The general decline in Parliamentary standards that started in the post-Nehru era has not yet been reversed.
NEW DELHI: The Indian Parliament had a very promising start and worked well during the1950s-1960s. During the 1970s, Parliament was squeezed by a great extra-parliamentary mass movement against authoritarianism and corruption and partial but crippling subversion of the parliamentary-federal Constitution during the national emergency. Democracy was restored following the 1977 general elections. But the general decline of Parliament that set in the post-Nehru era has not yet been reversed. Major indicators of this decline are shortening sessions, time lost due to disruptions in proceedings by the opposition and violation of norms and precedents by the government, rampant absenteeism, actual hours of sitting as a percentage of available hours, phenomenon of weak legislative federalism via Rajya Sabha in the overall setting of parliamentary-federalism, challenges of new extra-parliamentary mass movements, and judicial activism. However, the parliamentary reforms recommended by the constitutional review commission (2002) remain unimplemented.
Last week, several words used by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi have been expunged by the Parliament during the heated speeches over the Adani-Hindenburg row. Similarly, Opposition leader Mallikarjun Kharge raised a similar issue in Parliament over Rajya Sabha Chairperson Jagdeep Dhankhar’s decision to expunge several of his remarks linking the increasing wealth of a businessman with the BJP government and Prime Minister. Kharge claimed that he had not said anything “unparliamentary or accusatory” in his speech for his remarks to be expunged. But the major problem was the way the Congress and a few other opposition members tried to disturb and chanted all the time during the reply of Prime Minister Narendra Modi in Rajya Sabha. In my 50-year-long journalistic work, I have never seen such irresponsible behaviour from the opposition with any Prime Minister. Interestingly, this uproar could not stop Modi from speaking for 80 minutes and without naming anyone, he attacked leaders of the Congress and reminded them of their misdeeds and corruption.
Article 105(2) of the Constitution states that “no member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof…” However, Under Rule 380 (“Expunction”) Of The Rules Of Procedure And Conduct Of Business In Lok Sabha, it must be ensured that an MP must have check on what they say for the “Good Sense” of its members and the control of proceedings by the Speaker. This restricts them from using unparliamentary, defamatory, and undignified language.
According to Lok Sabha Secretariat, the Lok Sabha Speaker has the power to expunge any un-parliamentary speech made in the House. The Speaker can also refer the matter to the Ethics Committee for further action which may include imposing fines and imprisonment for a period of up to six months. The Speaker may also order the offender to apologise to the House. Similar is the procedure with the Rajya Sabha Chairman.
The expunging of certain words, sentences, or portions of a speech from the records is a fairly routine procedure and is carried out in accordance with laid down rules. The decision on which parts of the proceedings are to be expunged lies with the Presiding Officer of the House. Rule 381 says: “The portion of the proceedings of the House so expunged shall be marked by asterisks and an explanatory footnote shall be inserted in the proceedings as follows: ‘Expunged as ordered by the Chair’.” Expunged portions of the proceedings cease to exist in the records of Parliament, and they can no longer be reported by media houses, though they may have been heard during the live telecast of the proceedings.
However, the proliferation of social media has introduced challenges in the watertight implementation of expunction orders. Parliamentary speeches should be polite, respectful and dignified, avoiding any kind of personal attacks or slurs. They should focus on the issue at hand, avoiding any kind of partisan rhetoric. No offensive language should be used and all debates should be conducted in an atmosphere of mutual respect and understanding.
Parliament is the best debating club in the country. Arguments, backed by facts and figures, are what the members are supposed to unleash in Parliament, either to corner the government or defend it. In no case should the strength of the vocal cords and the fists be the determinants when issues of public interest are discussed. Millions of people are watching the proceedings of Parliament directly or indirectly through various media and they expect nothing but informed debate.
The nation spends a huge sum of money to keep Parliament sessions going and it will be a criminal waste of public money if the Presiding officers are forced to adjourn the Houses because of unparliamentary practices. Many items of mass consumption have gone out of the reach of the common man because of the staggering price rise. The speech of MPs is subject to the discipline of the Rules of Parliament, “good sense” of its Members, and the control of proceedings by the Speaker. These checks ensure that MPs cannot use “defamatory or indecent or undignified or unparliamentary words” inside the House. Rule 380 (“Expunction”) of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha says: “If the Speaker is of opinion that words have been used in debate which are defamatory or indecent or un parliamentary or undignified, the Speaker may, while exercising discretion order that such words be expunged from the proceedings of the House.” Over the years, a huge number of words, both in English and other Indian languages, have been found to be “unparliamentary” by the Presiding Officers — the Speaker of Lok Sabha and Chairperson of Rajya Sabha. These unparliamentary expressions are kept out of Parliament’s records. The Lok Sabha Secretariat has brought out a bulky volume of “Unparliamentary Expressions”.
This book contains words or expressions that would likely be considered rude or offensive in most cultures. But it also contains content that would appear to be fairly harmless and innocuous. At the time [the book was first compiled], references were taken from debates and phrases (that had been) declared unparliamentary by the pre-Independence Central Legislative Assembly, Constituent Assembly of India, the Provisional Parliament, the first to the tenth Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, state legislatures, and Commonwealth parliaments like that of the United Kingdom.
The writer is editorial director of ITV Network—India News and Dainik Aaj Samaj.