Introduction: The Power of the Presiding Officer
In the vibrant and often heated debates of the Indian Parliament, words hold immense power. However, not all words spoken on the floor of the House make it to the official records. The Presiding Officers—the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha—possess the authority to 'expunge' remarks they deem unparliamentary. This topic is a crucial aspect of Parliamentary Privileges and Procedures, making it highly relevant for the UPSC Prelims and Mains (GS Paper 2).
What Does 'Expunging' Mean?
Expunging refers to the act of removing or deleting words, phrases, or portions of a speech from the official records of Parliament. Once a remark is expunged, it is treated as if it were never said in the House. Legally, media houses are prohibited from publishing or broadcasting these expunged remarks, although in the age of live telecasts and social media, this has become a contentious issue.
The Constitutional and Legal Framework
The power to expunge remarks is not arbitrary. It is rooted in the Constitution and the rules of procedure of the Houses of Parliament.
- Article 105(2) of the Constitution: This article grants Members of Parliament (MPs) freedom of speech within the Parliament. It also states that no MP shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said in Parliament. However, this freedom is not absolute and is subject to the rules and discipline of the House.
- Rules of Procedure of the Houses: The specific power to expunge is derived from the rulebooks of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha.
- Rule 380 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha: It states, "If the Speaker is of opinion that words have been used in debate which are defamatory or indecent or unparliamentary or undignified, the Speaker may, while exercising discretion order that such words be expunged from the proceedings of the House."
- Rule 261 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Rajya Sabha: This rule provides a similar power to the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha.
What is Considered 'Unparliamentary'?
There is no exhaustive list of what constitutes an 'unparliamentary' expression. The decision rests with the Presiding Officer's discretion. However, a general understanding includes language that is:
- Defamatory: Making unsubstantiated allegations against a member or a high authority.
- Indecent or Undignified: Using offensive, vulgar, or disrespectful language that lowers the dignity of the House.
- Unbecoming of a Member of Parliament: Remarks that are not in keeping with the decorum expected from an MP.
The Lok Sabha Secretariat has a compilation titled 'Unparliamentary Expressions,' which serves as a reference for Presiding Officers. This book contains words and phrases that have been deemed unparliamentary in the past. It is a dynamic document that is updated over time.
The Process of Expunging Remarks
The procedure is straightforward but significant:
- The Presiding Officer identifies a remark as unparliamentary, either during the speech or upon subsequent review.
- The officer orders the expunction of the specific words or phrases.
- The official record of the proceedings (the verbatim report) is then edited. A note is added, stating, 'Expunged as ordered by the Chair.'
- The expunged portions are not to be included in any media reports of the parliamentary proceedings.
Significance and Associated Debates
Arguments in Favour:
- Maintaining Decorum: The primary purpose is to maintain the dignity and decorum of the Parliament, ensuring that debates are conducted in a respectable manner.
- Protecting Members: It protects members from slanderous or defamatory remarks made on the floor of the House under the protection of parliamentary privilege.
- Ensuring Productive Debate: By filtering out offensive language, it helps keep the focus on substantive policy debate rather than personal attacks.
Criticisms and Concerns:
- Subjectivity: The decision is at the discretion of the Presiding Officer, which can sometimes lead to allegations of bias, especially if the officer is perceived to be favouring the ruling party.
- Stifling Dissent: Critics argue that this power can be used to suppress legitimate criticism of the government or its policies, thereby undermining the role of the opposition.
- The 'Streisand Effect': In the digital age, expunging a remark often draws more public attention to it than if it had been left in the record. The very act of removal can make it go viral on social media.
- Freedom of Speech of MPs: While Article 105 is not absolute, frequent expunctions can be seen as a curb on the freedom of expression of elected representatives.
Conclusion and Way Forward
The power to expunge remarks from parliamentary records is a necessary tool to uphold the sanctity and decorum of India's highest legislative body. It acts as a check on the absolute freedom of speech granted to MPs, ensuring that debate remains civil and constructive. However, this power comes with immense responsibility. The Presiding Officers must exercise their discretion judiciously, impartially, and in a manner that balances the need for decorum with the fundamental right of members to debate, dissent, and hold the executive accountable. For a healthy democracy, it is crucial that the temple of democracy does not silence legitimate voices under the garb of 'unparliamentary' conduct.