By Inder Jit
(Released on 23 Aug 1983)
L’affaire Deputy Speaker has become more and more intriguing. It continues to pit the Opposition in the Lok Sabha not only against Mr. Lakshmanan, the Deputy Speaker, but against the Speaker, Mr Bal Ram Jakhar, himself. Issues of importance to Parliament and its functioning are involved. The Opposition maintain that Mr Lakshmanan is no longer the Deputy Speaker and have even brought forward a motion for his removal. They assert that his resignation became effective from June 25 when he wrote to the Speaker following the break between the DMK and the Congress-I over Pondicherry. There was no scope for its withdrawal on June 27 even if the first letter had not been received by the Speaker until then. In support, they want the Speaker to make the two letters available to the House. Mr. Jakhar has so far declined to do so. Instead, he has offered to show these to the members in his chamber. Meanwhile, Mr. Lakshmanan has reportedly made two points in a talk with MPs. First, the letter of resignation, drafted by the DMK leaders, was not of his own volition. Second, it was defectively worded. He had not tendered his resignation but only offered to do so!
True, the office of Deputy Speaker is nowhere near that of the Speaker. Nevertheless, the Deputy Speaker plays an important role in India since he presides over the House for most part of the day. What is more, the Deputy Speaker in the Lok Sabha has all the powers of the Speaker while presiding over the House unlike in the UK.
Some readers may be tempted to ask: why bother about the office of Deputy Speaker? Does he really count? True, the office of Deputy Speaker is nowhere near that of the Speaker. Nevertheless, the Deputy Speaker plays an important role in India since he presides over the House for most part of the day. What is more, the Deputy Speaker in the Lok Sabha has all the powers of the Speaker while presiding over the House unlike in the UK. (Once Mr Lakshmanan astonishingly expunged even his own remarks! Expunctions and the Speaker’s powers in the matter concern another serious issue which has so far not received the collective attention of the House it deserves. But this must await another day.) In Britain, the Deputy Speaker is not authorized, unless the absence of the Speaker is formally announced, to put the question or a motion for the closure of a debate nor can he exercise the power of selecting amendments. But even more important than the Deputy Speaker’s office in the present affair is the crucial issue of the rights of the House – and the values we wish free India’s Parliament to uphold and espouse.
The issue regarding the rights of the House may be framed as follows in the present case: Can the Speaker withhold from the House what parliamentary experts describe as a constitutional document, namely a document which comes to him in his capacity as the Speaker? Or, can the Speaker withhold from the members the two letters of the Deputy Speaker? Further enquiries confirm what I briefly indicated last week: the Speaker has no right to withhold any constitutional document or the two letters in question. The Speaker, it needs to be understood, is no more than a channel of communication in regard to such documents. The question of not showing a document will arise only if the Speaker has not received the document or if the document has been given to him in his private capacity. A parliamentary expert remarked “Democracy would become a sham if Parliament and through it the people are not to be informed. Remember, the right to information is Parliament’s most important right. There is no rule that empowers the Speaker to withhold a constitutional document. If there is one, I would like to know which?”
But the Speaker is essentially a channel which is borne out by one simple fact. Resignation by the Deputy Speaker becomes effective even if the office of the Speaker is vacant. The letter of resignation then goes to the Secretary who in turn informs the House. Following the death of the Speaker, Mr Mavalankar, the then Deputy Speaker, Mr Ananthasayananý Ayyangar, resigned on March 7, 1956 as he was anxious to stand for the office of the Speaker. His letter of resignation was addressed to the Speaker and sent to the Secretariat even though there was no Speaker then. The Secretary of the Lok Sabha informed the House of the resignation by the Deputy Speaker on March 8, 1956. But the resignation became effective from March 7, namely the date on which the letter was signed. There was no question of any acceptance or non-acceptance. Parliamentary experts assert: “The letter of resignation of the Deputy Speaker, becomes effective the moment the letter is a signed and a full stop put after the signature as in the case of letters from persons holding such statutory offices as those of the Speaker, the Vice-President and the President of India.”
In a historic case, King Edward VIII ceased to be the King the moment he put his signature on his letter of abdication. The King’s resignation was in accordance with established practice which continues to be followed in Britain as also in parliamentary democracies based on the Westminster pattern. In fact, the same procedure applies to MPs in Britain and did so in regard to MPs in India also until some years ago. In a sensational case in India, Mr H.C. Mudgal, a member of the provisional Parliament took advantage of this rule to escape expulsion from the House on a motion moved by none other than Jawaharlal Nehru, as the leader of the House. After Nehru had made out a powerful case against Mr Mudgal, the latter took the floor and spoke for 90 minutes. He was thereafter asked to withdraw from the House according to practice to enable the members to decide the issue dispassionately. But Mr Mudgal asked the Deputy Speaker for a few minutes before he withdrew. The request was granted. During this time, he wrote out his resignation on a piece of paper, dramatically walked up to the Deputy Speaker, handed it to him and then walked out of the House.
The Deputy Speaker then read out Mr Mudgal’s resignation to the House. The letter, which was addressed to the Speaker, said: “As I feel that members may not have freedom to vote, I beg to submit my resignation of my membership of the present House.” The Deputy Speaker announced Mr Mudgal’s resignation and said it had become effective instantly. Nehru, taken completely by surprise, was livid. However, he did not let Mr Mudgal get away lightly. He then amended the motion to make it clear that Mr Mudgal “deserved expulsion from the House and further that the terms of the resignation letter that he has given to the Deputy Speaker at the conclusion of his statement constitute a contempt of this House which only aggravates his offence.” Incidentally, Mr Mudgal’s crime makes interesting reading against the backdrop of all that one hears in the Central Hall of Parliament these days. Mr Mudgal was held guilty by a five-man Committee, headed by T.T. Krishnamachari, of having received from the Bombay Bullion Association Rs 2,000 in respect of services rendered — with expectation of another Rs 7,000 for work done for “memorandum and parliamentary contacts!”
In a sensational case in India, Mr H.C. Mudgal, a member of the provisional Parliament took advantage of this rule to escape expulsion from the House on a motion moved by none other than Jawaharlal Nehru, as the leader of the House.
The procedure regarding the resignation by MPs was changed following the agitation in Gujarat where some Members of Parliament were forced to resign under pressure of the Navnirman Samiti. The Constitution was amended to provide against members being forced to resign involuntarily. The Speaker or the Deputy Speaker are now required to satisfy themselves that the resignation by an MP is offered voluntarily and not under any threat or pressure. But the same does not apply either to the Office of the Speaker or to that of the Deputy Speaker. There is thus no force in the new argument reportedly put forward by Lakshmanan in his talk with some unnamed MPs that he had been forced by Mr. Karunanidhi and Mr. K. Manoharan to sign the letter of resignation drafted and mailed by them. There is also no question of the Deputy Speaker “offering” to resign since there is no provision for either its acceptance or non-acceptance. The precise language used in the letter is important. But it is a matter which can be decided only by the House and no one else, not even the Speaker.
The House can do so if it has before it the two letters written by Mr. Lakshmanan. The Speaker should, therefore, even now place the two letters before the House and let it decide for itself. There should be no difficulty in doing so in view of what transpired before our eyes in a sensational question of privilege raised by Mr. M.R. Masani against the Chief Minister of Kerala, Mr. EMS Namboodripad, on September 23, 1958. The Chief Minister, according to Mr. Masani, had committed a breach of privilege in a telegram sent to the Union Home Minister, Pandit Pant, and published in the Press. EMS was reported to have accused certain unnamed members of trying “to slander the State Government” through a motion seeking to discuss “the serious situation in Kerala”. The motion was opposed by Prof. Hiren Mukherjee and some others on the ground that the House could not take cognizance of the matter in the absence of a proper, authentic report. But the issue got clinched since the Speaker, Mr. Ayyangar, had been earlier shown the telegram in confidence by the Home Minister. The Speaker finally ruled: “Whatever communication is made to me will be the property of the House”.
“The letter of resignation of the Deputy Speaker, becomes effective the moment the letter is a signed and a full stop put after the signature as in the case of letters from persons holding such statutory offices as those of the Speaker, the Vice-President and the President of India.”
Much of the controversy over Mr. Lakshmanan has arisen today because of our failure to build heathy conventions in regard to the office of Deputy Speaker. Free India’s first Deputy Speaker, Mr. Ayyangar, was no doubt a Congressman. But once elected Deputy Speaker, he functioned impartially. He was succeeded by Mr. Hukam Singh of the Akali Party, thanks to the ruling Congress. Nevertheless, Nehru’s decision to choose Mr. Hukam Singh reflected a desire to inspire in the Opposition a greater sense of confidence in the system based on government by debate and consensus. In fact, the Janata Party went one step further in 1977. It invited the leader of the Opposition, Mr. Y.B. Chavan, to name the Deputy Speaker. Mr. Godey Murahari then became Deputy Speaker as a Congress MP and, what is more, as an Opposition nominee for the first time. Unfortunately, this convention was not followed when Mrs. Gandhi returned to power in 1980 and Mr. Lakshmanan was chosen Deputy Speaker. True, Mr. Lakshmanan carried the DMK label. But the DMK was then closely aligned with the Congress-I.
Every consideration should have been extended to the Opposition genuinely. Had this been done, we would not be stuck with the present messy affair involving the Deputy Speaker. It is not too late even now to deal with the issue honourably, without allowing personal predilections to come in. Either Mr. Lakshmanan’s resignation became effective on June 25 or it did not? We cannot swear by truth and still have it both ways. In the final analysis, we would do well to recall what Pandit Pant said on September 24, 1958, while speaking on Mr. Masani’s privilege motion against EMS. He said: “everything that is done in this House serves as a precedent for the future. The conventions that we build are not only for today or tomorrow, not in respect of any particular government but also in respect of all that might happen hereafter, whether in this Parliament or in State Legislatures or in connection with the relationship between the States and the Centre.” Wise words indeed. We can ignore them only at the cost of Parliament and its future. — INFA