House Rules and Weapons of Expunction
Context:
- The expunction of certain recent statements made by opposition politicians in Parliament has created a dispute concerning a choice taken by the Speaker (in the speech by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi) and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha (in the case of the speech made by Congress President and Leader of Opposition in the Rajya Sabha Mallikarjun Kharge). Mr. Gandhi and Mr. Kharge spoke on the Motion of Thanks to the President of India for her address to the Members of Parliament of both Houses.
Constitutional provisions and conventions:
- The Constitution states that each House shall debate the subjects mentioned in the address, even if it does not specifically include a motion of this nature. The British Parliament served as the direct inspiration for this procedure.
- MPs frequently have complete freedom to talk about anything when such a motion is being discussed. It is an opportunity to point out the errors of the government and discuss the full spectrum of issues with how the country is run. The chair never insists on relevance because most addresses are political.
- Because the Council of Ministers is jointly responsible to Parliament, MPs have the right to carefully scrutinise the performance of the administration. In order for the House of Commons to hold the government accountable, the government must successfully address the issues raised by MPs during the discussion. The Prime Minister must react to debate in both Houses in accordance with House Rules.
The following laws are in effect:
- Under Article 105 of the Constitution, members have the right to free expression in the House and are not subject to judicial review of their remarks. The freedom of speech in the House is consequently a member of Parliament’s most important right; it is only restricted by other constitutional clauses governing the behaviour of the House and the House Rules.
- In accordance with Rules 380 of the Lok Sabha’s Rules of Procedure and Rule 261 of the Rajya Sabha’s Rules of Procedure, the presiding officers of these Houses have the ability to strike any comments made during the debate that are defamatory, unparliamentary, undignified, or indecent. They are no longer part of the public record once they have been expunged, and anyone who publishes them later faces consequences for breaking the House’s privilege.
- Also occasionally, during a speech, a member of parliament will criticise another member of parliament or a third party. In this aspect, Lok Sabha Rule 353 governs the process. This Rule mandates that the MP provide “adequate advance notice” to the Speaker and the appropriate Minister.
- It should be noted that the Rule does not prohibit making any allegations in this situation. The only requirement is advance notification; following receipt of this, the responsible Minister will investigate the complaint and disclose the facts when the MP makes the charge in the House. In this case, it is important to emphasise that the charge that demands advance notice, etc., is malicious or untrue. This indicates that if the claim is neither defamatory nor damning, the aforementioned requirements would not be met.
- Evidently, a suit against a minister of the government is exempt from the regulation. Because the Council of Ministers is accountable to Parliament, Members of the House have the authority to question Ministers and make allegations regarding their behaviour while serving in that capacity. They are in charge of overseeing everything to ensure that the government submits to Parliament. Thanks to Article 105, they are free to perform their duty without fear.
Decisions and accusations made by speakers:
- Before levelling a charge against a Minister, a Member of Parliament must perform a number of particular actions. Speakers have already established a similar strategy.
- The presiding officers have specifically stated that the MP who makes an imputation against a government minister must be certain of the veracity of the claim and must take responsibility for it. A significant matter is deemed to be making a claim against a minister or the prime minister. If the MP complies with this criterion, the allegation will be permitted to be kept on file. Members of Parliament have frequently accused Ministers in the Lok Sabha.
In relation to Defamation:
- It is damage to a person’s reputation as a result of a fabrication. Anyone who feels that they have been falsely accused of something by someone else in public, whether through spoken words, written words, or by inference, may bring a defamation action, claiming that the false accusation has hurt their reputation.
Fundamentally, slander must satisfy the following requirements:
- The statement needs to be made public (both oral and written forms publication).
- The remark must reflect poorly on the subject (damaging to the reputation of the person against whom charges have been made).
- There are two different types of defamation in India: civil and criminal.
- A person who has been wrongfully accused may bring a legal action in the High Court or other subordinate courts and ask for monetary damages in the form of restitution. No jail time or other form of retaliation is imposed.
- Fraudulent Defamation: According to this, the defendant in a defamation case could get a two-year prison sentence, a fine, or both.
Instance of defamation in the House:
- It is obvious from a detailed reading of the House Rules that the axe of expunction may only be employed when the claims listed therein are of a defamatory or damning kind.
- According to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), comments about a public servant’s behaviour while performing his official duties or his character (insofar as his character emerges in such behaviour) are not considered defamatory (Second exception). Such a speech in the House, if directed at a Minister, does not amount to “mischief” as defined by Rules 353 or 380.
- IPC Section 499 provides a definition of defamation, and Section 500 outlines the punishment for criminal defamation (two years in jail for those proven guilty).
Conclusion:
- Consequently, it does not provide the presiding officers justification to strike out entire words or paragraphs of a speech because they are offensive. It follows that it is essential to ascertain whether the speech contains accusations that are either defamatory or incriminating before deploying the weapon of expunction, as opposed to just critical remarks (which a Member of Parliament has the right to make). The freedom of speech of the House members must also be protected from needless restrictions.
