Both Houses of Parliament possess the power to discipline recalcitrant members so that they can function undisturbed. This power is given to ensure the smooth functioning of the Houses and to punish those who create disorder. Rule 374 of the Lok Sabha empowers the chair to name the member who “disregards the authority of the Chair or abuses the rules of the House by persistently and willfully obstructing the business thereof” — whereupon the government brings a motion instantly to seek the approval of the House to suspend that member. When the House adopts the motion, the member stands suspended. Rule 256 of the Rajya Sabha is identical. On suspension, the member is required to immediately leave the House or he will be forcefully removed. One important thing to be noted here is that the right to punish a member is vested in the House only, and not in the Chair. So if the motion is not passed by the House, the member is not suspended. Under the above rules, the maximum period of suspension is until the end of that session. The rules also provide for the termination of suspension at any time.
A close examination of these rules reveals that they are meant to clear obstruction in the House so that business can be conducted without obstruction. Of course there is also an element of punishment in it. The member is temporarily disqualified in as much as he is not allowed to attend the meetings of the House or any meeting of the committees of which he may be a member, during his suspension. Similarly, he won’t be allowed to give any notice of questions, motions or resolutions. In effect, he is compelled to remain a non-member during this period.
There are two important points that must be underlined here. Firstly, suspension is resorted to as a last step. Disregarding the authority of the Chair does not mean that the Chair can name a member if he refuses to sit down when asked to do so. It refers to a blatant and shocking defiance of the Chair persistently by the member. Similarly, willful and persistent obstruction of the business alone qualifies for the naming and suspension of a member. This means that a very aggravated form of defiance and obstruction can, in itself, leave the Chair with no option other than suspension of the member. Secondly, suspension is a temporary punishment that can be revoked even the next day. There are numerous instances in both Houses when suspension has been revoked within a day or two, even though the members were initially suspended for the remainder of the session. It is because the House does not want to be deprived of the services of its members for a long time. The basic principle is that the House needs the uninterrupted services of all its members and so suspension is to be a last resort.
This fundamental idea about the disciplinary powers of the Houses seems to be changing of late. The recent suspension of members, including the leader of the Congress party in the Lok Sabha, points to such a change. For example, in one case in the Rajya Sabha, the suspension of a member, Sanjay Singh, has been extended beyond the end of the recent session. In another case, a member, Raghav Chadha, has been suspended pending investigation by the privileges committee of the House. In the Lok Sabha too, the leader of the Congress party, Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury, has been suspended pending investigation by the privileges committee. It must be stated here that this kind of suspension is unheard of in the history of parliament. Suspension pending investigation is done only in the case of government employees because the rules permit it. But in the case of members of parliament, there is no such rule. It is understood from media reports that they have been suspended because there are cases of breach of privilege pending against them. So, the Houses have suspended those members not for disobeying the Chair or obstructing the business of the House, but for allegedly committing a breach of privilege of the members of the House.
Rules of the Houses of Parliament are framed under Article 118 of the Constitution and these can operate only subject to the provisions of the Constitution. The Houses are required to regulate their activities only in accordance with these rules. Suspension of a member can, therefore, be done only in accordance with the rules (374 and 256). Further, residuary powers under Rule 266 of the Rajya Sabha can be invoked only when the House has to deal with matters that are not explicitly provided for in the rules. Suspension is expressly provided for in rule 256, and therefore residuary powers of the Chairman cannot be invoked.
The above suspensions are for an indefinite period and therefore do not conform to the rules. Is such an action by the Houses valid? The Supreme Court held in Ashish Shelar vs Maharashtra Legislative Assembly (2022) that any suspension beyond the period prescribed in the rules is unconstitutional. The court said, “If the resolution passed by the House was to provide for suspension beyond the period prescribed under the said rule, it would be substantially illegal, irrational and unconstitutional”.
The plea of procedural irregularities under Article 122 does not seem to hold. The Supreme Court says, “it is not a case of procedural irregularity as such whereas the decision taken by the House in this case is one of substantial illegality in directing suspension beyond the period of the remainder of the session” (Ashish Shelar).
The legislative houses are in turmoil due to a variety of political reasons. The political class has the task of finding ways to end the turmoil and bring harmony to our legislatures. Exercising the disciplinary powers of the House cannot be the only effective way to run the supreme legislative body of the country. The true genius lies in finding and applying the right method — the nation has to wait for that.
The writer is former secretary general, Lok Sabha
