Why washout of Parliament's Budget session is dangerous and murky
A near-complete washout of the second part of the Budget Session 2018 has raised some alarming issues. Right to be heard in Parliament is democratic but holding it to ransom is outright undemocratic.
How have we reached a stage where the presiding officers of Parliament viz the speaker and the chairman look on helplessly as few members of the House take the proceedings of Parliament for a ride for days? Why did the presiding officers not use time-tested mechanisms like "withdrawal", "naming", "suspension", "expulsion" and more to punish the members disrupting the house?
Could it be that the government of the day is party to such disruptions due to a tacit understanding with the presiding officers viz the speaker and the chairman? What about members who want to raise matters of genuine public importance but are deprived of the opportunity due to the washout? Is it not a "breach of privilege" of these members? Does it not cast a shadow over party chiefs without whose concurrence the members would not dare disrupt the House?
My piece attempts to examine how the virtual breakdown of Parliament is enabled. Refunding salary, as the NDA members reportedly offered, will in no way compensate the un-computed loss incurred due to the delay in passing bills such as the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill, 2017, or Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Bill, 2017, which would have been positive for better governance. Is there adequate understanding about how much a washout actually costs the nation?
How it all began?
The 2010 Winter Session maybe a watershed as far as "washout" of a session is concerned when the NDA, then in Opposition, protested against the 2G scam. The protest was so vehement that both the Houses - Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha - could not be run resulting in very little or no legislative work.
Similar protests were repeated by the UPA in the Monsoon 2015 session and the Winter 2016 session when legislative time lost by Lok Sabha was 54 per cent and 82 per cent and that of by Rajya Sabha was 91 per cent and 80 per cent, respectively.
The issues included the GST Bill and demonetisation. The moot question is can Indian Parliament be paralysed by a few agitating members shouting slogans or moving to the "well" of the House.
There are established rules of procedure aiding the presiding officers in running the Houses - "withdrawal", "naming", "suspension", "expulsion" and more. The application or implementation of these procedures can tide over disruptions, as has been successfully done in the past. Apart from this, it is imperative for the government of the day to walk an extra mile to ease the attrition during the session.
Rules and procedure
The chairman of Rajya Sabha has the power to direct any member whose conduct in his opinion is grossly disorderly to withdraw immediately from the council. Any member so ordered, shall do so right away and will need to absent himself during the remainder of the day's meeting. This instrument has been used in the past.
There have been, in fact many instances in the Rajya Sabha when members have been directed to withdraw for disorderly behaviour. In case of persistence in defiance, the chairman could invoke the procedure of "naming" the member and the person eventually would withdraw. The "naming a member" is drawing of attention of the House by the chairman to the conduct of a "member who disregards the authority of the chair or abuses the rules of the House by persistently and wilfully obstructing the business thereof, with a view to action being taken to suspend him from the service of the House for a period not exceeding the remainder of the session".
The chairman can name a member, following which a motion can be moved and adopted by the House for suspending the member from the service of the House for a period not exceeding the remainder of the session.
The House may, however, by another motion terminate the suspension. On August 26-27 and September 2, 2013, the deputy chairman directed two members to withdraw immediately from the House, who did so.
The same rule applies in the Lok Sabha too. Rule Number 373 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business states that in case the speaker is of the opinion that the conduct of any member is "grossly disorderly", he or she may direct that member to "withdraw immediately from the House".
The member is required to "do so forthwith", and stay away from the "remainder of the day's sitting". The speaker may also invoke Rule 374A in case of "grave disorder occasioned by a member coming into the well of the House or abusing the rules of the House, persistently and wilfully obstructing its business by shouting slogans or otherwise…"
The member concerned, "On being named by the speaker, stands automatically suspended from the service of the House for five consecutive sittings or the remainder of the session, whichever is less." However, in the case of Rajya Sabha, a motion has to be sought for suspending a member.
In an extreme case of misconduct, a member may face expulsion from the House. There have been three instances of expulsion of members of the Rajya Sabha so far.
On November 15, 1976, Subramanian Swamy was expelled on the basis of the report of a committee appointed to investigate his conduct and activities. Chhatrapal Singh Lodha was expelled on December 23, 2005, for his conduct being derogatory to the dignity of the House and inconsistent with the code of conduct. In Lodha's case the House adopted a motion agreeing with the recommendation contained in the committee's report.
On 21 March 2006, Swami Sakshi Ji Maharaj was expelled for his gross misconduct which brought the House and its members into disrepute and contravened the code of conduct for members of Rajya Sabha.
The speaker of Lok Sabha suspended 16 members for five days on February 13, 2014 as the House had been severely disrupted that day. The suspended members belonged to the Congress, Telugu Desam Party and YSR Congress. On March 15, 1989, as many as 63 members were suspended from the Lok Sabha for three days. On April 24, 2012, eight members were suspended for four days. On August 23, 2013, 12 members were suspended for five days. On September 2, 2014, nine members were suspended for five days.
Adequate safeguards
These examples clearly show that the presiding officers are equipped with enough safeguards which can be used to deal with the unruly members or disruptors. There have been sufficient precedents also to fall back on.
Speaking on the condition of anonymity, some members said, "Houses are adjourned on the slightest provocation and for longer durations and sometimes for the entire day. It seemed the presiding officers have lost the will to run the House."
Whatever may be the issue, if presiding officers are not using the rules and procedures available to them to run the Houses, it may well amount to dereliction of duty on their part and also this could be interpreted as breach of the privileges of members to raise the issues of public importance, which they are denied because the presiding officers are not using the procedural weapons available to them for bringing order to the House.
If this continues, the members should approach the committee on privileges for intervention.
Erroneous calculation methodology
The media and the intelligentsia have been calculating the loss of working hours in Parliament in terms of money for some time now. That is not a correct assessment. In fact, there is hardly any additional expenditure incurred during a parliamentary session except that members are entitled for daily allowances for attending the House. I agree with Dr MR Madhvan of PRS Legislative Research when he says that in monetary terms disruption costs are quite insignificant.
However, the cost of delay in policy-making is huge and is barely computed. There are bills that remain pending and delays hamper good governance. Further, loss of credibility is incalculable in monetary terms. When the electors see that their representatives disrupting Parliament day in and day out, they start believing that the system is not robust and can be trifled with. This free fall of credibility must be arrested without any delay.
Ominous sign
Washout of parliamentary sessions is an ominous sign. The recent case is more worrying because the government of the day including the presiding officers fall within the ambit of suspicion.
Some commentators have openly accused the speaker of Lok Sabha of dereliction. Parliament, though convened by the government of the day, is apparently India's highest sovereign body with an independent character. But the recent situation puts a huge question mark on the functioning of the parliamentary officers. Non-invocation of the procedural tools by the presiding officers is inexplicable. This may have actually emboldened the disruptors to hold Parliament to ransom in the recent years.
Parliament, perhaps, needs to adopt the principle of "the disruptors pay" on the lines of "the polluters pay". A hefty penalty over several lakhs can be slapped on the disrupting member for loss of a substantive part of the proceedings. The penalty bills to be raised against the member/s should be deducted from their salary and allowances bills. Thus, monetary penalty coupled with use of procedural tools and strong will of the presiding officers to run the Houses may revive some faith in Parliament.