Opinion Hooliganism in Rajya Sabha

AT long last the Constitution (108th Amendment) Bill 2008 was passed in the Rajya Sabha,the first step for securing reservation for women in Parliament. This was a historic moment and an achievement which should make every Indian proud. But the circumstances and events which marked the passage of the Bill fills every Indian with shame. Opposition to the Bill is understandable,sloganeering in the House can be tolerated but disruption of the House by various antics is certainly not a legitimate democratic method. Moreover,snatching the Bill and tearing it,breaking Chairman Hamid Ansari’s microphone,and climbing on the table is unpardonable. It was a gross insult to the House and in effect to the people of India. If some MPs behave like hooligans in order to paralyse proceedings,should the House be a mute spectator? The provision for suspension of MPs is precisely to meet such situations and if the suspended MPs continue to remain in the House and obstruct its proceedings,it becomes a painful duty to effect their expulsion with the aid of marshals. No doubt these powers should not be exercised lightly but in exceptional cases. The spectacle of marshals bodily removing members from the House is as revolting as the sight of an obstructing,obstreperous lawyer being removed from the Court room by men in khaki. But these members have to thank themselves for the situation they brought upon them. It is bizarre that those who behaved like rowdies in the House should have the temerity to condemn the action against them as anti-democratic. A mechanism should be evolved to ensure accountability of the parties to which such members belong. The action taken should send a strong signal that hooliganism in any House will not be tolerated. If members believe in the importance of the proceedings in the House and care for the dignity of the Chairman and the Speaker,let there be no mock sentimentality about the action taken. Norms of parliamentary democracy and dignity of the House should be the paramount consideration. Hopefully,there will be no repetition of the situation which was witnessed by numerous persons in our country with sheer disgust and by our friends and admirers abroad with dismay. Parliamentary democracy in our country is in urgent need of redemption.

Shashi Tharoor’s embarrassment

IF you use words which are not familiar to people in general,you invite trouble. Minister Shashi Tharoor was misunderstood as suggesting US mediation between India and Pakistan when all he said was that the US could be an interlocutor. An interlocutor inter alia means “a person who takes part in a conversation; the man in the centre of a troupe of minstrels who engages the others in talk or acts as announcer”. I had a somewhat similar experience when I commented on a legal note prepared by a solicitor that was not at all intelligible to me. The poor man was deeply offended and complained that I had called him unintelligent when all I meant was his note was not clear,which is the meaning of intelligible. Once while arguing a writ petition in the Bombay High Court in which an order of confiscation by the Customs was challenged,one of the judges observed that my client should have exhausted the alternative remedy of appeal under the statute. When I responded by saying that an appeal would be one from Caesar to Caesar,in other words a futile exercise,the judge growled,“Mr Sorabjee there is no seizure here; it is a case of confiscation”. My elderly instructing Parsi Solicitor Rustom Gagrat pulled my gown and told me not to argue in stylish English but in plain simple legal language. I can appreciate Shashi’s predicament. The moral is: Use simple homely English.

Advertisement

In counsel’s argument and even in some judgments,an official’s order is branded as perverse,which means that it is deliberately deviating from what is right and proper,utterly irrational. Perverse is not to be confused,as often happens with perverted which has different implications. Shashi beware.