Recent incidents involving the suspension of Members of Parliament (MPs) from both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha have raised questions about the evolving approach to disciplinary powers within the parliamentary system.
Process and Rules of Suspension
- General Principle: The Presiding Officers, namely the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, are entrusted with maintaining order in the respective Houses for smooth functioning. They have the authority to compel members to withdraw from the House if their conduct disrupts proceedings.
- Suspension Rules in the Lok Sabha: Rule 373 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business empowers the Speaker to immediately direct a disorderly member’s withdrawal from the House for the rest of the day’s sitting. Rule 374 allows the Speaker to name a member who persistently obstructs House business, leading to suspension upon the House’s adoption of a motion.
- Suspension Rules in the Rajya Sabha: Under Rule 255, the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha can order the immediate withdrawal of a disorderly member. Unlike the Lok Sabha Speaker, the Chairman lacks suspension powers and requires the House to pass a motion to lift the suspension. Rule 256 allows the Chairman to suspend a member from the Council’s service for the remaining session.
Purpose of Suspension Rules
- Clearing Logjams: Suspension rules intend to eliminate obstruction, ensuring the House conducts business smoothly.
- Punishment for Unparliamentary Behavior: Suspension carries a punitive aspect. Suspended MPs are barred from House and committee meetings, submitting notices, or engaging in parliamentary activities, making them non-members temporarily.
Challenges with Recent Suspensions
- Suspension as a Last Resort: The concept of suspension as a last resort is changing. Recent cases, including the suspension of the Congress party’s Lok Sabha leader, indicate a shift from this principle. In some instances, suspensions have been extended beyond sessions, challenging the traditional approach.
- Suspension on Unprecedented Grounds: Some members have been suspended pending investigation by privileges committees, an unusual occurrence. Unlike government employees, parliamentary rules do not explicitly permit such suspensions, highlighting a departure from established norms.
- Suspensions Contradict Established Rules: Parliament’s rules (Rule 374 and Rule 256) are framed under Article 118 of the Constitution. Any suspension must align with these rules, rendering the suspension of members for breach of privilege legally questionable.
Judicial Intervention and Way Forward
- Judicial Intervention: Article 122 of the Constitution restricts courts from questioning parliamentary proceedings, although they have intervened in procedural matters. In Ashish Shelar vs Maharashtra Legislative Assembly (2022), the Supreme Court ruled suspensions beyond rule-prescribed periods are unconstitutional.
- Suspension as a Last Resort: The suspension of MPs should remain a last resort, reserved for severe defiance and obstruction that leaves the Chair no alternative.
- Suspension as Temporary Provision: Historical precedent shows that suspensions have been lifted within days due to the House’s reluctance to deprive itself of members’ services. This reaffirms the temporary nature of suspensions.
UPSC Mains Questions
- What are the key differences in the suspension rules and powers between the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha?
- In what ways have recent suspensions challenged the principle of separation of powers within the Indian parliamentary system?
- How does the concept of judicial intervention in parliamentary matters, as exemplified by the Ashish Shelar case, impact the balance of power between the judiciary and the legislative branch?