate on the special intensive revision.In fact, in the monsoon session, as per my research, six Bills were passed without any debate and almost all Bills were passed without the opposition’s participation.🚨Report card of Govt during #MonsoonSession – 6 Bills passed WITHOUT debate amid protests, almost ALL bills were passed with NO Opposition participation in either or both Houses!🚨Why stop Opposition protest – Prime Minister (pic 1)We will pass Bills without you -… pic.twitter.com/Y8cUNpK20x— Maadhyam (@maadhyam_engage) August 22, 2025The government has also set a dubious precedent, following it session after session, which is to wait till the last week of a session to introduce crucial, controversial Bills and then push for their passage within the week itself.From the Bill to regulate online gaming in the monsoon session to the Bill replacing and repealing the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) in the winter session, government not only brought these Bills as a complete surprise, but insisted on their passage without any consultation or proper scrutiny.Only one in four Bills scrutinised by committees ‘preferred’ by governmentAs per PRS Legislative Research, only 11 out of 42 Bills introduced since the formation of the 18th Lok Sabha have been referred to committees for prior scrutiny. This roughly amounts to 26% of Bills, an improvement from the tenure of the 17th Lok Sabha where 16% of Bills were studied by committees before being passed.However, only one of these 11 Bills has been referred to the respective standing committee, and the rest have been referred to specially formed joint parliament committees or select committees.The government not only actively resists sending Bills to committees, but when push comes to shove, it prefers sending Bills to committees of its choice. If the relevant standing committee for that Bill is chaired by an opposition MP, the government instead sets up a special committee to send the Bill to, which is always chaired by a BJP MP.See past instances of this ‘committee-hunting’ here and instances from 2025 below:Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Bill – referred to a select committee chaired by BJP MP Tejasvi Surya, instead of the standing committee on commerce chaired by Trinamool Congress MP Dola SenViksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill – referred to a joint parliament committee (yet to be constituted) instead of the standing committee on education chaired by Congress MP Digvijaya Singh.NDA dominates committeesThis ‘committee-hunting’ by the government seems ridiculous in light of the fact that most standing committees are chaired by National Democratic Alliance (NDA) MPs anyway. As we have explained here, while the composition of committees largely reflects the composition of the House, the chairpersons are appointed by the speaker/chairman. The bulk of the committees being chaired by NDA MPs raises crucial and legitimate questions on the independence of these committees, a precondition for holding government accountable.BJP’s dominance of #Parliament committees is near complete, raising critical questions on the ability of Committees to hold government #accountable in an effective manner.A short #thread 🧵on the newly reconstituted and existing Committees👇 pic.twitter.com/qiz99IIQmX— Maadhyam (@maadhyam_engage) October 3, 2025Some new and some old tactics by government to escape accountabilityThere are many predictable patterns through which government escapes accountability – shorter sessions; stonewalling demands from the opposition for debate on controversial issues, leading to protests; repeated disruptions and adjournments; passing Bills without debate during protests, etc.This time, however, a new tactic was added to government’s toolkit – midnight madness! During the budget session, after a 12-hour debate on the Waqf Bill ended in the Lok Sabha at around 2 am, home minister Amit Shah insisted that the resolution to approve President’s Rule in Manipur be taken up and passed there and then.It wasn’t a routine administrative exercise. President’s Rule is imposed on a state in response to a breakdown of constitutional order and its approval by parliament is not a formality but an exercise in seeking accountability from government on steps being taken to restore constitutional order. None of that could happen because the resolution was approved in the dead of the night, while we were sleeping.You may ask, but you may not get an answerRecently, much outrage was caused when government responded to a question in parliament that there is no direct link between air pollution and lung disease. This response didn’t come as a surprise to me at all, given that government has consistently given this copy-paste response in parliament since 2020 at least. As per my research, irrespective of the question asked in parliament, government gives the same response while discrediting studies, even by the WHO, that indicate deaths due to air pollution.Giving incomplete or copy-paste responses or ignoring some inconvenient questions altogether, the government has found clever ways to evade parliamentary questions.Censorship by public broadcaster Sansad TVSansad TV is supposed to telecast proceedings of both Houses of parliament live. One would expect the public broadcaster, run on taxpayer’s money, to objectively telecast whatever is happening in parliament, including protests by opposition MPs. People have every right to see and judge for themselves the conduct of their elected representatives.But Sansad TV not only blocks out protesting MPs, even when there is order in the House, but visuals of the speaker/chairperson and treasury benches dominate the feed.This entire exchange is frankly quite embarrassing!First, Kiren Rijiju says that a day long debate on #AirPollution was listed after Opposition demanded it. Yes, but it was listed on 18th December, when the #WinterSession started on 1st December. Govt waited till all its Bills… https://t.co/gUaYtvQihH— Maadhyam (@maadhyam_engage) December 20, 2025During the winter session, however, this censorship got parliamentary affairs minister Kiren Rijiju in a fix. Government listed the debate on air pollution in the Lok Sabha on the second last day but adjourned the House immediately after passage of the Bill to repeal MGNREGA, amid opposition protests. The next day parliament was adjourned sine die without conducting any work.Later, speaking to the media, Rijiju claimed that government was ready for a debate on air pollution but that the opposition was protesting and wasn’t interested. When called out by people on social media, he tried to prove his point by sharing an unauthorised video from the Lok Sabha, without providing any source, which showed opposition MPs protesting while the MGNREGA repeal Bill was being passed. These visuals were never broadcasted by Sansad TV, raising serious questions about all such instances where the public has been deprived of the true picture of what is happening in parliament.Private member Bills were back in the newsPrivate member business, where MPs propose Bills and resolutions for the consideration of parliament, is only conducted in the second half of a Friday. Taken very casually, private member business often becomes a casualty of adjournments due to political reasons or taken over by government for its own business.As per PRS Legislative Research, during the winter session, private member Bills were introduced in the Lok Sabha for the first time since August 2024.From a Bill by Nationalist Congress Party (Sharad Pawar) MP Supriya Sule to have a right to disconnect from work to a Bill by Congress MP Shashi Tharoor to criminalise marital rape, these private member Bills not only lead to much-needed discussion among the public, but succeeded in highlighting policy issues that government is not prioritising.Collective concern about parliamentAnd the last development of 2025 is a rather positive one – a growing collective and vocal concern about the flailing health of parliament. From stories and editorials in mainstream newspapers to visible outrage on social media, many voices questioned the strained functioning of parliament.Several MPs, largely from the opposition, wrote op-eds and raised these issues in parliament itself, highlighting the fewer number of sittings and a lack of constructive debates. Two of these MPs had earlier this year introduced private member Bills on these issues as well.Many experts also expressed concern on growing polarisation between the government and the opposition leading to conflicts and disruptions. On social media as well, many citizens raised their voice questioning hours spent debating ‘Vande Mataram’ but no time being given in parliament to debate air pollution. This collective concern is crucial as this shows that, though our expectations may be low, people haven’t yet given up on the institution.And this is the message of renewed hope and tryst with which we must proceed in 2026, acknowledging that institutions survive and thrive only under consistent public pressure and scrutiny.Maansi Verma is a lawyer and founder of Maadhyam, an initiative to closely follow and enable critical citizen engagement with parliament and policy making.