Disrupting Parliamentary Proceedings
What Does Disrupting Parliamentary Proceedings Mean
Disrupting parliamentary proceedings involves acts that interfere with or obstruct the orderly conduct of business in Parliament or its Houses.
It can include shouting slogans, disorderly conduct, physical altercations, refusing to obey procedural rules, or any other acts that disturb the decorum and functioning of the legislature.
Such disruptions undermine the democratic process and the legislature's authority.
Legal Framework in India
Article 194 of the Constitution empowers each House of Parliament to make rules for regulating its procedure and conduct of its business.
Article 105(2) grants immunity to Members of Parliament (MPs) for anything said or done in Parliament.
The Prevention of Disruption of Parliamentary Proceedings Act, 1980 (though not a widely known or used law) aims to penalize acts that disturb parliamentary functioning.
Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in each House include provisions for maintaining order.
Parliamentary privileges protect the legislature’s authority to punish members for disorderly conduct.
Outside of Parliament, criminal law provisions (e.g., Section 188 IPC - disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant) can be invoked for disruptions.
Common Forms of Disruption
| Type of Disruption | Description |
|---|---|
| Shouting slogans or slogans of protest inside the House | Interrupting speeches or proceedings. |
| Refusal to obey the Chair's directions | Ignoring rulings or orders during debates. |
| Physical altercations | Fighting or using force inside the House. |
| Bringing banners, placards, or electronic devices causing disturbance | Distracting or disrupting visual or audio order. |
| Walking out en masse in protest | Though a form of protest, can disrupt quorum and business. |
Important Case Laws on Disrupting Parliamentary Proceedings
1. K.K. Verma vs. Union of India (1978) 4 SCC 41
Facts: This case involved issues related to disruption of proceedings in the Parliament.
Held: The Supreme Court held that the presiding officer has the authority to maintain order and discipline in the House and may take necessary action to prevent disruptions.
Significance: Affirmed the power of the Speaker to regulate parliamentary proceedings and control disruptions.
2. Keshav Singh vs. Speaker, Legislative Assembly, U.P. (1965) 1 SCR 820
Facts: Keshav Singh was expelled for disorderly conduct in the Legislative Assembly.
Held: The Supreme Court upheld the Assembly’s power to punish members for misconduct that disrupts proceedings.
Significance: Established that parliamentary privileges include power to punish for breaches of order and disruptions.
3. Bijoe Emmanuel vs. State of Kerala (1986) 3 SCC 615
Facts: Though not directly about disruption, this case involved expression inside the House and its protection.
Held: Court recognized the balance between freedom of speech and maintaining order, emphasizing members’ right to express themselves unless it disrupts proceedings.
Significance: Highlighted limits on expression to prevent disruptions.
4. Kihoto Hollohan vs. Zachillhu (1992) Supp (2) SCC 651
Facts: Disruption and disorder during parliamentary processes raised questions about powers of the Speaker.
Held: The Court held that the Speaker has absolute power to decide questions of disqualification or disorderly conduct.
Significance: Strengthened Speaker’s role in preventing disruptions and maintaining order.
5. Rameshwar Prasad & Ors vs. Union of India (2006) 2 SCC 1
Facts: This case dealt with curbing disruptions during parliamentary sessions and questioned the extent of disciplinary powers.
Held: The Court emphasized that disciplinary actions must be fair, reasonable, and in accordance with constitutional provisions.
Significance: Imposed checks on arbitrary use of powers to curb disruption, ensuring procedural fairness.
6. Hirendra Nath Mukherjee vs. Election Commission of India (1951) SCR 869
Facts: Addressed conduct of members and maintenance of order.
Held: Parliament has the right to ensure decency, order, and decorum in its proceedings.
Significance: Supported disciplinary measures to prevent disruption.
7. Union of India vs. Chandra Kumar Bose (1995) 6 SCC 774
Facts: Examined authority of Speaker in regulating the conduct of members and ensuring smooth proceedings.
Held: Reinforced the immunity of members for speech but accountability for disruptive conduct.
Significance: Balanced freedom of speech with need to prevent disorder.
Summary of Legal Principles:
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Authority of Presiding Officer | Speaker or Chairperson can regulate and maintain order. |
| Parliamentary Privilege | Members have immunity for speech but not for disorderly conduct. |
| Right to Expression vs. Order | Freedom of speech is limited by the need to maintain decorum. |
| Disciplinary Action | Can be taken against members for disrupting proceedings. |
| Fairness & Reasonableness | Actions to prevent disruption must be fair and lawful. |
Conclusion
Disrupting parliamentary proceedings is taken seriously to uphold the dignity and functioning of the legislature. Indian courts have consistently supported the authority of parliamentary presiding officers to control disruptions, balanced with procedural fairness and members’ rights. While members enjoy freedom of speech within the house, this does not extend to conduct that impedes legislative business.
RELATED Blog
comments