GS Paper II

News Excerpt:

Opposition MPs from both the Houses of Parliament are suspended for disrupting Parliamentary proceedings while protesting about the Parliament security breach.

Causes of the disruption of Parliament:

• Lack of time available to MPs for raising important matters.
• Government sets the agenda in Parliament and decides how much time will be dedicated to any issue.
• Unresponsive attitude of the government and retaliatory posture by Treasury benches.
• Parliamentary procedure prioritises government business over other matters.
• Deliberate disruption by parties for political or publicity purposes.
• Former President K R Narayanan argues that genuine disruptions due to frustration are easier to handle, while planned offences and deliberate disturbances are more challenging.
• All parties have disrupted Parliament - and their view on disruptions have been determined almost always by whether they are in power or not.
• Absence of prompt action against MPs disrupting Parliamentary proceedings.
• Parliament has not updated its rules over the last 70 years in this regard.

Procedure for suspension of MPs:

• The Presiding Officer - the Speaker of Lok Sabha(LS) and Chairman of Rajya Sabha (RS) - plays the major role in meting out suspensions.
• In LS, the Speaker acts in accordance with Rules 373, 374, and 374A of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business.
• In RS, the Chairman acts as per Rules 255 and 256 of the Rules.
• The procedure in both Houses is largely similar.
• First, the presiding officers can direct an MP to withdraw from the House for any disorderly conduct (Rule 373 in LS, 255 in RS).
• If that does not work and the said MP continues to disrupt the House proceedings, the presiding officer can "name" the legislator (Rule 374 in LS, 256 in RS).
• After that, the House can move a motion to suspend the MP until the end of the session.
• While these rules have mostly remained unchanged since 1952, in 2001, the Lok Sabha further empowered the Speaker to deal with "grave and disorderly conduct."
• As per the new rule (Rule 374A), an MP "named" by the Speaker shall automatically stand suspended for a period of five days or the remaining part of the session.
• This rule removes the need for the House to pass a motion for suspension.
• Notably, the Rajya Sabha has not incorporated this provision in its procedures.

Implications of suspension of MPs:

• It affects the democratic setup of the country.
• It leads to erosion of the representation of peoples.
• By suspending the MPs, there is no voice left in the house of the people s/he was representing.
• In an opposition-less Parliament, the government can get important pending bills passed by the muscle of majority without any discussion, debate or disagreement.

Way forward:

• The number of suspensions have gone up over the last few years.
• It falls on the Presiding Officer to maintain a crucial balance in the House.
• While enforcement of the supreme authority of the Speaker is essential for smooth conduct of proceedings, it must be remembered that her job is to run the House, not lord over it.
• The solution, therefore, has to be long-term, consistent with democratic values, and a changing India.
• Before suspension of the members there should be a detailed discussion on the matter, and the members to be suspended should be heard unbiasedly.