By Vivek K Agnihotri
Certain portions of the speeches of two leading members of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, including the leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha, were expunged by the concerned presiding officers. The expunctions related to allegations made regarding the benefits harnessed by a leading businessman because of his close association with the prime minister. Article 105 of the Constitution provides that there is freedom of expression in parliament. 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, proceedings of the two houses of parliament are governed by the rules and regulations framed by the concerned Houses as a self-regulating mechanism. They are not open to question of any third-party or even individual members of parliament.
According to Rule 380 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business (Rules) in the Lok Sabha, if the Speaker is of the opinion that words have been used in a debate which are defamatory or indecent or unparliamentary or undignified, the Speaker may, while exercising his/her discretion, order that such words be expunged from the proceedings of the House. Rule 261 of the Rules of the Rajya Sabha confers similar powers on the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha. Further, Rule 238 of the corresponding rules of the Rajya Sabha inter alia states that a member while speaking shall not refer to any matter of fact on which a judicial decision is pending, make a personal charge against a member or reflect upon the conduct of persons in high authority unless the discussion is based on a substantive motion drawn in proper term. A ruling of the Chairman issued on April 15, 1987, relating to parliamentary etiquette further states that no aspersions should be cast on any person who is not a member of the House. Another ruling of the same date states that there should not be any derogatory remarks against a person who is incapable of defending himself in the House [rulings numbers 313 and 323 of the Rulings and Observations from the Chair (1952-2008)].
It has also been held that remarks not relevant to the debate may be expunged. Further, quoting from a document of which advance notice has not been given and which is not relevant to the debate may be expunged. The hand books for members of the Rajya Sabha as well as the Lok Sabha, in their respective sections on parliamentary customs and conventions, prescribe that display of exhibits on the floor of the House is not in order. Expunction from the proceedings of the House may be ordered in one of the following circumstances, namely, the Speaker himself holds a certain word or words as defamatory or unparliamentary or undignified when such word(s) is/are uttered; or a member or a minister invites the Speaker’s attention at the time when such words are uttered; or if the attention of the Speaker is drawn to objectionable words by an officer of the secretariat or otherwise or a motion is moved for expunction.
Ordinarily, there is no review regarding words already expunged and requests from members for restoration of expunged words or raise the question of expunction in the House have generally been turned down. There have been rare cases where the Speaker on consideration has agreed to restore some words expunged from the proceedings of the previous day. The decision of the person presiding regarding expunction of any words is final and no appeal lies to the Speaker. The Speaker has ruled that he has no authority to alter or revise or review a decision once given by the chair, whether it was the deputy speaker or a member of the panel of chairpersons.
When certain words or expressions have been ordered to be expunged or ordered not to be recorded, the media is expected to take note of the orders of the expunction or non-recording and to ensure that such portions are not telecast in the recorded versions by the electronic media or reported in the press. In the original video tapes also, which are with Sansad TV, expunged not recorded portions are erased, consistent with the printed version. Publication of the expunged words or expressions would amount to a breach of privilege of the concerned house of Parliament.
The context in which a word or sentence is used is also very significant in making the decision on whether to expunge it or not. Again, what is not relevant to the topic of the debate may not be allowed to go on record. The topic of the debate, in the present case, was motion of thanks on president’s address. What may be legitimately acceptable as an oral question on the prime minister’s visits abroad may not be relevant in the context of motion of thanks on the president’s address under Article 87 of the Constitution, which inter alia provides that at the first session each year, the president shall address both houses of parliament assembled together and inform parliament of the cause of its summons. It further states that provision shall be made by the rules regulating the procedure of either House for the allotment of time for discussion of “matters referred to in such address”. During this discussion, the members normally talk about various programmes and schemes of the government and their advantages or shortcomings. Motions to amend the president’s address are also moved, with reference to matters referred to in the address as well as to matters which, in the opinion of the mover, the address had failed to mention. After the prime minister has replied to the debate, the amendments that had been moved are either withdrawn or disposed of through a voting procedure and the motion of thanks is put to the vote of the House. After the motion is carried, it is conveyed to the president as directed by the Speaker through a letter. The president also acknowledges the receipt of the motion through a message to the Speaker. On receipt of the message, the Speaker reads it out to the House. The Rajya Sabha too has a similar procedure. It is thus a fairly formal process.
For raising issues in parliament, the motion of thanks on the president’s address is not the only instrument available in the rule book. There are various ways in which, following the procedure prescribed, the members can hold the government accountable for its actions. These include the question hour, half-an-hour discussion if the member is not satisfied with the reply to a question, motion on matters of public interest, short duration discussion, calling attention to matters of urgent public importance, special mention, questions of privilege, among others.
The Leader of the Opposition (LoP) in the Rajya Sabha in his letter to the chairman, Rajya Sabha, has averred that criticism of policies and programmes of the government cannot be construed as allegations against any member of the House (Rule 238 of the Rules of the Rajya Sabha aforementioned). Indeed, there can be no quarrel about criticism of policies and programmes of the government by the Opposition on the floor of the House or in the civil society outside. However, personal barbs laced with sarcasm are not in consonance with the dignity and decorum of parliament.
The LoP in the Rajya Sabha has also referred to Rule 238A of the Rules of Rajya Sabha and argued that “criticism of the government, its policies and their impact, can never be equated with the ‘dignity of the Council’. Further, it is difficult to fathom that in a parliamentary democracy, no public interest is served by criticism of policies and their consequences”. Rule 238A is actually a subset of Rule 238 and is titled “Procedure regarding allegations against members”. It has nothing to do with the government, its policies and their impact. Specifically, the LoP has quoted from the proviso of Rule 238A which, in effect, states that the chairman may at any time prohibit any member from making any allegation against another member if he is of the opinion that such allegation is derogatory to the dignity of the Council or that no public interest is served by making such allegation. In any case, the present prime minister is not a member of the Council of States (Rajya Sabha).
Moreover, Rule 353 of the Rules of Lok Sabha prescribes that no allegation of defamatory or incriminatory nature shall be made by a member against any person “unless the member has given adequate advance notice” to the Speaker and also to the minister concerned so that the minister may be able to make an investigation into the matter for the purpose of a reply. The tenor of Rule 353 of the Lok Sabha rules is similar to that of Rule 238A of Rajya Sabha rules.
—The author is former Secretary-General, Rajya Sabha