CHENNAI: The Tamil Nadu Assembly’s decision to telecast its proceedings live marks a step towards transparency, but it has brought a pertinent question into focus – whether the practice of expunging remarks remains effective in the age of social media.
Leader of the Opposition Udhayanidhi Stalin on Friday pointed out that although the Speaker had been expunging remarks, portions of it were being converted into “reels” and circulated online. Speaker JCD Prabhakar assured the House that circulation of expunged remarks or videos brought to his notice would be referred to the Privileges Committee.
The Speaker’s ruling can determine the official record, but cannot easily erase something already in the public domain. The Parliament, too, has grappled with television channels re-telecasting portions subsequently expunged.For decades, expunction served a clear purpose.
Defamatory, indecent, unparliamentary or undignified expressions could be removed from the official record to protect the dignity and orderly functioning of the House. It was never primarily intended to erase a remark from public memory; rather, it determined the authoritative legislative record.
Before live telecasts, an expunged remark could largely disappear from the official record and had limited circulation. Ever since the entire proceedings of the House started being telecast live, clips of these remarks appear on YouTube, X, Instagram and WhatsApp within minutes. Even if removed from the official transcript or archived video, copies exist across platforms.
Expunction stems from the Westminster tradition that influenced India. The principle was that legislators should enjoy freedom to speak inside the House, subject to parliamentary rules and the Chair. In India, Article 105(2) of the Constitution protects MPs from court proceedings in respect of anything said or any vote given in Parliament.
Expunction therefore operates as an internal disciplinary mechanism: legislators have freedom of speech within the House, subject to its rules and the authority of the Chair. Significantly, the Madras High Court had anticipated this difficulty. While hearing a petition filed by DMDK founder Vijayakanth in 2015 seeking live telecast of Assembly proceedings, the court, on January 23, 2024, suggested a 30-minute deferred telecast to allow time for removing remarks ordered to be expunged.
In 2025, the Uttar Pradesh Assembly Speaker announced plans involving AI-enabled cameras and mechanisms to identify or filter objectionable comments before certain material is made public. It also planned to provide MLAs with clips of their speeches for public use. Until then, expunction in the age of live broadcasting and social media becomes merely a mechanism for correcting the official record.
