NEW DELHI: The penultimate session of the 17th Lok Sabha that was adjourned sine die a day ahead of schedule on Friday, will go down in parliamentary history as having set a grim record on suspensions. Action was taken against a whopping 146 members of both Houses by the presiding officers. While 100 MPs were suspended from the Lower House, the Upper House saw similar action against 46 for the remainder of the session. The MPs were suspended for their unruly conduct and disruption of proceedings while demanding a statement from Union Home Minister Amit Shah on the December 13 security breach.
The rule book says it is the responsibility of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and Chairman of the Rajya Sabha to maintain order and decorum in the House to ensure smooth functioning. The presiding officers maintain that the Opposition created a ruckus and entered the well of the House with placards despite their commitment not to resort to such extreme forms of protests in the new Parliament building. Both the Speaker and the Union home ministry immediately set up two separate high-level panels to probe the Parliament security breach. Their reports are awaited. On December 13, two men jumped into the Lok Sabha from the visitors' gallery with smoke canisters, setting off chaos in the House.
The rule book
Rules 373, 374 and 374A of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha empower the Speaker to direct a member to withdraw immediately from the House if "he is of the opinion that the conduct of any member is grossly disorderly". In the Rajya Sabha, the Chairman can apply similar provisions under Rules 255 and 256.
Speaking to this paper, former Lok Sabha Secretary General PDT Achary says the suspension of 146 members is unprecedented and unjustified on any grounds. “The Speaker cannot bring order to the House by suspending such a large number of members. Suspension of a member is the last resort as the House cannot function without the members being able to serve it. I would say, Somnath Chatterjee, who held the Speaker's post during the UPA-1 rule, is the best example. He always tried his best to put the House in order without resorting to suspensions,” says Achary. Under Rule 374, the Speaker can name a member who “disregards the Chair”. After the MP is named, the House can move a motion to suspend the legislator.
What does Rule 374 say
"(1) The Speaker may, if deems it necessary, name a member who disregards the authority of the Chair or abuses the rules of the House by persistently and wilfully obstructing the business thereof. "(2) If a member is so named by the Speaker, the Speaker shall, on a motion being made forthwith put the question that the member be suspended from the service of the House for a period not exceeding the remainder of the session: Provided that the House may, at any time, on a motion being made, resolve that such suspension be terminated.
"(3) A member suspended under this rule shall forthwith withdraw from the precincts of the House."
Achary pointed out that Rule 374A was incorporated into the Lok Sabha Rule Book in 2001. Under this rule, the members can be suspended only for five days. According to Rule 374A: “(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in rules 373 and 374, in the event of grave disorder occasioned by a member coming into the well of the House or abusing the Rules of the House persistently and wilfully obstructing its business by shouting slogans or otherwise, such Member shall, on being named by the Speaker, stand automatically suspended from the service of the House for five consecutive sittings or the remainder of the session, whichever is less: Provided that the House may, at any time, on a motion being made, resolve that such suspension be terminated.
“(2) On the Speaker announcing the suspension under this rule, the Member shall forthwith withdraw from the precincts of the House.” However, this provision has not been extended to the Rajya Sabha yet.
As the government holds the Opposition responsible for the logjam in the House, Achary cites Article 75(3) of the Constitution, which says that the government is accountable to Parliament. “When such a serious security breach happened, the government should have taken the first opportunity to come before Parliament and brief them about it. The government is duty bound to inform Parliament about all matters relating to the governance of the country,” he says.
Duration of suspension
Achary says a member can be suspended for the remainder of the session only. The House can also revoke the suspension of a member by passing a motion, he pointed out. However, the suspension of 11 MPs in the winter session has been referred to the Privileges Committee. The action against them is likely to continue till the Privileges Committee submits its report. “There are no such rules. Suspensions cannot be extended after the session is over,” says Achary.
Checks and balances?
There is no need for checks and balances in the rules to suspend the Parliamentarians, says Achary. “The rules have been framed in such a way that they cannot be applied at the drop of a hat. The rules clearly say that a member can be suspended only when he ‘persistently wilfully disregards the authority of the Chair’. It is not disregarding the direction of the Chair. That means a member can be suspended only in the case of an aggravated form of defiance,” he says.
Is it a good precedent?
Speaking to this newspaper, Dr M R Madhavan, President of PRS Legislative Research says that though earlier Parliaments have witnessed acrimonious scenarios, most of the presiding officers were reluctant to suspend members. The 15th Lok Sabha, which is described as one of the most disrupted in Independent India, saw only 29 suspensions, says Madhavan.
“An entire session was washed out on the issue of the 2G spectrum scam. Then there was the coal block allocation scam and the issue of Andhra Pradesh bifurcation etc. Still, only 29 members were suspended. Most of them were suspended for Andhra Pradesh agitation,” he says, adding that Parliament is the highest forum for discussion and the primary task of the members is to take up national issues and to hold the government accountable.
“The question is whether the House retains its legitimacy for discussions. If there is no significant presence of the Opposition, is Parliament doing its job? That is precisely the reason why presiding officers were reluctant to suspend members in the past. When Somnath Chatterjee was the Speaker, only five people were suspended during five years though he has seen a lot of disruptions and ruckus,” recalls Madhavan.
Passing key bills in the absence of Opposition
The winter session saw the passage of half a dozen bills, including the three criminal bills to replace the colonial-era Indian Penal Code, Code of Criminal Procedure and the Indian Evidence Act; the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Bill, Telecommunication Bill and Press and Registration of Books Act.
“All these bills are significant and have far-reaching effects on people’s lives. However, the bills were passed essentially with only the treasury benches speaking on them. Half of the Opposition was absent during the passage of the bills. It’s not a good trend. It is a question of propriety. Are those discussions happening with enough content from all perspectives? If you are losing the substance, what is the point of having those discussions?" says Madhavan.
Way forward: UK model
Dr Madhavan suggests that there is a need to rethink the way Parliament is functioning. “The British Parliament has devoted 20 days in a year to the Opposition parties. It is called ‘Opposition days’. The Opposition decides the topic of discussion on those days,” he shares. While many point to the lack of time and opportunity for the Opposition as the main bone of contention, Dr Madhavan says structural issues need to be addressed first.
“Here, primarily the government decides the agenda. It is not about which party is in power. Irrespective of which party is in power, the tussle has been going on for years. We need to address the structural problems first,” he says.
PAST SUSPENSIONS