Parliament Mass Suspensions: Questioning the Proportionality of Punishment

Unruly behaviour can be deemed as a ground for penalties but the index of disruptiveness must be considered as well.

Last week, India witnessed an unopposed overturning of the three foundational legal doctrines in the Lok Sabha replaced by versions that can potentially transform the socio-legal fabric of India. Curiously timed, the debate on the new laws took place when 143 Members of Parliament (MPs) remained suspended from the Houses, an unprecedented number in India’s Parliamentary history.

What is furthermore interesting is that all the suspended members belonged to the Opposition, thus paving the way for an almost performative debate on the new bills by, for, and of the ruling party. While cries of foul play cannot be undermined, Opposition members aren’t entirely innocuous.

Resorting to aggressive gestures and poor-in-taste limericks while staging a perfectly justified demand not only cost them their seats for the rest of the Session but also the country the burden of three unilaterally imposed laws.  

Can Unruly Behaviour Be the Sole Grounds for Suspension?

MPs are expected to maintain decorum and uphold the dignity of the House at all points. The Rules of Conduct and Parliamentary Etiquette distinctively lay down what constitutes disruptive behaviour and their plausible ramifications.

Clearly, they aren’t immune to scrutiny and penalties for any such lapses. So, unruly behaviour in fact can be deemed as a ground for penalties. However, it is important to pay attention to the index of their disruptiveness before resorting to extreme punitive measures like suspension.

The Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha determines the grounds and process of suspending a member. Accordingly,

• Rule 373 empowers the Speaker to remove a member from a particular day’s proceedings if they deem it necessary on account of gross disorder. 

• Rule 374 enables the Speaker to name a certain member who is persistently or willfully obstructing the House or disregarding the authority of the Chair and initiate a motion for the suspension of such a member.  

• Rule 374A states that in the event of grave disorder, the naming of a member by the speaker in itself will result in an automatic suspension of the member. This suspension may be terminated if the House eventually passes a motion to that effect  

Similarly, in Rajya Sabha, the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Council of States lay down in Rule 256 that the Chairperson may name and raise a motion for suspension of a member who persistently or wilfully obstructs the proceedings of the House or disregards the authority of the Chair. 

In the current context, breach of etiquette and obstructing the order of the House is indubitable but the questions do arise on the proportionality of the punishment and the blanket order passed.

Derek O’Brien’s suspension was fuelled by his persistent, albeit annoying questions whereas leaders like Kalyan Banerjee, A Raja and others were suspended for sloganeering within the House. A blanket punishment for different scales of offences ends up meting out more harm than good. Moreover, suspension, that too of such an overwhelming number is perhaps unwarranted.  

What Can the Suspended MPs Do Now? 

The MPs have little choice but to abide by the order of suspension, currently. Suspension of MPs is a parliamentary proceeding which unfortunately is kept outside the purview of judicial overview as per Article 122 of the Indian Constitution. As such, the Court cannot intervene and overturn the decision of the House.

However, in the Kihoto Hollohan vs Zachillhu, (1992 ), the Supreme Court of India established that proceedings which impact the fundamental rights of the members can be subjected to judicial overview. Further, while the Courts continue to maintain that procedural irregularity cannot be challenged before a court of law, any instance of illegality can.

This essentially means that a mass petition challenging the suspension order will not hold ground before a court of law. However, individual members can move the Higher Courts citing a violation of their fundamental right through the order of suspension.

Further, existing members can raise a motion seeking the termination of one or the other members’ suspensions and if the House votes in favour, then the concerned members will be reinstated into the House.

Unfortunately, the strong undercurrents of political gameplay in the current scenario make the possibility of such rulebook situations extremely unlikely.  

Can Parliament Function 'Opposition Mukt'? 

The ruling party enjoys a record majority in both Houses currently thus even with a substantial proportion of Opposition wiped out for the foreseeable part of the session, there won’t be any stultification of the regular proceedings. The Bills may thus be raised and voted upon and still meet the expected quorum. The real question herein is how democratic these legislations will be.

When the Opposition is arm-twisted into silence and the Ruling party creates an echo chamber in the Houses of Parliament, do the laws being passed truly encapsulate the democratic spirit? Parallelly, the Opposition should ruminate whether their display of protest is really the way to go to actually resist and counter statutory decisions.  

(Yashaswini Basu is a Bengaluru-based lawyer. This is an opinion article and the views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them.)