The Winter Session of the Parliament this year is now beginning to resemble a high school prayer assembly. With 78 MPs suspended on Monday (December 18) alone for allegedly causing ruckus i.e. demanding an explanation from the government for the Parliament security breach last week, the total number of MPs suspended from both houses of the Parliament has crossed 90.
The rapid pace of suspensions from the highest seats of governance for alleged indiscipline have made netizens wonder if the Parliament was going for boarding school-styled discipline where everyone is expected to maintain pin-drop silence or stand outside the hall as a punishment.
The rapid pace of suspensions from the highest seats of governance for alleged indiscipline have made netizens wonder if the Parliament was going for boarding school-styled discipline where everyone is expected to maintain pin-drop silence or stand outside the hall as a punishment.
Taking to Twitter, Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge stated, “First, intruders attacked Parliament. Then Modi Govt attacking Parliament & Democracy All Democratic norms are being thrown into the dustbin by an autocratic Modi Govt by suspending 47 MPs. We have two simple and genuine demands – 1. The Union Home Minister should make a statement in both Houses of Parliament on the inexcusable breach in the Parliament security. 2. A detailed discussion should be held on the same. PM can give an interview to a newspaper; Home Minister can give interviews to TV channels. But, they have ZERO accountability left to the Parliament.” Commenting on the same, author and Congress MP Shashi Tharoor said, “What is the point of a Parliament if Ministers do not wish to address it on issues of prime concern? Just to serve as a notice-board and rubber-stamp?”
By Monday evening, social media was abuzz with an outpour of memes and cheeky one-liners condemning the suspension which several claimed to be an assault on democracy. Several wondered how those accountable for the security breach have still not been suspended while the MPs demanding an explanation for the same have been shown the way out.
What is the point of a Parliament if Ministers do not wish to address it on issues of prime concern? Just to serve as a notice-board and rubber-stamp?
Congress MP Shashi Tharoor
Meanwhile, several netizens also questioned the Opposition MPs for not maintaining the decorum of the Parliament and resorting to disruption of proceedings thus justifiying their suspension.
Earlier on Saturday, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla had clarified that there was no association between the suspension of the 14 MPs last week (including one Rajya Sabha MP) and the security breach at the Parliament on December 13. He has assured all members of the Parliament that a high-level Committee has been constituted for an in-depth investigation into the incident.
“The Committee has started working. The report of this Committee will be soon be shared with the -house,” the Speaker noted in his communique. “I have also constituted a High-Powered Committee which will review various aspects of security in the Parliament Complex and formulate a concrete action plan to ensure that such incidents do not recur,” he added.
The Speaker had also clarified that the decision of the House to suspend 14 MPs had no relation with the security breach that took place on December 13. “There is no association between the suspension of the Honourable Members and the incident which took place on December 13,” he noted in his letter and added that suspension of the MPs was ‘purely to uphold the sanctity of the House’.
“At the time of inauguration of the new building of our Parliament, we resolved we will refrain from bringing placards inside the house; we will not create ruckus in the well of the House. It was in this context that House was compelled to take strict action of suspending Honourable Members,” Speaker Om Birla stated.
Parliament rules regarding suspension of MPs
According to Rule Number 373 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha, ‘the Speaker, if he is of the opinion that the conduct of any Member is grossly disorderly, may direct such Member to withdraw immediately from the House, and any Member so ordered to withdraw shall do so forthwith and shall remain absent during the remainder of the day’s sitting.’ The Speaker can take recourse to Rules 374 and 374A for more unwilling Members.
Rule 374 suspension of a Member:
(1) The Speaker, may, if he deems it necessary, 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.
2) If a member is so named by the Speaker, the Speaker shall, on a motion being made forthwith put the question that the member (naming such member) be suspended from the service of the House for a period not exceeding the remainder of the session; Provided that the House may, at any time, on a motion being made, resolve that such suspension be terminated.
(3) A member suspended under this rule shall forthwith withdraw from the precincts of the House.
Rule 374A Automatic Suspension of a Member:
During the 13th Lok Sabha, a new Rule 374A, which was recommended by the Rules Committee and agreed to by the House, was incorporated in the Tenth Edition of the Rules.
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in rules 373 and 374, in the event 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, such member shall, on being named by the Speaker, stand automatically suspended from the service of the House for five consecutive sittings or the remainder of the session, whichever is less: Provided that the House may, at any time, on a motion being made, resolve that such suspension be terminated.
(2) On the Speaker announcing the suspension under this rule, the member shall forthwith withdraw from the precincts of the House.
Rules of Conduct and Parliamentary Etiquette in Rajya Sabha state that the Chairman may, if he deems it necessary, name a member who disregards the authority of the Chair or abuses the rules of the House by persistently and willfully obstructing the business thereof.
If a member is so named by the Chairman, a motion is 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.
Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Council of States (Rajya Sabha) mention Rule 256 for suspension of member.
Rule 256 for Suspension of a Member:
(1) The Chairman may, if he deems it necessary, name a member who disregards the authority of the Chair or abuses the rules of the Council by persistently and willfully obstructing the business thereof.
(2) If a member is so named by the Chairman he shall forthwith put the question on a motion being made, no amendment, adjournment or debate being allowed, that the member (naming him) be suspended from the service of the Council for a period not exceeding the remainder of the Session: Provided that the Council may, at any time, on a motion being made, resolve that such suspension be terminated.
(3) A member suspended under this rule shall forthwith quit the precincts of the Council.