An Expert Explains: Speech of MPs, checks & reporting, tech-age disconnect

Article 105 protects the words and votes of MPs from legal proceedings. This freedom is a fundamental requirement for the functioning of the parliamentary system. It traces its origin to the British Parliament that codified this freedom in a law made in 1688 called the Bill of Rights. One of its sections states “That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament.”

In the Indian context, this principle found place in the Government of India Act of 1919 which set up modern legislatures in pre-Independence India. The rules made under this law regulated the work of these legislative institutions. For the Central Legislative Assembly, the rules specified that members in their speeches should not refer to matters pending before courts, make personal allegations against other members, comment on the conduct of high offices (like the King, Governor General) or use seditious, defamatory words.

‘Tongawallas and tea sellers’

The debate in the central legislature was lively, and members adhered to these rules. A British observer writing about the Assembly in 1926 noted that it was “pathetically polished, humdrum, and in the observance of parliamentary form remarkably competent”. Non-official members of the central legislature used their free speech right to criticise the colonial government regularly. But if a member made a personal remark about another, the presiding officer would intervene and ask him to withdraw it.

For example, in 1938, at a particularly heated moment during the debate on a Bill, one member, referring to another, said, “My Honourable friend must remember that he is not talking on the streets of Peshawar to tongawallas and tea sellers. Here we have men who understand politics and statesmanship…”

The other member responded, “The tea-sellers of Peshawar are far more respectable than the Honourable Member.” Since it was a personal comment on a member, the chair promptly asked him to withdraw his remark.

RS rules different from LS

The current Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha rule books follow the same principles that regulated the speeches of the members of the Central Legislative Assembly. The two Houses have identical rules, with one exception. In Rajya Sabha, MPs cannot make a personal charge against a Member. Lok Sabha had a similar provision till 1989. The Eighth Lok Sabha (1985-89), which witnessed acrimonious discussions on the purchase of Bofors field guns, did a comprehensive update of its rules towards the end of its tenure, and made amendments to the rule book.

One change has a bearing on how MPs debate in Lok Sabha. The rule book now states that MPs, while speaking, should not “make personal reference by way of making an allegation imputing a motive to or questioning the bona fides of any other member of the House unless it be imperatively necessary for the purpose of the debate being itself a matter in issue or relevant thereto”. Other than this change, the rules regulating the speeches of MPs have remained the same since Independence.

Presiding officers’ decision

The implementation of the rule book is in the hands of the Chairman of Rajya Sabha and the Speaker of Lok Sabha. Their interpretation of the rules should encourage debate to further the constitutional mandate of Parliament for representing people, holding the government to account, making laws and passing the Budget. The two presiding officers decide on what goes on to the printed and digital records of the House.

The rules of procedure give them discretion in removing words from the recorded proceedings of the House which are “defamatory or indecent or unparliamentary or undignified”. This discretion is required because MPs have constitutional protection from legal proceedings for their speeches in Parliament. MPs need this protection to fulfil their constitutional mandate as public representatives and lawmakers.

An essential check

The discretion to delete words or parts of speeches allows presiding officers to check MPs who might use their constitutional immunity to defame individuals who will have no recourse against the parliamentarian. In 1950, a United States Senator, during Senate proceedings, had referred to a professor at Johns Hopkins University as “the top Russian espionage agent in the United States”. The professor had no recourse other than to recount his ordeal after the Senator’s remarks in a book, ‘Ordeal by Slander’.

Presiding officers regularly delete words from the parliamentary record. In 2020, Vice President Venkaiah Naidu expunged a word from the Prime Minister’s reply to the motion of thanks to the President’s address. More recently, in the winter session of 2022, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla deleted a section of remarks made by Jharkhand BJP MP Nishikant Dubey in which he had referred to the Chief Minister of Jharkhand.

Reporting by the media

Linked to the free speech of MPs and the deletion of words/ parts of their speeches is their reporting by the media. In 1956, Parliament passed a private member Bill piloted by MP Feroze Gandhi that provided immunity from civil and criminal lawsuits for anyone publishing an accurate account of parliamentary proceedings. This law allowed newspapers to report on parliamentary proceedings. It was repealed during the Emergency and reinstated shortly after.

At the end of the day, presiding officers examine the day’s proceedings and delete certain portions from the written and video record in conformity with the rules. Reportage based on the record of Parliament offers protection from legal proceedings.

Present-day conundrum

When presiding officers delete words or sections of speech, they are no longer part of Parliament’s record. In the present technological landscape, it creates a peculiar situation. When there is a live telecast of Parliament’s proceedings, people watch, tweet, and record it. And by the time Parliament updates its record, the deleted parts have already been circulated and shared extensively on social media.

This creates a disconnect between the speeches in the parliamentary record and the publicly available version online. It also means that every individual (including MPs) who shared the speech as was delivered by an MP on the floor of the House is in breach of the privilege of Parliament. Both these outcomes have an impact on the institution’s image.

Chakshu Roy is Head of Outreach at PRS Legislative Research