Indiscipline, disorder, noisy scenes etc. are not new to the Indian Parliament though there are certain established parliamentary rules and etiquette, which members are required to observe. These are based not only on Rules of Procedure but also on past practices, precedents and traditions of Parliament. The framers of the Constitution did not think of punitive measures against unruly members as they did not expect such things.

But house rules prescribe the punishment for violating them, which is left to the discretion of the Chair. What happened in Parliament this week has brought to the fore once again the issue of misbehaviour of the members. A committee headed by Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla is looking into the noisy incidents in the house between March 2 and 5 and the resultant suspension of seven Congress MPs even as the opposition parties led by the Congress have been seeking revocation of the suspension.

Advertisement

The government, on the other hand is insisting that they should be expelled. Incidentally, the Speaker has expressed his unhappiness pointing out, “Our effort should be that we maintain the dignity of Parliament. I am personally pained over what happened in the House. We do not want to run the House in this condition.” Incidentally the Speaker had repeatedly warned the members that those who cross over to the other side during the uproar would be suspended.

The suspension came after Congress members repeatedly stormed into the well of the house holding placards and shouting slogans demanding the ouster of Home Minister Amit Shah and a discussion on the recent Delhi riots. An outraged Parliamentary Affairs minister Prahalad Joshi demanded, “Snatching papers from the Speaker’s table is utmost disrespect to the Chair. Those who snatched papers from the Chair, their membership should be terminated.”

The Congress is accusing the government of dictatorship and of trying to weaken the voice of the opposition without accepting that it had gone a little too far by snatching papers from the Speaker’s table. This brings us to the question whether naming a member, or suspending him or her is enough for smooth functioning of the house? Is there a better way to resolve parliamentary functioning? Obviously suspensions are not the answer as they have not stopped members from rushing to the well of the house.

Withdrawal from the house is demanded in case of any gross misconduct on the part of the member. For decades the Chair has used the method of suspending members from the house as he or she deemed fit. Tempers run high because there is always a tug of war between the treasury benches to push through business and an equally determined opposition to stall it. Some are pre-planned while others are spontaneous. Walkouts, fist-fights, ego-clashes, slogan shouting etc. are resorted to and therefore the potential for disorder is very high.

So it is a daunting task for the chair to keep the house in order. Om Birla’s predecessors like Sumitra Mahajan, Meira Kumar and others had also resorted to wielding the stick. On 15 March 1989, during the Rajiv Gandhi era, as many as 63 members were suspended from the Lok Sabha for three days. Mahajan suspended 25 Congress MPs for five days for obstructing proceedings in the house in 2015. Om Birla had used his powers to discipline members earlier also. In November last year, he suspended two Congress members.

Interestingly, while the Speaker is empowered to place a member under suspension, it is for the House to resolve on a motion to revoke the suspension. This topic of how to discipline the MPs is often discussed and debated. In the UK the salary of the member is withheld for the period of suspension. The then civil aviation minister Mahesh Sharma had proposed ‘no work no pay’ rule as a disincentive but it has not been implemented.

After all most M.Ps today are crorepatis and this will not work. So it is for the political parties to ensure proper and dignified behaviour for their members. Are our Parliamentarians doing the jobs for which they were elected? They have the duty to legislate, to scrutinise the budget, oversee government functioning and be part of a judicial body at the time of eachment. All these can be done only when Parliament functions normally.

Many new members are disappointed that the house is not functioning properly. While it is for the government to run its business, the opposition too should have every opportunity to bring to the house issues of public importance for discussion and debate. Indulging in noisy scenes and disrupting the house or disciplining errant M.Ps are not the answers.

Political parties should also encourage debate and discussion rather than allowing their members to rush to the well of the house. The government too should reach out to the opposition. Dialogue, debate and discussion are the answers and for this all sides should cooperate.