An Institutional Opportunity Lost

Sometimes in the life of an institution, a single individual (or group of individuals) reacting decisively to an event and exercising her powers conscientiously can transform that institution permanently. It is a matter of historical record that that the sterling independence of the Election Commission was the legacy of Tirunellai Narayanaiyer Seshan and James Michael Lyngdoh – a legacy that has endured the formers ill adcised bid to reach Rashtrapathi Bhavan, and the actions of some incumbents like M.S. Gill who joined not only joined a political party, but also accepted a ministership on retirement..India’s 29th State has been just been given its parliamentary birth in a manner that has not done credit to the parliamentary process, or to the members of Parliament. But it is occasions like this that provide opportunities for institutions to define, or rather redefine, and assert themselves. But, instead, the nation was forced to watch in dismay as the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha pleaded helplessly that he could not ensure an orderly division in the Council of States and still passed the bill amidst the pandemonium. A similar scene was enacted in the Lok Sabha earlier. Both the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha lost a golden opportunity to restore both the dignity and the stature of their offices, and through it, of Parliament as a whole..The last sentence is made with some sense of responsibility. The presiding officer has extensive powers to maintain order on the floor of this House. This power can only be limited by the Houses themselves since Article 105(2) and 122 provide certain constitutional safeguards from the Courts interfering in the affairs of Parliament or its members. Both the Rajya Sabha and the Lok Sabha have enacted extensive rules that govern their own procedure and conduct of business as provided for in Article 118 of the Constitution. The Rule of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha (‘Lok Sabha Rules’) and the Rajya Sabha (‘Rajya Sabha Rules’) not only provide for the conduct of members, but also provide for withdrawal and suspension of members by the Chair for any violations..Conduct of Members.Rule 349 of the Lok Sabha Rules mandate that members shall not interrupt another member while speaking by disorderly expression and noises or in any other disorderly manner; shall keep his seat while addressing the House; shall not obstruct proceedings, hiss, or interrupt and shall avoid running commentaries when another members is speaking; shall not shout slogans; shall not sit or stand with his back to the chair or approach the Chair; shall not display flags, emblems or exhibits, shall not distribute within the precincts of Parliament House any literature, questionnaire, pamphlets, press notes, leaflets, etc. not connected with the business of the House; shall not tear off documents in the House in protest. Similar rules exist in Rule 235 of the Rajya Sabha Rules. Notwithstanding the temporary blackout of the telecast in the Lok Sabha on Tuesday, there is enough evidence to accept that a clear violation of these rules!.While I am not advocating a strictly technical enforcement of these rules, it is better for Indian democracy that the minority disrupting members are suspended and meaningful discussion takes place rather than a debate like the one we witnessed in the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha.Withdrawal and Suspension.Under Rule 373 of the Lok Sabha Rules, the speaker may direct withdrawal for the remainder of a day of a member whose conduct is “grossly disorderly”. Rule 374 provides for suspension of a member for a period not exceeding the remainder of the session by the speaker naming a member and a motion being laid before the House for disregarding the authority of the Chair or abusing the rules of the House by persistently and willfully obstructing the business thereof. In addition, the rules were amended in 2001 to provide for automatic suspension for five consecutive sittings or the remainder of the session, whichever is less, on a member being named by the speaker for coming into the well, abusing the rules, or persistently or willfully obstruct business of the House by shouting slogans..Similar powers are provided in Rules 255 and 256 for the Chairman in the Rajya Sabha Rules. The Rajya Sabha rules have now provided, again by amendment in 2000, for a Committee of Ethics in Chapter XXIV. Rule 303 provides that the committee can recommend sanctions which can include, inter alia, censure, reprimand, or suspension. The report will have to be tabled and passed by the House to take effect..Expulsion.There are no specific rules that provide for expulsion of a member of Parliament. However, Article 105(3) gives the Indian Parliament the same powers, privileges, and immunities of the House of Commons. One of the inheritances that our Parliament has inherited from that mother parliament is the power to expel its own and extends to punishing anyone else who interferes with the proper conduct of the House. As recently as 2005, the House expelled 11 members in the cash for query scam..However, an early example is instructive. When Congress Member of Parliament, H.G. Mudgal, was accused of taking a monetary payment for raising queries in the House, the great parliamentarian and democrat Jawaharlal Nehru himself moved the resolution to accept the report of the ad hoc committee set up for this purpose stating that it was a case where the House must do its duty in a voice that is “clear, precise and definite” and to show leniency would be to set a bad example for the future. When the member attempted to circumvent the coming expulsion by giving a face saving and explanatory letter of resignation, the House modified the resolution and treated the letter as an aggravated contempt of the House and held him deserving of expulsion. Such were the standards sought to be set..Conclusion.There are those who would argue that suspension of members and passing of an important bill such as the Telengana Bill would be a negation of democracy. But the parliamentary system requires that all members accept that the view of the majority after hearing of the minority will prevail on the floor of the House. The minority can still approach the Courts if they feel that the Act so passed violates any constitutional mandate. But they cannot shout slogans in the well of the House or hold placards calling a bill illegal or unconstitutional. To make such a declaration is the exclusive preserve of the Courts. .Action by the Chair, and if need be, expulsion from the House by members in a bipartisan manner will send a clear message to present and future members of the limits of acceptable conduct. It would also restore the office of the presiding officer as a credible institution of democracy above bipartisan politics. Rather than undermining democracy, this would only serve to enhance quality and image of our Parliamentary system. No minority should have the power to silence the democratic process in such a manner..(Suchindran B.N. is an advocate practicing in the Madras High Court)