INTRODUCTION-
Nowadays, the use of offensive language and derogatory remarks have become a widespread occurrence in the Indian parliamentary houses, especially the lower house i.e. The Lok Sabha. Every day or two, news of some party’s MP or MLA using offensive words, targeting a specific community or religion – national or global, has become so common that we don’t even consider it an offence anymore. ‘It’s just parliamentary debate, mistakes are made during the flow of words We can’t go around punishing everyone for using a ‘bad word’ now, can we?’ But are the members of the parliament just ‘anyone’? They have been nominated and elected by lakhs of people of their constituencies trusting that they will make proper and correct decisions for their development and upbringing. Their speeches and remarks have a direct impact on the mindset and thinking of people. They, as the country’s leaders, should give special attention to what they speak and convey in that house which symbolises equal participation and opportunity. What good will they do if they can’t even control their flow in front of the parliament? But still, no cases of defamation or any suspension notice are booked against them. The answer to all the above questions is the shield of ‘Immunity’ granted to the members of the parliament by the Constitution of India. This blog will discuss those immunities and whether they are in line with the modern society of today.
PROVISIONS GOVERNING MP’S CONDUCT IN PARLIAMENT –
In India, the language used by parliamentarians is governed by the different laws written and defined in detail by the Constitution of India. Article 105[1] Grants the MPs the freedom of speech within the house, ensuring they can express their views and opinions and exercise their powers and privileges without any fear of legal barriers and actions. This article thus acts as a shield for them providing them immunity from any legal repercussions that may arise out of their misspoken demeanour and behaviour. In identical terms, Article 195[2] The Constitution of India grants similar kinds of powers, privileges and immunity to the MLAs to exercise their freedom of speech without any barriers and hindrances. However, this immunity is not absolute and has exceptions to the procedure established by the law for the respective houses. (Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha)
The members of the parliament being the major leaders and representatives of the parliament are expected to be more mature and experienced than ordinary politicians. They are inherently expected by the house to follow a code of conduct that emphasises ethical behaviour and requires the MP to act in a dignified manner. But keeping in mind the recent affairs and news of derogatory language being used in the parliament, it can be assumed that walking on the path of self-realisation will bring no positive result. Of late, questions were raised regarding the constitutional validity of the words used by Hyderabad’s Asaduddin Owaisi, leader of the All India Majlis-E-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) party and a five-time member of the Lok Sabha in his oath ceremony during the session of the parliamentary. He used a slogan of “Jai Palestine” while ending his oath which came under scrutiny under Article 102 (1)(d)[3] Which states the parliamentary expulsion of an MP in case he adheres to any other foreign state.[4] The contention of using these words during the oath ceremony of Lok Sabha clearly states the intention however, these allegations were denied by the alleged MP. A similar incident took place during the budget session when BJP MP Ramesh Bidhuri said some very offensive words, reportedly ‘anti-muslim slurs’ directed towards BSP MP Danish Ali on which he was given a strict warning by Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla. Also, the words used by him were immediately expunged from the official records of that day.[5] TMC’s Mahua Moitra openly mocked a judge’s death in the parliament and blamed the BJP for some hidden conspiracy.[6] Such remarks of harming a dead person’s reputation not only incite defamation but also unsteadies the expected adherence to decorum and responsibility while addressing a sensitive issue. Another incident where the alleged MP used some unparliamentary and derogatory terms while discussing the Adani–Hidensberg topic charged her an apology no less but no stern action.[7] Again, calls for her suspension were raised in the parliament by other MP’s and then the topic cooled down eventually.
The common row in all these incidents is the lack of action taken those breaking the decorum of the house and then getting away using the said immunity which straightaway dismisses any use of its power for unparliamentary purposes. But there does exist a body known as the Privileges Committee under Article 105 of the Constitution of India which maintains checks and balances regarding the serious breaches of parliamentary privileges and can recommend penalties ranging from suspension to expulsion, but the committee has to date never suspended an MP in this regard. It is the responsibility of the Presiding Officer of the houses i.e. the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Chairperson of the Rajya Sabha to maintain law and order in the parliament under Article 105 which gives them the discretion to suspend any MP or expunge any offensive or unparliamentary language from the official record. There also exists a list of ‘unparliamentary words,’ updated regularly which includes terms that are considered offensive, indecent and derogatory.
Under Article 118(1) of the Constitution[8], both houses of the parliament are independent to make their own rules and regulations to conduct their affairs of their own free will known as ‘Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha’ and ‘Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Rajya Sabha’ which govern the everyday behaviour and conduct of the Members of Parliament. Under these rulebooks, any unethical, indecent, derogatory, offensive or targeted misconduct will lead to reprimand, warning or suspension of the particular member from one or more sessions of the Parliament.
SUGGESTIONS AND CONCLUSION –
Getting a reality check after taking note of such laws paints a very disappointing image. None of these rules and laws are followed and they exist just for show. All the said derogatory remarks are expunged taking the cover of the immunity and overlooking the big or small impact they make on the mindset of the people. These incidents should be brought in limelight and proper adherence to these laws must be ensured. In this regard the following steps are recommended by this blog –
1 – The absolute immunity granted under Article 105 should be reevaluated to fit in with the current situation of the parliament. While the parliamentarians should continue to have the freedom to express their views and opinions without any fear, such immunity should not extend to hate speech, incitement to violence, or targeted communal or defamatory remarks or defamatory terms.
2 – An independent ethics community should be established to monitor the behaviour of the parliamentarians during sessions and also to review and address complaints of hate speech, derogatory language, or communal remarks. This committee should include retired judges, senior civil servants, and legal experts to maintain impartiality and transparency.
3 – A mandatory tiered penal session should be introduced for the members who are repeating these derogatory behaviours from time to time. The first offence should incite a warning and public apology, the second should incite monetary fines depending on the extent of the remark and the third offence should include suspension from one or more sessions.
In conclusion, while free speech is mandatory in the parliament for ensuring strong and fearless debates, such debates should not affect the sentiments and feelings of any person belonging to any community or ethnicity. The members being the ultimate leaders of their constituencies should realise the grave importance their remarks have on the feelings and thinking of people and as such should keep the mind the moral and ethical decorum of their words and actions. These amendments and revaluations can play a major role towards maintaining this balance of freedom of expression freedom of expression and ethical conduct in parliament. As a democratic country, it is the responsibility of members of the parliament of India to ensure the rights of every person are unharmed and such feelings of patriotism and righteousness continue to thrive.
Author(s) Name: Ravi Shanker Bhatt (Assam University)
References:
[1] Article 105 of the Indian Constitution
[2] Article 195 of the Indian Constitution
[3] Article 102 (1)(d) of the Indian Constitution
[4] PTI, “Bareilly court summons AIMIM chief Owaisi over pro-Palestine slogan in Parliament”, (The Hindu, 24th December 2024), < https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/bareilly-court-summons-aimim-chief-owaisi-over-pro-palestine-slogan-in-parliament/article69022262.ece > assessed 11th January 2024
[5] PTI, “BJP MP Ramesh Bidhuri abuses in Parliament, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla warns of strict action, Rajnath Singh expresses regret”, (The Telegraph Online, 22 September 2023) < https://www.telegraphindia.com/india/bjp-mp-ramesh-bidhuri-abuses-in-parliament-lok-sabha-speaker-om-birla-warns-of-strict-action-rajnath-singh-expresses-regret/cid/1968125 > assessed 10th January 2025
[6] The Hindu Bureau, “Lok Sabha witnesses disruption after Trinamool MP Mahua Moitra remarks on judge’s death” (The Hindu, 14 December 2024) < https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/lok-sabha-witnesses-disruption-after-trinamool-mp-mahua-moitras-remarks-on-judge-death/article68983059.ece > assessed 10 January 2025
[7] India Today Web Desk, “Ruckus in Lok Sabha after TMC’s Mahua Moitra uses ‘offensive’ word | Watch” (India Today, 8 February 2024) < https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/ruckus-in-lok-sabha-after-tmcs-mahua-moitra-uses-abusive-language-2331751-2023-02-07 > assessed 11 January 2024
[8] Article 118(1) of the Constitution
