Stalling proceedings

PARLIAMENT HAS been time and again adjourned without transacting any business as the presiding officer found it impossible to conduct the business of the House. This is the case whatever be the colour of the party in power as the opposing party or parties join hands in bringing the parliamentary institution to a standstill. According to a newspaper an hour of parliamentary session costs the exchequer Rs. 9.94 lakhs and the budget has provided Rs. 126.02 crores for the Lok Sabha. The continued disruption of business in Parliament not only drains the country but also delays the legislative activity.

Article 105 of the Constitution dealing with the rights of the members reads as follows:

``105. Powers, privileges, etc. of the Houses of Parliament and of the members and the committees thereof:

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution and to the rules and standing orders regulating the procedure of Parliament, there shall be freedom of speech in Parliament.

(2) No member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of either House of Parliament of any report, paper, votes or proceedings.

(3) In other aspects, the powers, privileges and immunities of each House of Parliament, and of the members and the committees of each House, shall be such as may from time to time be defined by Parliament by law and, until so defined (shall be those of that House and of its members and committees immediately before coming into force of section 15 of the Constitution (44th Amendment) Act, 1978).

(4) The provisions of clauses (1), (2) and (3) shall apply in relation to persons who by virtue of this Constitution have by right to speak in, and otherwise to take part in the proceedings of House of Parliament or any committee thereof as they apply in relation to members of Parliament.''

In P. V. Narasimha Rao vs. State (CBI/SPE) the Supreme Court in paragraphs 145 and 147 (the majority view) held as follows:

``145. Mr. Rao submitted that since, by reason of the provisions of the Article 105 (2), the alleged bribe-takers had committed no offence, the alleged bribe-givers had also committed no offence. Article 105 (2) does not provide that what is otherwise an offence is not an offence when it is committed by a Member of Parliament and has a connection with his speech or vote therein. What is provided thereby is that a Member of Parliament shall not be answerable in a court of law for something that has a nexus to his speech or vote in Parliament. If a Member of Parliament has by his speech or vote in Parliament, committed an offence, he enjoys, by reasons of Article 105 (2), immunity from prosecution therefor. Those who have conspired with the Member of Parliament in the commission of that offence have no such immunity. They can, therefore, be prosecuted for it.

147. Mr. Rao submitted that the alleged bribe-givers had breached Parliament's privilege and been guilty of its contempt and it should be left to Parliament to deal with them. By the same sets of acts the alleged bribe-takers and the alleged bribe-givers committed offences under criminal law and breach of Parliament's privileges and its contempt. From prosecution for the former, the alleged bribe-takers, Ajit Singh excluded, enjoy immunity. The alleged bribe-givers do not. The criminal prosecution against the bribe-givers must, therefore, go ahead. For breach of Parliament's privileges and its contempt, Parliament may proceed against the alleged bribe-takers and the alleged bribe-givers.''

Not a licence to interrupt

The law declared by the Supreme Court unequivocally places an alleged bribe-giver, though he may be Member of Parliament on a different footing from the alleged bribe-taker. A protection under Article 105 is in respect of speaking and voting in Parliament by a member and not in respect of any act for which he may be liable for prosecution under the laws or otherwise amenable to law. On this premise if a member or group of members desire to exercise their right of speaking and voting in Parliament they could not be prevented by another member or group of members whose conduct in such obstruction could be open for judicial scrutiny and punishable if the scrutiny reveals violation of any law. The Constitution secures to a Member of Parliament unfettered right to speak and vote but this is not a licence to interrupt or frustrate the proceedings of the institution rendering it powerless.

Article 51A of the Constitution defines the fundamental duties of every citizen and Article 51 A (a) reads as follows:

``It shall be the duty of every citizen of India to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the National Flag and the National Anthem.''

Settled position of law

In Mehta vs Union of India reported in 1988 (1) SCC Pg471, paragraphs 24 to 27, the Supreme Court adverting to clause (g) held that it is the duty of the Central Government to take a number of steps to make this provision effective. Similarly to make the fundamental duty of respecting the institutions of the Constitution, one of which is Parliament, it is possible for the courts to give appropriate directions to the presiding officer, leader of a party or any group of persons or individual to make the institution effective. On this settled position of law any number of remedies could be conceived to make it possible for Parliament to function.

Any member of Parliament or groups of members of Parliament could possibly be restrained by an order of civil court from interfering with the right of a member or group of members speaking and voting in Parliament.

Any person or group of persons obstructing a member of Parliament from performing his duties would be guilty of the offence of obstructing a public servant in the discharge of his public duties and liable for prosecution as an alleged bribe-giver was held to be so liable.

Members of Parliament are citizens holding public office and could be directed by courts of law to perform their duties and cherish the Parliamentary institution.

Parliament can pass a legislation providing for deduction of allowances and emoluments to the Members of Parliament for the days when the House could not function due to interruption by members.

The committee now reviewing the Constitution could suggest an amendment to the Constitution to ensure orderly conduct of business albeit at the expense of certain privileges of members.

The matter requires urgent and serious attention as otherwise the malaise may gradually affect all assemblies of persons including annual general meetings of associations, societies and companies and not necessarily representative bodies like panchayats and Assemblies.

T. L. RAMMOHAN

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Features
Previous : Know your English
Next     : The right to speedy trial