From the constitution to the parliamentary procedures, the Indian legislative system stands as a pillar of democratic governance. The Rules on Expunging, Article 105(2) of the Constitution, and the role of Unparliamentary Words play vital roles. Through an analysis of these aspects, we delve into the recent incident where a portion of a speech delivered by the opposition leader in the Lok Sabha on February 7th, 2023 was expunged from the records of Parliament by the Speaker’s orders.
What Does Article 105(2) of the Constitution Say?
Article 105(2) of the Indian Constitution offers protection to Members of Parliament. They enjoy immunity from court proceedings associated with declarations made during their tenure in Parliament. While this grants them certain liberties, their speeches are nevertheless subjected to the jurisdiction of Parliamentary Rules, the judgement of its members, and the control of further debatings by the Speaker.
The Rules Governing Expunging
Rule 380 is the guiding principle when it comes to expunging parts of speeches or debates in the Lok Sabha. When any words or expressions that are deemed defamatory, indecent, unparliamentary, or undignified are used, it comes under the Speaker’s discretion to expunge these segments.
The Concept of Unparliamentary Expressions
The term ‘Unparliamentary Expressions’ holds significance at this juncture. Aimed at maintaining decorum, the Lok Sabha Secretariat has compiled such unacceptable expressions in an extensive volume. This book not only enumerates expressions construed as offensive by societal norms but also includes seemingly harmless ones. The responsibility of keeping these expressions out of Parliamentary records falls onto the shoulders of the Presiding Officers, namely the Speaker of Lok Sabha and Chairperson of Rajya Sabha.
Procedure for Expunging a Word or Speech Portion
The process to expunge a word or part of a speech is initiated by the Speaker, backed by Rule 380. This is done taking into account recommendations from the head of the reporting section, and the context in which the alleged unparliamentary expression was used. Striving for minimal removal, Rule 381 states that the expunged parts should be marked by asterisks along with an explanatory footnote: ‘Expunged as ordered by the Chair’. Following this, media houses cannot report these expunged parts, despite having possibly broadcasted them live.
The Contemporary Challenge of Online Spread
While this system has been functioning effectively, the advent of social media has introduced new challenges. Despite expunction orders, once live telecasts reach the public domain, it becomes challenging to control further dissemination. This contemporary issue now stands as a question for parliamentary proceedings to address.