By Inder Jit
(Released on 30 March 1982)
Giani Zail Singh’s gaffe over Hitler in the Lok Sabha has proved to be a blessing in disguise. Personally, I missed the hangama and all the fun and excitement for two days. I was then away from New Delhi – revisited Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Assam and Meghalaya. However, the incident has brought to the fore with a bang what many consider an expunction scandal. Over the past few years, expunctions of proceedings in our Parliament have become the order of the day without raising much of a protest from the Opposition. Parliamentary procedures do provide for expunction or deletion of words that are unparliamentarily. But matters have come to such a sorry pass today that the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker in the Lok Sabha think nothing of directing that “this shall not go on record.” Not many are aware that the increasing tendency to expunge at will strikes at the basic structure of our parliamentary democracy — and the freedom of speech guaranteed to MPs in the Constitution.
Parliamentary democracy, as we all know, is rule by discussion and debate – and through compromise and consensus. Undoubtedly, there are times when the Government has to assert its majority and push ahead with its decisions. Nevertheless, parliamentary democracy basically provides that the Opposition must have its say even as the Government has its way. This concept is also enshrined in the principle that there can be no taxation without representation in any democracy worth its name. Freedom of speech is thus fundamental to Parliament’s functioning and is accordingly assured by Article 105 of the Constitution which provides that “subject to the provisions of the Constitution and to the rules and standing orders regulating the procedure of Parliament, there shall be freedom of speech in Parliament.” Not only that. The article also provides: “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.” Remember, this protected MPs from speaking freely in Parliament following proclamation of the Emergency in June 1975.
Following independence, Nehru, together with Mavalankar, armed the Speaker with certain extraordinary powers to enable him to guide the people’s representatives and the House effectively in its formative years. (No one was sure about the quality of MPs which a poll on the basis of adult franchise would throw up.) Among other things, specific provision was made for expunction of words from the proceedings of the House in the Rules of Procedure.
The Rules of Procedures of the Lok Sabha do provide that if the Speaker is of the opinion that words which have been used in the debate are defamatory, indecent, unparliamentarily or undignified, he may, in his discretion, order that such words be expunged from the proceedings of the House. However, what is happening today goes way beyond the original concept and bears no relationship to the approach in Britain and elsewhere. The practice in the Commons has been to avoid expunctions. The Speaker there insists upon objectionable expressions being withdrawn. If the member refuses to do so, the Speaker either directs him to withdraw from the House for the day or names him for disregarding the Chair’s authority in which case a motion for his suspension from the service of the House is made and the question put forthwith. An expert doubts if anything more than 30 words have been expunged in the Commons in the past ten years. A Speaker in Canada was once removed from his office, notwithstanding his personal popularity, for expunging on his own certain remarks of a member. In sharp contrast, the Deputy Speaker of the Lok Sabha expunged last week his own remarks for the second time in the past few months.
Interestingly, there was no specific rule relating to expunction in the Central Legislative Assembly prior to 1947. Nationalist members of the Assembly were consequently able to say almost anything against British rule. Normally, when unparliamentary words of expressions were used, the Speaker intervened either on his own initiative or on objection raised by a member or a Minister, and called upon the offending member to make amends. This took one of three forms: withdrawal of words or expressions or (b) tendering of apology and giving an assurance not to use the words again or (c) in a relatively few cases, substitution of new words for those objectionable. The objectionable words and their subsequent withdrawal or other mode of disposal were, however, allowed to remain on record. In exceptional cases where such remedies were considered inadequate, expunction was ordered. On such occasions, the general practice was to obtain the formal consent of the House on a motion emanating from the Speaker or a member or a Minister.
The Rules of Procedures of the Lok Sabha do provide that if the Speaker is of the opinion that words which have been used in the debate are defamatory, indecent, unparliamentarily or undignified, he may, in his discretion, order that such words be expunged from the proceedings of the House. However, what is happening today goes way beyond the original concept and bears no relationship to the approach in Britain and elsewhere.
Banter, biting sarcasm and good humour were permitted freely in the Central Assembly and were taken by the members in their stride as in the Commons. (Many in India may be interested to learn that a Speaker in Britain once held that “bastard”, a term used by one member against another, was not unparliamentary as it was also used as an expression of endearment!) Once Mr Mohammad Ali Jinnah, a great parliamentarian, quipped in the Central Assembly that half the House consisted of fools. When a member from the Treasury benches protested, Mr Jinnah promptly retorted: “All right, half the House does not consist of fools!” The House broke into laughter and all was forgotten in good fun. Much of this spirit has alas gone out of Parliament and many State Assemblies. Even good-humoured thrusts have on occasions triggered off trouble. In Madhya Pradesh, an MLA once said he was glad to get a statement from the horse’s mouth. But the expression horse’s mouth was expunged by the Speaker following a protest that the Minister had been called a horse!
Following independence, Nehru, together with Mavalankar, armed the Speaker with certain extraordinary powers to enable him to guide the people’s representatives and the House effectively in its formative years. (No one was sure about the quality of MPs which a poll on the basis of adult franchise would throw up.) Among other things, specific provision was made for expunction of words from the proceedings of the House in the Rules of Procedure. The word unparliamentary was spelt out in Rule 380 relating to expunction for the benefit of new entrants to Parliament as “defamatory or indecent or undignified.” Nevertheless, Mavalankar, as free India’s first Speaker, took great care not to act on his own and interpret matters subjectively. He seldom acted suo moto and was clear that as the Speaker he was there to regulate the proceedings of the House, not to order them. Consequently, he gave a ruling on expunction of words only if an objection was raised. Further, only words were expunged, not whole sentences, paragraphs and more. Rule 380 speaks only in terms of unparliamentary words.
Mavalankar was equally clear about certain other fundamentals in accordance with the healthy tradition of the Commons. He was of the firm opinion that members using unparliamentary expressions must be duly punished or made to make amends. He would, therefore, ask the member to withdraw objectionable words. Since everything went on record and even got published in the Press, the withdrawal amounted to punishment. If the member refused to do so, Mavalankar would direct the member to withdraw from the House for the day. In case the member still refused to carry out the direction, Mavalankar would name him for disregarding the authority of the Chair. This would be followed up by a motion for the suspension of the member from the service of the House and the question out forthwith. In all this, Mavalankar happily received the full support of Nehru who functioned not only as Prime Minister but as the Leader of the House, rising above petty political considerations and helping build sound conventions. Mere expunction was seen as no punishment at all.
Subsequent Speakers, beginning with Mr Annanthasaynam Ayyangar, did not unfortunately enforce their authority and soon opted for the line of least resistance. The background of Rule 380 was ignored and increasing resort taken to suo moto expunctions. In the bargain, the MP guilty of using unparliamentary words went scot free and only the public at large was impliedly punished in view of the absence of any record of withdrawal or, say, of suspension. (The people outside Parliament have as much a right to know how their representatives are conducting themselves as those seated in the House — a principle which is enshrined in the Feroze Gandhi Act ensuring full freedom to the Press to report the proceedings of Parliament without attracting the law of defamation and its like. Mr Sanjiva Reddy, as the Speaker, enforced the Chair’s authority and largely ended the laxity introduced by Mr Hukum Singh. But matters went out of control once again when Mr G.S. Dhillon took over as the Speaker. He was the first Speaker to direct that nothing that was being stated by members at a given time without the Chair’s permission would go on record.
The word unparliamentary was spelt out in Rule 380 relating to expunction for the benefit of new entrants to Parliament as “defamatory or indecent or undignified.” Nevertheless, Mavalankar, as free India’s first Speaker, took great care not to act on his own and interpret matters subjectively. He seldom acted suo moto and was clear that as the Speaker he was there to regulate the proceedings of the House, not to order them.
The Giani’s gaffe has proved a blessing in disguise even if it has led to an absurdity unrivalled in the annals of any Parliament: the Giani is now on record having withdrawn certain remarks which are themselves not on record! The Speaker, Mr Bal Ram Jakhar, has done well to invite the Opposition leaders to discuss the question of expunctions and hammer out agreed ground rules. True, members in the Lok Sabha do occasionally create situations which make things difficult, even impossible, for the Speaker. But the Speaker’s inclination to order expunctions at will is no answer to the problem. On the other hand, it is introducing a new and dangerous dimension to the office of the Speaker. Slowly but surely, the Speaker is emerging as a third force — an independent entity superior to both the Government and the Opposition. The Speaker, no doubt, represents the House. But, as I stated earlier, he is the servant of the House, not its master. The expunction issue needs to be resolved at the earliest and the people restored their inalienable right to know and be fully informed. — INFA