Lok Sabha suspends Congress’s Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury: How Privileges Committee works

It added that till the committee submitted its report, the House should suspend the Congress leader from its proceedings. Lok Sabha adopted the motion with a voice vote. Earlier this year, Rajya Sabha used a similar mechanism to direct its committee of privileges to look into the actions of Congress MP Rajani Ashokrao Patil for making a video recording of an unauthorised part of the upper House proceedings.

What are parliamentary privileges?

Parliament and its Members (MPs) have certain rights and immunities that enable them to function effectively in their legislative roles. These are called parliamentary privileges.

When the Constitution framers made our founding document, it provided that parliamentary privileges would be those specified in a law made by Parliament. And until the national legislature made such a law, privileges would be those enjoyed by the House of Commons, the lower House of the United Kingdom’s Parliament. In 1978, Parliament deleted the reference to the House of Commons by a constitutional amendment. And it is yet to make any law specifying these privileges.

Parliamentary privileges are, therefore, a mix of provisions in the Constitution, statutes, House procedures and conventions. For example, the Constitution specifies that MPs have freedom of speech and immunity from judicial proceedings against anything they say or votes they cast in Parliament.

Also, the Code of Civil Procedure protects them from arrest and detention under civil cases during a parliamentary session, and for a specified period before it begins and after it ends. Parliamentary rules specify that authorities should immediately inform the Speaker of Lok Sabha and Chairman of Rajya Sabha about MPs’ arrests, releases and convictions.

Accompanying the question of privilege is the concept of Contempt of the House. An authority on parliamentary functioning, the book Erskine May defines contempt as “…any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence.”

How does Parliament act on breach of privilege?

Each House of Parliament is the guardian of its privileges. Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha have the authority to take suitable action against anyone who breaches the privileges of its members or commits contempt of the House. There are two mechanisms by which Parliament takes up these matters. The first is by a member raising the issue on the floor of the House, and then the House decides on it.

But Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha usually send the matter for a detailed examination to their Privileges Committee. The committee recommends to the House a course of action which is then accepted by it. The Chairman of the Lok Sabha committee currently is its MP Sunil Kumar Singh, and the Deputy Chairman of Rajya Sabha, Harivash, heads the committee of the upper House.

MPs can also bring matters of breach of privilege to the notice of the presiding officers of their respective Houses. The presiding officers can then decide whether or not to send the case to the committee of privileges.

What kinds of cases come to the committee?

Usually, the committees examine cases where MPs complain that an outsider has breached their privilege. For example, the Lok Sabha committee recently looked at multiple instances in which MPs have alleged that government officials have either violated protocol or been unresponsive. But this year, MPs have also brought questions about breach of privilege by other MPs.

On the Lok Sabha committee’s agenda is a matter raised by BJP MPs Dr Nishikant Dubey and Prahlad Joshi, against Congress party MP Rahul Gandhi “for making misleading, derogatory, unparliamentary and incriminatory statement during discussion on the motion of thanks on President’s Address”. In Rajya Sabha, MPs have brought at least eight cases of breach of privilege against their colleagues.

These are about video recording unauthorised proceedings, gross disorderly conduct, repeated submission of identical notices, disrespectful observations against the Chairman, misleading the media about House proceedings, and including names of MPs in a motion without their consent.

What does the committee decide in breach of privilege cases against MPs?

The Committee of Privileges has the power to recommend to the House for its consideration the issuance of admonitions, reprimands, suspension and, in rare cases, expulsion from the House. The convention followed by the committee of both Houses is that if the MP against whom a privilege matter is raised gives an unqualified apology, then the issue is allowed to rest, and it recommends no further action.

In one rare case in 1978, the Lok Sabha committee on privileges recommended the expulsion of then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. And the next Lok Sabha rescinded the earlier recommendation.

In a 2009 case of BJP MPs displaying bundles of cash in the Lok Sabha during the debate on the confidence motion, the committee held their actions to be contempt of the House. It strongly disapproved and condemned their actions and said it hoped there would be no recurrence of such events.

The Rajya Sabha Committee on Privileges has examined the issue of the breach of privilege of MPs to participate in House proceedings because of disruptions caused by other MPs. In its 2009 report, it expressed its view that responsibility lay on the senior members of a political party to restrain their MPs from disrupting the House. Its 2014 report recommended a series of steps for preventing disruption of House proceedings.

Recently it held that by video recording the unauthorised proceedings of the House, Rajani Ashokrao Patil was guilty of breach of privilege. It recommended that the suspension she had already undergone be treated as sufficient punishment and recommended the discontinuance of suspension.

(Chakshu Roy is head of outreach at PRS Legislative Research)