Drawing lines in the House

The 63 honourable members suspended for such 8216;misbehaviour8217; included prominent figures like Somnath Chatterjee, V. Kishore Chandra S. Deo, Basudev Acharia, Hannan Mollah, S. Jaipal Reddy, Amar Roypradhan, Vishwanath Pratap Singh and others. Names of leftists, more particularly the communists, were noteworthy. The Congress was in power.

There were, however, some significant differences between the 1989 and 2008 events. The issue then was the demand that the Thakkar Commission Report on the assassination of Indira Gandhi be placed on the table of the House. Action was taken immediately on the floor of the House, by motions moved by the minister of parliamentary affairs, after the chair had named the members. The motions were passed by the House by voice vote. The action was preceded by efforts to resolve the differences through a meeting with the leaders of the opposition and a short adjournment of the House by the deputy speaker. Also, from the statements of the minister of parliamentary affairs, it seemed that the suspension was being done with the consent of the opposition members or on their having asked for it themselves. It was not at any stage treated as an issue involving a breach of parliamentary privilege.

So far as the rules are concerned, there are different provisions and separate procedures prescribed for dealing with questions of parliamentary privilege Article 105 of the Constitution and Lok Sabha Rules 222 to 233 and matters of parliamentary decorum and etiquette, code of conduct, unruly behaviour on the floor of the House etc. Rules 349 to 359.

Normally, a question of breach of parliamentary privilege is raised by a member. The House 8220;may consider the question and come to a decision or refer it to Committee of Privileges8221; Rule 226. Also the speaker 8220;may refer any question of privilege to the Committee of Privileges for examination, investigation and report8221; Rule 227. When something happens on the floor of the House in full view of the members usually no further examination or investigation or reference to committee may be deemed necessary and the House can straightaway proceed to take a decision on the matter.

If there is a clear case where privileges of the House, its committees or its members are breached or a contempt of the House is committed, the whole House should rise above all party considerations and stand as one man to protect the honour of the House. When former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on a motion moved by the new Prime Minister Morarji Desai was expelled from the membership of the House and sent to jail for the alleged 8220;serious breach of privilege and contempt of the House8221;, the motion had to be subsequently rescinded by a Lok Sabha resolution as having been 8220;wrong and erroneous8221;, 8220;gross distortion of privilege law8221; and 8220;misuse of majority8221;. The fundamental principle was established that matters of parliamentary privilege should never be treated as party issues or 8216;government versus opposition8217; concerns.

Rules of procedure and conduct of business in Lok Sabha inter alia contain a code of conduct for members. The speaker enjoys vast powers to ensure the smooth and orderly conduct of the business of the House. He can ask a member to withdraw from the House for disorderly conduct or may even suspend a member from the service of the House on a motion for gross disorderly behaviour.

It is possible that disorderly behaviour may be deemed to be of such order as to constitute obstructing the business of the House and amounting to contempt of the House in which case the House may decide to consider the matter as a question of breach of parliamentary privilege.

It is amazing how perceptions and prescriptions of our politicians change when they move from opposition to positions of power or vice versa. When in power, they lecture the opposition on good behaviour in the House but when the roles are reversed the same members behave exactly as the earlier opposition did. For instance, when in opposition, the Congress had its own 8216;shouting brigade8217; and could proudly pat itself for stalling the proceedings of the House for weeks.

Notwithstanding all the rules and constitutional provisions, the days when members could be punished for disorderly conduct have long become history. For several years, the practice has developed not to use the disciplinary powers of the chair and at best to order that what the members said without permission 8216;shall not go on record8217;. In the worst cases of disorderly behaviour that made the House completely dysfunctional, the chair would normally resort only to adjournment of the House, sometimes even several adjournments on the same day, without considering any action against the recalcitrant members.

That having become the accepted culture and practice of the House, it was somewhat anomalous that questions of disorderly conduct should have been treated as matters of breach of parliamentary privilege and referred to the Committee of Privileges for examination, investigation and report. That those named were largely from the opposition threatened to make it a party issue or a 8216;government versus opposition8217; question more than a question of the privileges of Parliament.

The writer is former secretary-general Lok Sabha 1983-1990 and author of a two-volume study on 8216;Parliamentary Procedure8217; and a six-volume 8216;History of Parliament8217;