Expunction Powers in Parliament

The recent expunction of remarks made by opposition leaders in both the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha has stirred significant debate and controversy.

Expunction Powers in Parliament

1. Definition and Purpose:

Expunction refers to the removal or cancellation of certain remarks or statements from the official records of Parliament. These records, known as the "Hansard," serve as the official transcript of parliamentary proceedings. Expunction powers are vested in the presiding officers of both Houses—the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha.

2. Authority and Procedure:

• Speaker of the Lok Sabha: The Speaker has the authority to expunge remarks or statements from the records if they are deemed to be against parliamentary rules, derogatory, defamatory, or out of order. The Speaker's decision is usually based on established parliamentary rules and precedents.
• Chairman of the Rajya Sabha: Similarly, the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha has the power to expunge parts of speeches or discussions that violate parliamentary norms or are deemed inappropriate. The Rajya Sabha Chairman follows rules outlined in the Rajya Sabha Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business.

3. Rules Governing Expunction:

• Rules of Procedure: Both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha have detailed rules governing the conduct of debates and discussions. These rules include provisions for the expunction of remarks that breach decorum or are considered defamatory.
• Presiding Officers' Discretion: The power of expunction is exercised at the discretion of the presiding officers, and their decisions are generally final. However, these decisions can be subject to scrutiny and criticism, especially when they involve political sensitivities.

Recent Incidents

1. Rajya Sabha Incident:

During the first special session of the 18th Lok Sabha, remarks by Leader of Opposition (LoP) Mallikarjun Kharge, which were critical of the Prime Minister and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), were removed by the Rajya Sabha Chairman. The expunction was seen by many as a response to remarks perceived as highly critical or inflammatory.

2. Lok Sabha Incident:

Similarly, in the Lok Sabha, parts of Rahul Gandhi’s remarks criticizing the Prime Minister and the BJP were expunged following the orders of the Speaker. This action sparked controversy, particularly among opposition members who viewed it as an attempt to suppress dissenting voices.

Implications and Debate

1. Freedom of Speech and Expression:

The expunction of remarks raises questions about the balance between maintaining parliamentary decorum and protecting freedom of speech. Critics argue that frequent use of expunction powers can stifle legitimate debate and dissent, while supporters maintain that it is necessary to ensure respectful and orderly proceedings.

2. Political Impact:

Expunctions often have political repercussions, influencing public perception of the legislative process. When remarks are expunged, it can fuel perceptions of bias or censorship, and may impact the relationship between the ruling party and the opposition.

3. Judicial Oversight:

While parliamentary rules grant significant discretion to presiding officers, there are limited avenues for judicial review of expunction decisions. This lack of oversight can lead to concerns about the impartiality and fairness of these decisions.

Process and Rules for Expunction of Remarks in Parliament

Expunction of remarks in parliamentary records involves a specific process governed by rules and precedents designed to maintain the decorum and integrity of parliamentary proceedings.

Process of Expunction

• Identification of Unparliamentary Remarks:
• During a parliamentary debate, if the Chair (either the Speaker of the Lok Sabha or the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha) deems certain remarks or expressions to be unparliamentary, the member making those remarks is required to withdraw them immediately. The remarks could be deemed inappropriate for various reasons, including being offensive, derogatory, or irrelevant.
• Immediate Withdrawal:
• If a member's remarks are considered unparliamentary, the Chair will ask the member to withdraw them without engaging in further debate on the issue. Failure to comply with this directive can lead to the expunction of the remarks from the official record.
• Record of Expunged Portions:
• The expunged portions of the speech are marked with asterisks in the official record, accompanied by a footnote stating, “expunged as ordered by the Chair.” If the Chair directs that nothing will be recorded during a member's speech, a footnote stating “not recorded” is inserted.
• Comprehensive List and Publication:
• At the end of the day’s proceedings, a comprehensive list of expunged words and phrases is circulated to media outlets. Once expunged, these words or phrases cease to exist in the official record of parliamentary proceedings.
• Ban on Publishing Expunged Words:
• Publishing or disseminating expunged words or portions of speeches is considered a breach of parliamentary privilege. Individuals or entities who publish such content can face legal consequences.

Rules to be Followed by MPs During Speeches

1. Avoiding Unparliamentary Language:

• Personal Charges: MPs should not make personal charges against other members. This includes avoiding offensive expressions about the conduct or proceedings of the House or any State Legislature.
• Critical References: MPs should avoid making critical references about debates in the House or casting reflections on decisions of the House unless the discussion is part of a motion to rescind such a decision.
• Allegations Against Dignitaries: MPs should not make allegations against or cast aspersions on persons in high authority unless the discussion is based on a substantive motion.
• Use of President’s Name: MPs should not use the President’s name to influence the debate or discuss the conduct of the President in the House.
• Treasonable or Seditious Remarks: Remarks that are treasonable, seditious, defamatory, offensive, or otherwise unparliamentary should be avoided.

2. Sub-judice Matters:

• MPs must not refer to matters that are sub-judice, i.e., those pending judicial decisions. If such instances occur, the Chair may ask the member to stop or discontinue their speech.

3. Personal References and Motives:

• MPs should avoid making personal references that impute motives or question the bona fides of any member unless it is necessary for the debate or is a matter in issue.

4. Continuous Interruptions:

• Continuous interruptions during speeches may be expunged at the Speaker’s discretion.

5. Written Speeches:

• MPs should not read out a written speech without the prior leave of the Chair or read a speech on behalf of another member in their presence.

6. Consultative Committees:

• MPs should not refer to the proceedings of or matters raised during the meetings of Consultative Committees.

Constitutional and Legal Framework

1. Article 105 of the Constitution:

• Article 105 of the Indian Constitution provides MPs with freedom of speech in the House and immunity from interference by courts for anything said within the House. However, this freedom is subject to constitutional provisions and the rules of each House.

2. Breach of Privilege:

• Anyone publishing expunged words or portions of speeches is liable to face charges for breach of privilege of the House, which underscores the importance of maintaining parliamentary decorum and confidentiality.

Making Remarks Against a Fellow MP or a Minister of Government

In parliamentary proceedings, the manner in which MPs can make remarks about each other or about government ministers is governed by specific rules and conventions.

Remarks Against a Fellow MP

1. Rule 353 of the Lok Sabha:

• Advance Notice Requirement: According to Rule 353 of the Lok Sabha Rules of Procedure, if an MP wishes to make remarks that are defamatory or incriminatory about another MP, advance notice must be given to the Chair and the member concerned. This allows the accused MP an opportunity to prepare a response or defense.
• Non-Defamatory Remarks: If the remarks are not defamatory or incriminatory, the MP does not need to give advance notice. However, the remarks must still adhere to the norms of parliamentary decorum.

2. Procedure for Defamatory Remarks:

• When defamatory or incriminatory remarks are made, the Chair will typically ensure that the member who is the subject of these remarks has the opportunity to respond. This process helps maintain fairness and allows for the facts to be presented.

Remarks Against a Minister of Government

1. Accountability to Parliament:

• Right to Question Ministers: Ministers are accountable to Parliament, and MPs have the right to question their conduct and policies. This includes making criticisms and allegations regarding their actions or decisions in their official capacity.
• No Need for Advance Notice: Unlike allegations against fellow MPs, there is no specific requirement for advance notice when making remarks about a minister’s conduct. However, the remarks must still conform to parliamentary standards.

2. Parliamentary Decorum:

• Unparliamentary Language: Even when addressing ministers, MPs must avoid using unparliamentary language. For example, calling a minister a "liar" is considered unparliamentary, and such remarks would typically be ordered to be expunged by the Chair.
• Factual Basis: MPs making allegations against a minister should ensure that their claims are factually accurate and supported by evidence. This is important to maintain credibility and avoid potential legal and reputational repercussions.

Implications and Responsibilities

1. Factual Basis:

• Responsibility for Allegations: MPs making allegations against a fellow member or a minister must be prepared to substantiate their claims with evidence. This responsibility ensures that allegations are not made frivolously and that the integrity of parliamentary debates is maintained.

2. Expunction of Remarks:

• Unparliamentary Words: Remarks deemed offensive, defamatory, or otherwise inappropriate by the Chair will be expunged from the official records. This includes personal attacks or language that is considered unparliamentary, regardless of whether the target is a fellow MP or a minister.

3. Consequences of Publishing Expunged Remarks:

• Breach of Privilege: Publishing remarks that have been expunged from the parliamentary record is a breach of privilege and can result in legal consequences. This helps protect the confidentiality and decorum of parliamentary proceedings.

Importance and Implications of Expunction in Parliamentary Records

Expunction refers to the removal of certain remarks or portions of speeches from the official record of parliamentary proceedings. This process plays a crucial role in maintaining the integrity and decorum of parliamentary debates.

Importance of Expunction

• Maintains Parliamentary Decorum:
• Safeguard Against Misuse: Expunction acts as a check against the misuse of parliamentary privilege. By removing inappropriate, offensive, or irrelevant remarks, it helps ensure that debates remain respectful and constructive.
• Ensures Respectful Debates: It upholds the dignity of the House and its members by ensuring that parliamentary discussions are conducted in a manner befitting the institution.
• Upholds the Dignity of the House:
• Promotes Integrity: By removing derogatory or inappropriate remarks, expunction contributes to maintaining the overall integrity and respectability of the parliamentary process.
• Encourages Accurate Debates: It ensures that debates focus on relevant and accurate issues, contributing to more effective and meaningful parliamentary discussions.
• Maintains Diplomatic Sensitivities:
• Upholds International Relations: Expunction helps preserve diplomatic sensitivities by ensuring that comments related to international relations or foreign dignitaries are handled with care, thus maintaining a positive image of the parliamentary institution.

Implications of Expunction

• Breach of Parliamentary Privilege:
• Legal and Ethical Considerations: Expunged remarks no longer appear in the official records, but publishing these remarks or discussing them outside the parliamentary context could lead to charges of breach of parliamentary privilege.
• Affects Transparency in Governance:
• Public Right to Know: Expunction raises questions about transparency and the public’s right to be informed about parliamentary proceedings. The removal of certain remarks can obscure the full context of debates and decisions.

Issues Related to Expunction

• Selective Expunction:
• Perception of Bias: There are concerns that expunction may be applied selectively, often targeting opposition leaders or critical remarks. This can lead to perceptions of bias and unfair treatment, affecting the perceived neutrality of the process.
• Digital Age Challenges:
• Public Access to Information: In the digital age, expunged remarks often remain accessible through live broadcasts, recordings, and social media. This raises questions about the effectiveness of expunction and the disparity between official records and public access.
• Hampers Freedom of Speech:
• Impact on MPs’ Expression: Expunction can potentially stifle the freedom of speech of elected representatives by removing their expressed views. This can limit the scope of parliamentary debate and the ability of MPs to voice dissenting opinions.
• Defamation Concerns:
• Legal Interpretations: According to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), statements about the conduct or character of public servants, including ministers, in the discharge of their public duties are not considered defamatory. This means that remarks about ministers made within parliamentary proceedings cannot be expunged solely on grounds of defamation, unless they are proven to be defamatory or incriminatory.

Way Forward

• Implementing Advance Monitoring Tools:
• Blurring or Muting: To address digital age challenges, implementing tools that automatically blur or mute expunged remarks in live broadcasts and recordings can help align public access with official records.
• Public Awareness:
• Informed Citizenry: Increasing public awareness about expunction and its implications can foster a more informed citizenry and encourage responsible reporting and sharing of parliamentary proceedings.
• Using Powers Judiciously:
• Fair Application: Presiding officers should exercise their expunction powers judiciously, ensuring that the process enhances the quality of debate rather than suppressing legitimate criticism or dissent.
• Preserving Tradition with Modernity:
• Relevance in Communication Era: Efforts should be made to preserve the essence of expunction while adapting it to the realities of instant communication and widespread information sharing. This includes finding a balance between maintaining parliamentary decorum and addressing transparency concerns.
• Striking a Balance:
• Dignity vs. Transparency: It is essential to strike a balance between upholding the dignity of Parliament and respecting principles of transparency and freedom of speech. This balance ensures that parliamentary debates remain respectful while also being open and accountable.