Order of speech

Parliament8217;s own rec-ords attest to its inability to carry on with the paces while in session. In Budget Session 2007, for instance, Lok Sabha worked for only 51 per cent of its originally scheduled time. Rajya Sabha managed even less, 43 per cent of the time it was meant to. According to statistics compiled by PRS, a Delhi-based research group, on 10 days of that session 8212; curtailed in any case by 10 days from the planned 42 days 8212; Lok Sabha met for less than an hour. Rajya Sabha clocked in 13 such days. There is nothing to show that Budget Session 2007 was exceptional in any of these shortfalls. For more than a decade, sittings of the two Houses have become familiar for obstructions and absences, adjournments and walkouts.

This is why Rajya Sabha Chairman Hamid Ansari8217;s decision to refer a question of privilege to the Committee on Privileges could be especially interesting. Ansari took note of a complaint by a group of MPs alleging that fellow members had prevented them from participating freely in question hour. This, they argued, amounted to an infringement of their rights as members of the House. The Indian Parliament is yet to codify its privileges, but this case should open up debate on what freedom of expression means in our legislative chambers. Parliamentary privileges, for instance, protect an MP from action in any court for what he may say in the House or how he may vote. But what of disruptions? When an MP is prevented from speaking or from participating in proceedings by another using disruptive techniques, which of the two is more entitled to claim freedom of expression? Chairs, empowered to take disciplinary action, have nonetheless tended to relax the rules to allow opposition members to voice their view 8212; as the two-liner goes, governments have their way, the opposition must have its say.

Yet if Parliament is to be the space which contextualises the government8217;s actions with the opposition8217;s interrogation, some respect to the processes of the two Houses is important. This is evident from the near complete breakdown of any dialogue between the treasury and opposition benches in recent years. The Privileges Committee8217;s diversity of views on the issue is bound to be informative and valuable. But the House chairs may find the onus of decision-making in such cases returning to their discretion. In times of abundantly occupied opposition benches, it is easy to overlook the possibility of governments with huge majorities in Parliament. In that case, it would be entirely the chair8217;s discretion to allow the opposition disproportionate ways to make itself heard.