Democracy Dsrupted

*Anumeha

Overview

That representative democracy and parliamentary institutions have persevered in India for over six decades, and are still going strong, is indeed a tribute to their strength and resilience.1 However, our pride is tempered by our growing sense of cynicism about the falling standards of parliamentary debates and practices, and a sure decline in the quality and conduct of its members, many with criminal records.

All these have been compounded by frequent parliamentary logjams or disruptions returning with alarming regularity. Common Cause has been much concerned about the increasing instances of logjams which not only undermine the legislature but also affect governance and waste public resources. Earlier issues of this journal have dealt with legal, political, economic and ethical angles of disruptions. In this article we examine the powers of presiding officers in Parliament vis a vis disruptions/misconduct and also look at the instances when they have acted against unruly members. Over the years, not only the Parliament but the State Legislative Assemblies too, have been witness to unprecedented scenes of violence, sloganeering, protests and unruly behavior. A few such incidents have been collated in this article.

Powers of the Speaker

The Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha, i.e. Rules 373 and 374 respectively, confer upon the Speaker the power to order the withdrawal of member and suspend a member. Rule 374 (A) (incorporated in 2001) provides for automatic suspension of a member on account of grave disorder triggered by the member coming into the well of the House or abusing the Rules of the House persistently and wilfully obstructing its business by shouting slogans or otherwise. Rule 375 details the power of the Speaker to adjourn the House or suspend any sitting.2

In August, 2015, the Lok Sabha Speaker, Smt. Sumitra Mahajan named and suspended twenty five Congress Lok Sabha members for five days for “persistently and wilfully obstructing” proceedings in the House by invoking Rule 374(A). She maintained that she took this “decision for the future good of Parliament”. She underlined that the “opposition must have its say, but the government also must have a way.” She also said that she hoped to give parliamentary proceedings ‘a fresh start’ with her ‘stringent decision’ against obstructionism in the house.

This move by the Speaker was not entirely without precedents. In 2013, the decision of the then

Lok Sabha Speaker Meira Kumar to suspend the protesting members of Seemandhra region on two occasions resulted in a legal debate on whether the Constitution bestowed the Speaker with such powers. Twelve MPs were suspended in the first and nine in the next instance.4 Ms Kumar had suspended the members by invoking Rule 374 A, which did not require a vote of the House.

Even earlier the power of suspension had been evoked by the Speaker. In 1989, sixty three opposition MPs were suspended after the then parliamentary Affairs Minister H K L Bhagat had moved a resolution seeking their suspension for the remainder of the week which amounted to three days. These members were demanding that the Thakkar Commission report on Indira Gandhi’s assassination be tabled in Parliament.5

As is evident from the examples cited above, Speakers are well within their powers to suspend members if they are faced with grave disorder. However, the Speaker’s power is circumscribed by the opinion that other members of the House share on the act in question. The rise in the number of political parties and varied political interest has made it harder for the Speaker to find consensus between members on use of disciplinary powers. Hence Speakers have increasingly relied upon their powers of persuasion as against disciplinary powers.6 The Speaker’s decisions and application of Rules are based on the circumstances before him. Changing political scenarios have strained the office of the Speaker in novel ways of which increase in disruptions is the most obvious problem faced by him.

Analysis of Rule 374 (A)

Former Lok Sabha Secretary-General and constitutional expert P.D.T. Achary, expressed his views on the use of Rule 374 A for suspending members from the House. He said that this Rule had been invoked for the first time in Indian parliamentary history in 2013 and that too twice in one session.

During 2011-12, some MPs from Telangana had been suspended by invoking Rule 374, i.e., after getting the House’s nod through a motion. Mr. Achary observed that Rule 374 A suffered from Constitutional infirmities: “Under this rule, automatic suspension of members ordered by the Speaker can be rescinded by the House at any time. This provision in a way diminishes the prestige of the

Speaker. Rules cannot be made which have the effect of diminishing the prestige of the Speaker.”

In the opinion of Mr. Achary, this rule could not be invoked even on occasions of grave disorder as it was not practicable for any Speaker to suspend all unruly members citing this rule. Hence, a rule which could not be enforced uniformly due to practical difficulties should not be retained in the rule book. To vest the power of suspension in the presiding officer thereby, transferring the exclusive right of the House to him/her would be against the spirit of the rules and conventions, and practices, of legislative houses.

Speaking further on the Speaker’s roles and responsibilities, Mr. Achary opined that the ‘powers’ of the Speaker have not been defined in the Constitution. Whereas Article 95,empowered the Deputy 

Speaker to act as the Speaker in case the post of Speaker was vacant and used the term “duties of the office of Speaker”. The word “power” was missing whereas Article 65(3) used the word “powers” in the context of the office of the President.

Therefore, according to him, as the Speaker had no penal powers to punish a member by way of suspension or expulsion, rule 374A went against the established practices and conventions.7

Powers of the Chairman in Rajya Sabha

The Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Council of States formulated under Article 118 of the Constitution provide for withdrawal of member, suspension of member and details the Power of Chairman to adjourn Council or suspend sitting under Rules 255, 256, 257 respectively.8 In an extreme case of misconduct, the House may expel a member. According to a comment in the

Rules of Conduct and parliamentary Etiquette, Chap 9, of the Rajya Sabha, ”The purpose of expulsion is not so much disciplinary as remedial, not so much to punish members as to rid the House of persons who are unfit for membership.”

There have been many instances when the Council of States has exercised its right to punish members by expelling them. In July 1966, Raj Narain and Godey Murahari were suspended for one week by two separate motions moved by the Leader of the House and adopted by the House. After they refused to withdraw, they were removed by the Marshal of the House. Next day, the Chairman expressed his distress and leaders of parties expressed their regret at the incident.

Dr Subramanian Swamy was expelled on November 15, 1976 on the basis of the Report of the Committee on Ethics appointed to investigate his conduct and activities. The Committee found his conduct derogatory to the dignity of the House and its members and inconsistent with the standards expected from its members. Swami Sakshi Ji Maharaj was expelled on March 21, 2006, for his gross misconduct which brought the House and its members into disrepute and contravened the Code of Conduct for members of Rajya Sabha.9

In 2011-12 the Chairman exercised his power under Rule 256 when he named seven MPs of Samajwadi Party, Janata Dal (U), Rashtriya Janata Dal and Lok Janshakti Party, who were subsequently suspended and physically thrown out of the House to facilitate the passing of Women’s Reservation Bill.10

Incidence of Disruptions- In the Speakers’ Opinion

Smt. Sumitra Mahajan in the conference of Presiding Officers of Legislative Bodies in India, held at

Lucknow on Jan 31, 2015, had said that the role of presiding officers-whether in Parliament or state assemblies-is not only to run the House peacefully, but also to follow up on the new laws promulgated and the promises of the party in power.

"The nation has a federal system and political parties of different hues may rule at different places.

There could be ideological differences too. But, for progress and development, the ideological differences should not be a barrier," she said. She wished for a law for automatic suspension of a member for disruption of proceedings on his entering the well of the House. Shri Somnath Chatterjee who was Speaker of Lok Sabha between 2004-2009, on August 2, 2015, described as "very agonizing" the frequent disruptions of Parliament and lamented the "inadequacy" of the position of the presiding officer who is unable to run the House because of circumstances beyond his control.11

Speakers have also differed in their approaches in dealing with daily disruptions that lead to the dire scenarios of ineffective parliamentary democracy. Speaker Meira Kumar would make repeated requests to the House to return to order before adjourning it. Managing disruptions in an exquisite manner, the late P A Sangma would turn a deaf ear to requests that were not presented as per the rules of the House. He would continue to preside over a disorderly house till members tired themselves into resignation. They would approach him with chits requesting him to demand the house resume order.12

Powers of Expulsion and Interpretation by Judiciary

In India, legislatures’ power to punish a member by suspending or expelling him or her from the legislature is derived from Article 105 (3) in case of Parliament and Article 194 (3) in the case of state legislatures.

In 2006, 11 members of Parliament (10 of the Lok Sabha and one of Rajya Sabha), were expelled after the ‘cash-for-query’ sting operation by a private television channel. They had been expelled for accepting money as consideration for raising questions in Parliament. The two Houses constituted special committees for the purpose, sent them notices, asking them for their defence and eventually found them guilty. The respective Houses then expelled the MPs by a simple majority.

The members moved the Supreme Court (SC) to challenge their expulsion. They argued that Article

105 (3) does not specifically spell out Parliament’s powers to expel a member. The SC examined the powers of the House of Commons and held that Indian legislatures too had the power to expel members found “unfit”.

MPs therefore cannot be punished for such misdemeanours in a court of law, as whatever members do within the House is beyond the jurisdiction of the courts. Article 102 of the Constitution, however, does specify the grounds for disqualification of an MP. These are: if the member of unsound mind, holds an office of profit other than an office declared by Parliament by law not to disqualify its holder, if s/he is an un-discharged insolvent, not a citizen of India, etc. Recently, in April 2016, the Ethics Committee of the Rajya Sabha decided to expel industrialist Vijay Mallya from the House.

Functioning of the State Legislative Assemblies- An Overview in Terms of Disruptions & Logjams

If disruptions are noisy in Parliament they are quite often rowdy and bizarre in State Assemblies. Some of the infamous episodes of disruptions in Parliament and State Assemblies are described below:

In February 2014, during a heated debate on the creation of Telangana, an MP from Vijaywada, used pepper spray on fellow parliamentarians, to protest the tabling of the ‘Andhra Pradesh

Reorganisational Bill’, marking a new low in parliamentary behaviour. A few days later, the government was forced to ‘black out’ the proceedings in the House, on account of unparliamentary behaviour on part of protesting MPs, on the same issue. The government called it a ‘technical error’.

In July 2008, the parliamentary debate on a motion of confidence descended into chaos after three opposition MPs, rushed to the House floor and began waving large bundles of currency notes. They alleged that the money had been paid to them in bribe to abstain from voting and help the then government survive the confidence vote.14 This incident is infamously identified as the cash for votes scandal. Among the very recent incidents of violence in State Legislative Assemblies, in

September, 2016 the Punjab Vidhan Sabha saw uproarious scenes on the concluding day of

Monsoon Session when a shoe was hurled at a minister. The protesting Congress MLAs, wanted a no-confidence motion to be taken up and threw papers at the Speaker sparking outrage and a war of words between the treasury and opposition benches.15

In 2014, the final session of the 15th Legislative Assembly in Bihar witnessed the then Speaker Shri Uday Narayan Chaudhary adjourning the House sine die with a rider that not a single question could be taken up during the five days-long session. Referring to repeated disruptions in the House, Shri

Chaudhary said that no other pressing issues could be taken up for debate and urged the members that it was their responsibility to maintain the sanctity of the House and safeguard parliamentary democracy.

In July 2011, the Uttar Pradesh (UP) State Assembly witnessed violent scenes, with mikes being pulled out by legislators and flung at each other. The violence was unprecedented and was described in the media as a shameful blot on our democracy.16 Previously, in October 1997, riots had broken out in the UP Legislative Assembly with MLAs using microphones, chairs as weapons during a debate on a vote of confidence.17 In November, 2009, a member of the Maharashtra Legislative

Assembly was assaulted in the State Assembly. One of the members ‘who couldn’t speak Marathi’ took the oath in Hindi. This was objected to by Maharashtra Navanirmana Samithi on the ground that Marathi should be the official language in the state. Four members of the Maharashtra

Navaniramana Samithi were immediately suspended for 4 years.

On 26 March 1989, a riot broke out in the state Legislative Assembly in Tamil Nadu between members of the then ruling DMK and the opposition AIADMK over the reading of the state budget. In the melee, a member tried to disrobe Ms. Jayalalithaa, Karunanidhi had his sunglasses broken and the budget was torn up by angry rioters.

In January 1988 too, there was a riot in the Tamil Nadu State Legislative Assembly over a vote of majority for Mrs. Janaki Ramachandran, who was serving as Chief Minister following the death in December 1987 of her husband MGR. The ADMK party had split, with most MLAs supporting her and some supporting Ms Jayalalithaa’s bid to become Chief Minister instead. During voting, a riot ensued in the legislature, with members clubbing each other with microphone stands and footwear, which was finally ended by riot police who stormed the legislature and beat up everybody with their batons.18

Unfortunately, these are only a few instances amongst many. Speaker after Speaker, both in the Parliament and those of the State Legislative Assemblies, have been demanding that all political parties rein in their respective MPs and allow the Parliament/Legislatures to function. In a resolution adopted more than two decades ago, at a Conference of Presiding Officers’, Leaders of Parties, Whips, Ministers of parliamentary Affairs, Secretaries/Senior Officers of Parliament and State

Legislatures, it was suggested that the political parties evolve a code of conduct for their legislators and ensure its observance by them. It was urged that the political parties, Centre/State governments and the press should help create a climate conducive to the healthy growth of parliamentary system in the country.19 Unfortunately, there has been a common lack of political will amongst political parties to follow the laid down norms of parliamentary behavior and as a consequence, such incidents continue to occur.

Conclusion

Dissent is a critical component of any democracy and disruptions are very much part of established parliamentary practice. To wish it away is unrealistic and even undemocratic. Looking at international examples of disciplinary procedures, the Australian Parliament does not sanction expulsions any longer but the British and US Houses do under certain circumstances. In the United States, the Speaker of the House of Representatives unlike Indian, Australian and British Speakers, does not possess disciplinary powers over members of the House. He cannot expel a member who is rowdy and does not obey the Chair. Only the House can take action against the recalcitrant member.

Coming back to our Parliament and Legislative Assemblies is it too much to expect the political parties to rise over their partisan interests and participate constructively in the deliberations? Even the Supreme Court refused to be drawn into this debate when it dismissed a petition in August 2015 which sought guidelines to ensure that proceedings in Parliament do not get stalled or disrupted, on the ground that intervention in the parliamentary affairs would amount to crossing the ‘lakshmanrekha’.


*Anumeha is a Senior Research Analyst at Common Cause.

Volume: Vol. XXXV No. 3
July-September 2016