SUSPENSION OF MP’S FROM HOUSE

SUSPENSION OF MP’S FROM HOUSE 

WHY IN NEWS?

• Eight Rajya Sabha MPs were suspended for unruly behavior in the House. Reason for suspension was to maintain order so that the House can function smoothly. POWER TO SUSPEND RAJYA SABHA MPS 
• With regard to Lok Sabha Rule Number 373 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business says: “The Speaker, if 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 Chairman of Rajya Sabha is empowered under Rule Number 255 to “direct any Member whose conduct is in his opinion grossly disorderly to withdraw immediately” from the House.
• Unlike the Speaker, however, the Rajya Sabha Chairman does not have the power to suspend a Member. The House may, by another motion, terminate the suspension. 
• The House may adopt a motion suspending the Member from the service of the House for a period not exceeding the remainder of the session.

SUBSTANTIVE REASONS FOR DISRUPTIONS

1. Discussion on matters of controversy and public importance: a number of disruptions in Parliament stem from discussions on either listed topics that are controversial, or unlisted matters that are of public importance.
2. Grandstanding by the leaders and members of the opposition: most disruptions to have been initiated by members of the opposition parties. This is because the transaction of business in the Rajya Sabha and the Lok Sabha is, in some sense, as is only to be expected, driven by the government and subject to the interplay between various political groups and their associated ideologies.
3. Privileging Party over Member: The spate of large-scale disruptions may also be attributable to the privileging of the political party over the individual parliamentarian in the democratic setup. Due to the application of the anti-defection law, an MP who, for instance, does not approve of disruptions on the floor of the House, may be compelled to toe the party line during parliamentary discussions, and be forced to tolerate or actively support disruptions by the leaders and other members of his party.
4. Disruptions may help ruling party evade responsibility: Such disruptions make it impossible for the Speaker/Chairman to conduct the Question Hour/Zero Hour, and, in some sense, allow governments to avoid answering questions that are posed to them

STRUCTURAL REASONS FOR DISRUPTIONS

1. Lack of dedicated time for unlisted discussion: disruptions also get triggered due to lack of adequate time for raising questions and objections in respect of matters that are not listed for discussion in a particular, or during a particular session, in general. In this regard, it is also pertinent to mention that the increase in the number of parties in the House has led to a proportionate reduction in the amount of time available to each party for discussion.
2. Scarce resort to disciplinary powers: Another systemic reason why disruptions are not effectively prevented relates to the scarce resort to disciplinary powers by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha. As a result, most members engaging in disorderly conduct are neither deterred nor restrained from engaging in such conduct.

WAY FORWARD

• STRUCTURAL REFORMS
  • Composition of the Rajya Sabha: A startling finding from the functioning of the parliamentary sessions studied was the high incidence of disruptions in the Rajya Sabha. This is attributable to a mismatch between the power of the Rajya Sabha in being able to check and balance government, and its composition, which is entirely political and delinked from federal interests.
  • The Rajya Sabha must be restored to its original function of espousing state interests at the federal level. This can be effectively done if the residency requirements of MPs, who are elected, are strengthened such that persons are elected from states where they currently reside, or at least have resided in for a period of five years prior to their election.
    • Inner Party Democracy 
    • Provision for Opposition-led discussion in the House 
    • Provision for Prime Minister’s Questions 
    • Asymmetric structuring of sessions with sufficient flexibility 
• SUBSTANTIVE REFORMS 
  • Permission to intervene, and the expression of a divergent view: While the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha Rules provide comprehensive guidance on parliamentary etiquette, they do not regulate parliamentary interruptions per se, which are an acceptable form of intervention during parliamentary deliberations. 
  • Furthermore, the terms ‘interruption’ and ‘disruption’, which are often used in the documents supplied by the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha Secretariat, have not been defined under the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha Rules. As a result, it is impossible for MPs to distinguish between the kinds of interventions that are acceptable, and that are not.
  • Careful Structuring of Sessions and Debates
  • Ethics Committee Reforms
    • Preparation of reports on disruptions
    • Periodic Review of the Ethics Committee
  • Reduction of salaries of suspended Members as a deterrent against misbehavior. The Rules of the National Assembly in South Africa also provide for reduction of salaries of suspended members.