Suspension of MPs and Disruptions: The What and Why?

This post shall look at how MPs are suspended and what does that mean for their participation in Parliament, and why do MPs in a ‘healthy democracy’ indulge in disruptions and what needs to change.

Last week, 146 Members of Parliament belonging to both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha were suspended till the end of the Winter Session. The suspensions took place since the MPs ‘insulted the chair’ and indulged in ‘unruly behaviour’. While on the face of it suspending MPs is seen as a harsh measure, taken only to ensure ‘discipline’ and ‘productivity’ in Parliament, suspension of MPs equalling nearly one-fifth of the membership of Parliament requires further scrutiny. This is especially so when potentially era-defining bills were passed while the MPs remained suspended.

This post shall look at two aspects of this issue, first, how are MPs suspended and what does that mean for their participation in Parliament, and second, why do MPs in a ‘healthy democracy’ indulge in ‘unruly behaviour’ and what needs to change.

Image Courtesy ANI

Suspension of MPs

In a previous post, we had seen that legislatures enjoy ‘privileges’ as per Article 105 (Parliament) and Article 194 (State Legislatures). In furtherance of the same, legislatures are empowered to make rules to regulate their own procedure as per Article 118 (Parliament) and Article 208 (State Legislatures). Accordingly, the Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha as well as State Legislatures have their own ‘Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business’ (Rules).

The Lok Sabha Rules as well as the Rajya Sabha Rules state the procedure to be adopted to suspend a member. Rule 374 of the Lok Sabha Rules and Rule 256 of the Rajya Sabha Rules are analogous. They allow the Speaker and Chairperson to name a member who “disregards the authority of the Chair or abuses the rules of the House by persistently and wilfully obstructing the business thereof.” Upon such naming, a motion is moved and the Speaker or Chairperson puts a question to the House whether such member named should be suspended from service of the House for a maximum period for the rest of that session. There is no debate or discussion on the motion and the House is expected to vote on the question immediately. Such voting is limited to those MPs present in the house and apart from the requirement of a quorum, there is no requirement of a certain number of members to be present at the time of such voting on suspension.

Effect of Suspension of MPs

Despite no specific Rule to the effect, suspension of MPs from the ‘service of the House’ means the privileges enjoyed by them and the duties they perform are wiped out till the time MPs remain suspended. The Lok Sabha published a circular which enlisted the ‘consequences’ of suspension of MPs. This included personal consequences for the MPs as well as consequences for the constituents they represent.

Personal consequences include not being entitled to receive their daily allowance (which MPs get just for attending Parliament) and their stay at their ‘place of duty’ not being entitled to be treated as ‘residence on duty’ as per the Salary, Allowances and Members of Parliament Act, 1954 which would impact allowances they receive for their residence.

However, more significant consequences for constituents are multi-fold. First, they are not allowed to transact any business in the House during their time of suspension. This means, none of the notices sent by them during such time are accepted, no Private Member Bills or Resolutions which they might have filed several days prior can be moved. Most importantly, they cannot ask questions (Parliamentary Questions and their importance has been covered previously) which they have sent to the Secretariat at least fifteen days in advance. In the spate of these suspensions, 264 questions were deleted from records, the Government not being required to answer those. Second, MPs cannot attend meetings of Parliamentary Committees they are members of and not participate in the discussions. Finally, they are not allowed to enter the Chamber, Gallery or the Lobby. Therefore, they cannot vote on any legislation or resolution.

Why do MPs disrupt proceedings?

The primary job of MPs is to make laws and hold the Government to account. For MPs to be successful at their job and show to their constituents how well they did it would be necessary to get another term when elections take place. Therefore, for any MP to disrupt the functioning of the House would be counterproductive to their own interests. Why do MPs then disrupt proceedings in Parliament? The answer lies in institutional mechanisms and parliamentary practices.

Separation of powers as a doctrine is a feature of most modern democracies. Crystallized by the French thinker Montesquieu, this doctrine is a method to ensure that vesting functions of government – legislative, executive, and judicial – in different persons would limit totalitarian and authoritarian tendencies. As with most theories when brought into practice, the doctrine of separation of powers has multiple versions. The British version, as adopted by the Indian Constitution fuses, in part, the legislative and the executive functions. The idea behind this being that there needs to be some ‘harmony’ in administration.

This would still be an operable system as long as the executive does not dominate the legislature. However, in such a fused system, with politics in consideration, the executive invariably dominates. Whereas the legislature is supposed to keep in check the executive, the executive ends up dictating what the legislature does.

Maansi Verma in a paper has outlined three aspects of Parliamentary procedure where this is reflected. First, the legislature can be convened only by the legislature. Second, legislative agenda, time, and discourse are dictated by the executive. Third, the legislature’s oversight on the executive’s budget stands weakened. While the first and third aspects are important, the second aspect – how the business of Parliament is decided – is the subject of this post.

How is the business of Parliament decided?

Each House has a Business Advisory Committee (BAC) which is headed by the Speaker/Chairperson and has representation from multiple parties. However, since the membership is as per strength in the House, the ruling party or coalition has a virtual veto over the decisions of the BAC. The BAC also being ‘Advisory’ in its capacity ends up being an eyewash more than being useful. The BAC comes up with a List of Business (LoB), which can easily be changed with a Supplementary LoB to introduce new bills. In fact, the Women’s Reservation Bill was added to through the Supplementary LoB minutes before MPs made way from the old Parliament building to the new Parliament Building in the ‘Special Session’. The same was done with the Presidential orders and the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganisation Act in 2019.

Government Business takes up 75% of the daily time of a House, with little left for ensuring MPs can hold the government to account by asking questions, taking up matters of public importance etc. Therefore, there is severe institutional control on how the business of the House is conducted.

However, apart from institutional mechanisms, Parliamentary practice is an equally contributing factor. The Government must respect the opposition parties and MPs, and recognise, as Gaurav Gogoi (Deputy Leader of Congress in Lok Sabha) said that they too represent the will and aspirations of people. To give them the space they deserve and to give in to their demands is good Parliamentary practice, one that fosters a sense of accountability and mutual-respect. Allowing Opposition parties to be equal stakeholders in deciding business of the House, giving enough space for them to set the agenda, for some time during a session, are suggestions floated by scholars and politicians.

Conclusion

Suspension of MPs is a harsh measure, it leaves constituents without representation. In principle, we need to acknowledge that the lack of a representative even for a day is harmful for democracy. However, representatives do not serve their purpose if they disrupt the proceedings of Parliament. To ensure this does not happen frequently, we need to understand the institutional mechanisms which force MPs to resort to this tactic and make the necessary changes. As Arun Jaitley, then Leader of Opposition in Rajya Sabha, had said while justifying his party’s disruption of Parliament in 2012:

“Parliamentary obstructionism should be avoided. It is a weapon to be used in the rarest of the rare cases. Parliamentary accountability is as important as parliamentary debate. Both must co-exist. If parliamentary accountability is subverted and a debate is intended to be used merely to put a lid on parliamentary accountability, it is then a legitimate tactic for the Opposition to expose the government through parliamentary instruments available at its command.”

It is time we not look at productivity of Parliament not just in terms of how many hours were spent by MPs sitting in the House, but the quality of debate and level of accountability seen in those hours.