Parliament Logjam Contra Parliamentary Etiquette and Dignity

On expected lines, the Congress Party, the leading member of the I.N.D.I Alliance, has created a “RUCKUS or BEDALM” in both the houses of the Parliament to force the Chairman and the Speaker to adjourn them. Nowadays the proceedings in the Parliament are worse than street brawls in slums or shanty colonies. The logjam is contrary to the Constitution - parliamentary etiquette and its dignity.

None can deny that the leakage of question papers of the NEET Examination affects student’s career. It is a very critical issue that warrants debate and forging consensus to find ways and means of preventing recurrence of such incidents in posterity.

Most important to note the issue of “Leakage of NEET Examination” question papers was highlighted by the President. Extracts include: “Regarding the recent instances of paper leak in some examinations, my Government is committed to a fair investigation and ensuring strict punishment to the culprits……. . It is important that we rise above party-politics and undertake concrete measures nationwide.”

Furthermore, the Minister of Education, Dharmendra Pradhan, has assured to debate the issue in both the Houses of the Parliament. Action taken so far includes: removing the Head of the NTA; Constituting a Committee; enacted a strict law against unfair means in examinations; cancelled the exam; ordering CBI inquiry; and announcing dates for the new examination. And, announcing to discuss the issue in the Parliament. Had he not done so, the blame for the logjam would have been on the Modi led NDA.

“Blame Game”, of course, will be real. Inconsequential is its outcome for “We the People” at large, particularly for students. With passage of time, it will be business as usual. What was common during the 17th Lok Sabha has been repeated at the first opportunity in both Houses of the Parliament. It clearly indicates what is likely to follow throughout till the next Lok Sabha elections in 2029 or earlier.

Let me briefly review the procedure followed in the Parliament. Article 86 (1) and Rule 18, 19 and 21 of the Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha clearly specifies the procedure to be followed during the debate of “Motion of Thanks to the President’s Address”.

To provide a balanced view, an attempt is made to recall certain established parliamentary customs, conventions, rules and etiquette which are required to be observed by members, both inside the House as well as outside, besides parliamentary etiquette. The Handbook for Members provides exhaustive material of Do’s and Don’ts and is published in the Parliamentary Bulletin Part-II prior to the commencement of every session. Therefore, senior MPs, particularly RaGa cannot feign ignorance.

Let me also highlight that the President's Address to both Houses of Parliament assembled together is the most solemn and formal act under the Constitution. Under Article 87(2) of the Constitution, amended and omitted by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, provides the procedure of either House for the allotment of time for discussion of the matters referred to in the President’s address and for the precedence of such discussion over other business of the House.

Under the Rules, the Speaker, in consultation with the Leader of the House, allots time for discussion of matters referred to in the President’s Address. The Business Advisory Committee specifies actual allocation of time for discussion - generally three days. Also, the Speaker makes an announcement fixing the time limit which does not ordinarily exceed 30 minutes for the Leaders of Groups and 15 minutes for other members. The Prime Minister, when replying to the debate on behalf of the Government is, however, allowed more time.

Most important to note, that any Member can table “Notices of amendments to Motion of Thanks on the President’s Address”. Amendments must only refer to matters referred to in the Address as well as to matters which in the opinion of the movers thereof, the Address had failed to mention. The only limitations are that members cannot refer to matters which are not the direct responsibility of the Central Government and that the name of the President cannot be brought in during the debate. The amendments which are inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution or refer discourteously to a friendly foreign Government or Head of State or cast reflection on the conduct of the President and Vice-President or relate to matters under control of the Speaker, are disallowed.

The amendments tabled by members are examined by the Speaker and those in order are circulated to members. The members who have tabled amendments are then asked to indicate their intention to move the amendments and such of the amendments as are selected by members are taken as moved and an announcement to that effect is made by the Speaker. Even at this stage the Speaker has the discretion to rule any amendment out of order even though it had been circulated to the members.

Discussion on the Address is generally not interrupted by any other business. However, a motion or motions for leave to introduce a Bill or Bills may be made and a Bill or Bills may be introduced on one day; and other business of a formal character may be transacted on such day before the House commences or continues the discussion on the Address.

At the end, the Prime Minister or any other Minister, whether previously taken part in the discussion or not, shall on behalf of the Government has a general right of explaining the position of the Government. After the Prime Minister has replied to the debate, the amendments that had been moved are disposed of and the Motion of Thanks put to the House and adopted. The same is conveyed to the President through letters by the Chairman in the case of Rajya Sabha and by the Speaker in the case of Lok Sabha. The President acknowledges the receipt of the Motion of Thanks through a message. This message is read out to the respective Houses by the Chairman and the Speaker.

Viewed in the above provisions of the Constitution, the protests by veteran Kharge and RaGa anointed as the LOP in Lok Sabha, both inside and outside the Parliament are blatantly condemnable and deplorable - gross misconduct. The House has the right to punish its members for their misconduct in the House or outside. The Committee of Privileges of the House may inquire into cases of breach of privilege by its members. Also, the House may appoint an ad hoc Committee to investigate the conduct of a member of the House with a view to determining whether a particular conduct of the member is derogatory to the dignity of the House and is, therefore, inconsistent with the standards which the House expects of the members.

In cases of misconduct or contempt committed by the members, the House can impose punishment in the form of admonition, reprimand, withdrawal from the House, suspension from the service of the House, imprisonment and expulsion from the House.

Ironic but true that the self styled Champions of “Save Samvidhan '' are the real ones hell bent upon violating the provisions enshrined in the Constitution. Never too late for them to carry out self introspection and mend their ways to uphold parliamentary etiquette and its dignity by refraining from indulging in protests inside both Houses. Predictably, they will “walk out” after their speeches and cry foul of “Murdering of Democracy”. Best left to “We the Gullible People” to know the real CULPRIT in the current LOGJAM.