Suspension of MPs: the rules and the powers of presiding officers

Subject: Polity

Section: Parliament

Context

The two Houses suspended these MPs because they disrupted proceedings, demanding a debate on rising prices and increasing GST rates on essential commodities.

Why do MPs disrupt Parliament?

One reason is the lack of time available to MPs for raising important matters;
a second is the “unresponsive attitude of the government and retaliatory posture by Treasury benches”.
The other two reasons are deliberate disruption by parties for political or publicity purposes, and
the absence of prompt action against MPs disrupting parliamentary proceedings.

What has Parliament done to address these issues?

The government and not Parliament decides the parliamentary calendar. Therefore, the decision about the time available with Parliament for discussions rests with the government. Parliamentary procedure also prioritises government business over other debates that take place in the legislature.
In this regard, Parliament has not updated its rules over the last 70 years to give Opposition parties a say in deciding the agenda for discussion.
And in 2001, Lok Sabha amended its rules to give the Speaker more powers to discipline MPs who disrupt House proceedings.

Who can suspend MPs, and for how long?

Rules for ensuring the smooth functioning of Parliament have been unchanged since 1952. First, the presiding officers can direct an MP to withdraw from the House for any disorderly conduc If the MP continues disrupting the House, the presiding officer can “name” the legislator. After that, the House can move a motion to suspend the MP until the end of the session. These powers are common to the presiding officers of both Houses.
In 2001, during Speaker G M C Balayogi’s term, Lok Sabha changed its rules to give the Speaker more powers to deal with grave and disorderly conduct. As per this new rule, the Speaker can “name” an MP, who shall then automatically stand suspended for five days or the remaining part of the session. This rule removes the need for the House to pass a motion for suspension. Rajya Sabha has not incorporated this provision in its procedures.

Can courts intervene in a matter of suspension of MPs?

Article 122 of the Constitution says parliamentary proceedings cannot be questioned before a court: “No officer or Member of Parliament in whom powers are vested by or under this Constitution for regulating procedure or the conduct of business, or for maintaining order, in Parliament shall be subject to the jurisdiction of any court in respect of the exercise by him of those powers”.
In some cases, however, courts have intervened in the procedural functioning of legislatures. For example, the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly passed a resolution in its 2021 Monsoon Session suspending 12 BJP MLAs for a yea The matter came before the Supreme Court, which held that the resolution was ineffective in law beyond the remainder of the Monsoon Session.

Do presiding officers have a role in breaking a deadlock?

Presiding officers are the custodians of Parliament, and their role is to be a nonpartisan implementer of the rules. In the 14th Lok Sabha (2004-09), during the tenure of Speaker Somnath Chatterjee, Lok Sabha was continuously getting disrupted by Opposition MPs. They asked him to convey their grievances against the government and the Treasury benches to the Prime Minister. Speaking in Lok Sabha, Speaker Chatterjee said, “I feel it will be an unwarranted exercise of power of the Speaker if he meddles into the political affairs or the political formulations of any Party or Group of Parties, and seeks to intervene.” He said such an action would be “an intrusion by the Speaker into an arena, which should be left to the political parties to decide and resolve”.