The omission of portions of speeches delivered by some Opposition politicians in Parliament recently has sparked a debate over a decision made by the Speaker. Mr. Gandhi and Mr. Kharge were both speaking on the Motion of Thanks to the President of India for her address to both Houses of Parliament.
Motion of thanks
- Following the President’s address, the two Houses pass a motion thanking the President for her remarks.
- This is customary practise, despite the fact that the Constitution makes no provision for such a motion, other than to direct that each House discuss the issues raised in the address.
- This is a practise that has been adopted from the British Parliament.
Following the motion, there will be a debate
- An opportunity to highlight government blunders: Discussion in When such a motion is debated, MPs are generally free to speak on whatever they want. It is an opportunity to criticise the government and discuss a wide range of issues concerning the country’s governance.
- The Chair never insists on relevance, and speeches are generally political: Because the Council of Ministers is collectively accountable to Parliament, MPs have the authority to scrutinise the government’s performance.
- The government must respond to the following question: Accountability to Parliament necessitates that the government adequately respond to the questions raised by MPs during the debate. The Prime Minister is required by House Rules to respond to debate in both Houses.
The existing regulations
- Freedom of expression in the House: Article 105 of the Constitution grants members freedom of speech in the House as well as immunity from court intervention for anything said in the House. The most important privilege of a Member of Parliament is the freedom of expression in the House.
- Power of presiding officers and abuse of such authority: The presiding officers of these Houses have the authority under Rules 380 of the Lok Sabha Rules of Procedure and Rule 261 of the Rajya Sabha Rules of Procedure to expunge any words used in the debate that are defamatory, unparliamentary, undignified, or indecent. Once expunged, they are no longer on record, and anyone who publishes them after that is liable for breach of House privilege.
- Rule 353: If an allegation is made against a member of Parliament or an outsider: Occasionally, an MP may make an allegation against a fellow MP or an outsider during his speech. The procedure is governed by Lok Sabha Rule 353 in this regard. According to this Rule, the MP must provide “adequate advance notice” to both the Speaker and the Minister in question. The Rule does not forbid making any allegation; the only requirement is prior notice.
Allegations and Speaker decisions
- MPs who make allegations must be certain of their veracity: Making an allegation against a Minister or the Prime Minister is considered a serious matter; thus, the presiding officers have carefully laid out a stipulation that the MP who makes an imputation against a Minister must be certain of the factual basis of the allegation and must accept responsibility for it.
- Allegations comply with the stipulation that they be kept on file: If the MP complies with this condition, the allegation will be allowed to stand. There have been numerous instances in the Lok Sabha where MPs have levelled accusations against Ministers.
Here are two such decisions made by the Speakers
- According to a press report: Prakash Vir Shastri, MP, made personal allegations against Humayun Kabir, then Minister of Education, on September 2, 1965. The MP reiterated his claim and cited press reports.
- The ruling-press report may not be a sufficient basis for the allegations: “Normally, the source of information available to members is newspapers,” said Speaker Sardar Hukam Singh in his ruling. However, that is insufficient grounds for a member to level an accusation against a Minister, a member, or other dignitaries.
- Based on a weekly basis, the following allegation: Bapusaheb Parulekar, MP, made a reference in the Lok Sabha on December 21, 1981, to an allegation published in the Sunday (a weekly) against the then Railway Minister, Kedar Pande, and his family members in connection with permanent railway card passes.
- Decision- The member must be willing to accept responsibility for the allegation: “The member should, before making an allegation in the House, satisfy himself after making enquiries that there is a basis for the allegation,” G. Lakshmanan ruled. The member should be prepared to accept responsibility for the allegation, as well as to substantiate the allegation.”
Defamation issue
- According to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (Second Exception), any statement concerning a public servant’s conduct in the discharge of his public function or his character is not defamation. If such a statement is made in the House against a Minister who is also a public servant, it does not fall under the ‘mischief’ provisions of Rules 353 or 380.
- As a result, it does not provide an opportunity for the presiding officers to remove words or portions of a speech because they are defamatory.
@the end
Establishing defamatory or incriminatory statements as opposed to critical comments, which an MP has the right to make, is critical in a House where freedom of speech is the most important privilege of a Member of Parliament. It must also be ensured that Members of the House’s freedom of expression is not unduly restricted.
Source: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1251904/