Eight opposition MPs of the Rajya Sabha were suspended on Monday by the chairman for the remainder of the session for creating unruly scenes in the house during the voting of three controversial farmers’ bills on Sunday. The opposition members had recommended that the controversial farmers bills be referred to a select committee of the house for scrutiny. However, the deputy chairman of the NDA Harivansh Narayan Singh was not interested in prolonging the passage and so the bills were pushed through dubious voice vote. The reason why the government decided to brush aside the demands for division vote was possibly due to fears that even some friendly parties could vote against it. Besides the known opponents, the bill was opposed by BJP’s estranged ally, the Shiromani Akali Dal while friendly parties such as BJD,TRS and AIADMK had also expressed serious concern over the bills and would have likely voted with the opposition if voting took through a division. It is not that voting through voice vote is dubious but has to be conducted fairly. On Sunday, amid the din and noise, the voting was rendered meaningless. In all fairness, the deputy chairman ought to have ensured that the voice vote was repeated or taken a head count if not, asked for division of votes. The demand of the opposition was therefore, not undemocratic though an exercise in futility since the ruling party alliance had the numbers. However, since bills were contentious in all fairness, the government ought to have given democracy if not the opposition an opportunity to air their views. True that the government has majority in the both houses of parliament and feel it has the mandate to carry forward its policies. However in parliamentary democracy, it is not only about majority but the principle of fairness. Every member has the right to be given an opportunity to be heard. The bills were passed through voice vote right after the house resumed business amid the ruckus and tumult. When the deputy chairman rejected pleas for holding, does raise very discomforting questions about Indian democracy. The Opposition has alleged that since many including BJP allies were not going to vote in favour of the bill, the Deputy Speaker Singh was “in a hurry” to pass the bills by a “frivolous” voice vote. The Opposition moved a no-confidence motion against Singh but it was not accepted. But, even if it was, the decision of passing the bills on voice vote would have remained unaffected. Now, can these bills be challenged in a court of law? To answer this, Punjab CM Captain Amarinder Singh has already said his government will challenge “unconstitutional, undemocratic and anti-farmer” moves by the Centre in the courts. The Bills can be challenged by states under Article 131, which allows for cases between the Centre and States in the Supreme Court of India. The bills may be controversial or contentious and for which the court will take the call. However, what matters is the manner in which parliament has been conducting itself. Be it some controversies involving the speakers or the unruly behaviour of the members. It is not the first time that such incidents have happened inside parliament and it won’t be the last unless the members resolve to behave themselves.