A new record was created with the suspension of 100 Members of Parliament (MPs) from the Lok Sabha (LS) and 46 from the Rajya Sabha (RS) during the Winter Session. This negative milestone not only removed 146 MPs but also muted the voices of nearly 34 crore Indians (almost 25 per cent of the population) — the number of voters they represent. The unprecedented suspensions seem to be a result of the Opposition’s vociferous demand for a statement on the recent security breach from the Home Minister. Consequently, crucial bills are being passed without adequate deliberation and discussion.
Colonial Origins, Contemporary Challenges
The motive behind vesting Parliament with the power to suspend MPs, under Rule 374 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of the LS (LS Rules) and Rule 256 of a similar set of rules for the RS, is to allow them to check the behaviour of MPs disregarding the Chair’s authority or persistently and wilfully obstructing the business of the House. This power comes from Articles 105 (Powers, Privileges, etc., of the Houses of Parliament) and 118 (Rules of Procedure) of the Indian Constitution. However, the genesis of this idea of self-regulation lies in the colonial legacy of British parliamentary practices adopted by the Federal Assembly formed under the Government of India Act, 1935. Additionally, the Supreme Court of India has also relied on the authoritative English treatise of Erskine May’s Parliamentary Procedures and Privy Council precedents while dealing with cases on the suspensions in the Indian legislatures (Ashish Shelar v Maharashtra Legislative Assembly (2022)).
Interestingly, the British Parliament has suspended only 25 members since the 2019 elections. Even this has led a former chair of the House of Commons Standards Committee to label it as the “worst parliament in history” (https://bit.ly/3GSmduF). The starkly contrasting suspension figures in India show that simply inheriting the disciplinary powers from the British House of Commons, by virtue of Article 105(3) of the Constitution (as it originally stood), has not automatically translated into a replication of the decorum and orderly conduct in parliamentary proceedings. This is made evident by the continuous protests and rampant disruptions which have significantly impacted the Indian Parliament’s productivity, as exemplified by the LS and RS functioning for only 43 per cent and 55 per cent of the allocated time, respectively, in the Monsoon Session of 2023, according to the PRS.
Inconsistencies in Suspensions
Over time, the disorder in legislatures has been attributed to various reasons such as shrinking space for the Opposition to raise important matters, the government’s unresponsiveness and treasury benches’ retaliatory stance, deliberate disruption by parties for political gains or publicity, and delayed action against MPs disrupting the proceedings. Notably, past suspensions covered a range of misconduct including the tearing and throwing of papers towards the Speaker by AAP’s Sushil Kumar Rinku while the LS was considering the Delhi Services Bill; violent behaviour and attacks on security personnel by 12 RS MPs in 2021; charging and hurling of the rulebook towards the Speaker’s podium by Derek O’Brien during the vote on the three contentious Farm Bills; and snatching papers from the Speaker’s table by seven Congress MPs during the Budget Session of 2020. Nevertheless, discrepancies exist between the grounds given in the rules and the actual factors triggering suspensions including the government’s strength, the political climate, the complexity of legislative issues, and ulterior political agendas, among others. For instance, MP Satyagopal Misra did not face any action for dislodging and throwing the Speaker’s mic in July 1989 during the CAG report on defence purchases.
The trajectory of the suspensions has seen a progression from individual cases to larger, unprecedented ousting of MPs. It began with a single, independent RS MP, Godey Murahari, marking the first instance on September 3, 1962. This number surged to 63 MPs suspended on March 15, 1989, for demanding a discussion on the Thakkar Commission Report concerning the assassination of Indira Gandhi. Conspicuously, this previous record of highest suspensions was also set in the election year when the then government enjoyed the thumping support of more than 400 MPs in the Eighth LS, which was the last time any single party obtained a full majority before the 16th LS in 2014. This, along with the relatively lower number of suspensions during UPA I and II (50 MPs in total), hints at the correlation between the comfortable majority enjoyed by the ruling party and its tendency to suspend dissenting MPs en masse.
Tackling Disruptions through Deliberative Democracy
Democracy thrives on public trust in institutions, particularly Parliament. However, this trust falters when constituents witness their representatives not being able to voice their concerns in the temple of democracy due to their suspension in bulk. It is essential that due deliberations take place even if the passing of bills is a foregone conclusion owing to the ruling majority. Debates on significant pieces of legislation like the three Criminal law reform bills, the Telecommunications Bill and the Bill on the appointment of Election Commissioners with empty Opposition benches erode the faith in and highlight the futility of parliamentary procedures. While technically valid, bills passed by a majority in the absence of Opposition raise concerns about the propriety and sanctity of the laws. Substantive due process must outweigh the formal procedure of legislation for upholding the legitimacy of enactments, considering their profound societal impact. The shift towards voting for a party or a single face, rather than local candidates, reflects the diminishing stature of parliamentarians to mere numbers.
In Ashish Shelar, the Supreme Court clarified that suspension is a “self-security mechanism” of the House and not a punitive tool. When the majority has its way, the minority must have its say. However, when the party in power uses suspension to stifle dissent, evade collective responsibility, and silence opposition, it amounts to a political process failure in a parliamentary democracy. The remedy then rests in a healthy dialogue across the floor of the House. The government, in conformity with the parliamentary traditions, should prioritise addressing queries raised in the House before engaging with the media. Simultaneously, the Opposition should respect the people’s mandate given to the ruling party to run the House.
Sharma is Associate Professor of Law, Singh reads law (fourth year) at RGNUL and Sachdeva reads law (fourth year) at RGNUL, Patiala, Punjab
© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
First published on: 23-12-2023 at 4:00 PM IST