It is, of course, a fact that many a time the government, mostly for political reasons, shows reluctance to make a statement in the legislature lest the Opposition should raise inconvenient questions. Such situations give rise to acrimony and disorderly scenes in Parliament and lead to the suspension of legislators from the service of the House. It used to happen more often in state legislatures where the suspended members of the Opposition would be physically dragged out of the House by the marshals. Fortunately, such ungainly scenes have not been seen in Parliament so far. The eminent persons who became the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and Chair of the Rajya Sabha never approved such a course of action. For instance, Somnath Chatterjee, when he was elected Speaker, made it clear at the beginning of his tenure that he would never suspend a single MP from the House. He was firmly of the view that the suspension of MPs was not the right step to restore order in the House.

The House rules provide for suspension of members, of course; legislatures have the power to discipline recalcitrant members. But this power is used very sparingly. The reason is that members of the legislatures are responsible representatives of the people and are the principal operators of the constitutional system. They are the lawmakers of the country and delegates of the sovereign power of the people.

A closer look at the rules relating to suspension will reveal the restraint shown by the rule makers while framing the rules. Under Rule 374 of the Lok Sabha’s rules of procedure, the Speaker can name a member of the House who disregards the authority of the Chair or persistently and wilfully obstructs the business of the House. When a member is so named by the Speaker, a motion is moved in the House usually by the minister for parliamentary affairs, and upon the motion being adopted by the House, the member would stand suspended. The words “persistently and wilfully” would clearly indicate that the obstruction of business by that member should be of an aggravated form where he disturbs the business with the clear intention to do so and persists with it.

However, a persistent demand by members for a debate on an important issue or a statement from a minister cannot be treated in the normal course as a persistent and wilful obstruction. Therefore, this rule does not permit suspension of a member who does not persistently and wilfully obstruct the business of the House. Even under the above rule, a member who persistently and wilfully obstructs business is not automatically named and suspended. The Speaker acts only if he deems it necessary to do so.

So, the rules require the Speaker to apply his mind to the situation in a dispassionate manner before concluding that it is necessary to name the member. The reason is that members have a right to raise important issues in the House and demand a response from the government. A lack of response from the government may sometimes provoke members to obstruct proceedings. The Speaker, being the custodian of the rights of members, is required to take a balanced view of the situation. And, he/she has the authority to take decisions and enforce them in the House.

Generally, the Speaker takes the position that he/she does not have the power to compel the government to make a statement in the House. In this writer’s view, as the presiding officer of the House, the Speaker has the duty at least to draw the attention of the government to their constitutional obligation under Article 75(3) to respond to the demands from the House. Thus, the rules require the Speaker to exercise his authority first to ensure that the government discharges its constitutional obligations towards the House.

The House suspends a member only as a last resort. In the past, the presiding officers of Parliament have shown extreme reluctance to suspend a member. This is why cases of suspension were few and far between then. Rule 375 provides the option to the presiding officer to suspend the sitting for some time in case of grave disorder. The purpose is to enable the House to quickly eliminate the cause of disorder and proceed. Suspension as a means to punish an MP who raises a matter of public interest, even in a disorderly manner, is unsustainable.

What is often lost sight of is the skewed balance that exists in the House: Often, there are serious grievances on the one side of the House and a disdainful rejection thereof from the other. The system expects the presiding officer to use his/her authority to restore balance in the House. Frequent suspensions of MPs can hardly be conducive to the functioning of a great institution like Parliament.

P D T Achary is former secretary general, Lok Sabha. The views expressed are personal