No member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of either House of Parliament of any report, paper, votes or proceedings.
In other words, a legislator can't be prosecuted for anything done or said in the course of their legislative duties. This does not extend to their actions outside parliament. There is also freedom from arrest in a civil matter. When Parliament is in session, they can refuse to give evidence or appear as witnesses in court cases.
The second aspect of Parliamentary privilege is the right of Parliament to suspend or expel legislators who take bribes, or who lie to parliament or who disrupt its proceedings.
Manish Tewari, along with 49 other members, was suspended from Parliament for disrupting proceedings by bringing placards into the House and disrupting proceedings. The Speaker warned them to return to their seats. They refused and, as they intended, were suspended from the House. These idiots were pretending that it was urgent that the Government answer questions about a recent security breach in the Lok Sabha. But that was a matter for the Parliamentary Secretariat which is an independent body. In any case, there was no great mystery about the matter. The Opposition was acting disingenuously.
The recently concluded Monsoon Session of Parliament witnessed the arbitrary suspension
It was not arbitrary. It is against the rules to bring placards and disrupt proceedings. The MPs were suspended after they refused to heed the Speaker's admonition.
of parliamentarians across Opposition parties on specious grounds
Tewari can't show that bringing placards and disrupting proceedings is permitted. He is lying when he says the grounds were 'specious'. Rule 373, 274, 274A, and 374 (A) of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of the Lok Sabha forbid unruly behaviour of the sort this 'lawyer' indulged in.
without being afforded an adequate opportunity to present their case either before the privileges committee or before the concerned House itself.
374 (A) permits ejection and suspension even without a vote. A committee of the House has less not more power than the House itself. It is obvious that the disruptors were in a minority and that the majority favoured their ejection and suspension.
Even though a suspension from the House may ostensibly be temporary or even for an indeterminate period of time, the fact such suspension at all takes place without providing an opportunity to the concerned member to be heard before any action is initiated is in violation of the fundamental principle of natural justice, Audi alteram partem (or audiatur et altera pars) — let the other side be heard as well.
The other side was heard shouting slogans, carrying placards, and disrupting the business of the House. Res ipsa loquitur- the thing speaks for itself. If you misbehave and are expelled from a home or a place of business, natural justice does not give you a right to stay to argue that you haven't actually misbehaved. Can Tewari show that carrying placards and raising slogans and moving into the well of the House is permitted by the relevant Rules of conduct? No. Thus this stupid man is merely making an exhibition of his own ignorance of the law.
At present, decisions regarding the suspension of a Member of Parliament are made through Rule 374 and Rule 256 of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha Rules of Procedure and Conduct, respectively. Under these rules, a Member of Parliament can be suspended immediately upon a motion being introduced and put to a vote without being afforded an opportunity to be heard before the said motion is put to vote.
Under 374 (A) they can be peremptorily expelled even without a vote. This idiot knows what the law is and yet he says the action was 'illegal' and 'arbitrary'. He is a terrible lawyer.
Such actions circumscribe the principle of free speech and expression
Disruption takes away the right of legislators to make speeches and pass laws in accordance with the rules of the House.
— a sine qua non of any parliamentary democracy — for it takes away or at the very least strongly abridges the right to represent constituents, either territorial in the case of the Lok Sabha or the state they represent in case of the Council of States.
No. Disruptive activities take away or abridge the rights of legislators to be heard and to pass laws in accordance with the rules of the House. A Parliament must have the power to protect its own proper functioning.
This procedure subverts the essence and substance of Article 105 (1) of the Constitution of India that states. “Subject to the provisions of this constitution and the rules and standing orders regulating the procedure of Parliament, there shall be freedom of speech in Parliament.”
Disruptive behaviour is against the rules of Parliament.
This freedom of speech includes the right of dissent, the right to offend, the right to say even the sharpest words is the bluntest manner possible without, of course, resorting to expletives and as the Late Arun Jaitley used the operative phrase, “there are but rare occasions in history when parliamentary obstructionism is a part of legitimate parliamentary tactics”.
Shouting slogans and carrying placards is against the rules. The right to dissent is not a right to disrupt.
The rare has unfortunately become routine for
a shitty opposition which feels its members are incapable of making a reasoned case against the actions of the Government. Since Rahul baba has the IQ of a 7 year old, Congress MPs like Tewari feel they too need to act like rowdy children.
an obtuse government refuses to discuss issues critical to the very idea of our nationhood.
These cretins can't discuss shit. All they can do is raise slogans and carry placards.
The Opposition having to resort to a no-confidence motion to force a discussion on Manipur being but the latest attempt to surmount the cussedness of the Treasury benches.
What happened to that 'no-confidence motion'? Modi made a brilliant 130 minute long speech. Rahul entered the House about 70 minutes into that speech and about 15 minutes later many Opposition members walked out- even before the vote was taken. The impression was created that they hadn't done their homework. The previous day Rahul had ripped into the Government but he didn't have the guts to hear Modi's response and to try to argue against the scathing attack Modi launched on his Party.
The history of parliamentary privileges can be traced back to the Privileges of Parliament Act passed in 1512. This Act served as a shield to protect representatives from the monarch’s suppression of dissenting voices. England’s history is marked by deliberate attempts by monarchs to seize power and limit the influence of Parliament. The foundation of modern parliamentary privilege can be found in the Bill of Rights of 1689. This bill enhanced the privileges guaranteed to Parliament, and provided legitimacy to Locke’s principle of constitutionalism, thereby introducing regulations to restrain the unchecked power of the sovereign.
This is wholly irrelevant. Not till the accession of Queen Victoria did it become clear that the Monarch had no power to choose the Prime Minister. However, it wasn't till 1911 that the power of the House of Lords was curbed.
Regrettably, little progress has been made in further developing the existing framework of parliamentary privileges in India since 1950.
Tewari had no problem with 63 Opposition members being suspended in 1989 when Rajiv was PM.
The Venkatachaliah Committee, established in the early 2000s, proposed changes to constitutional provisions concerning privileges.
It wanted them to be limited. Currently, legislators have superior immunities in certain respects and this conflicts with fundamental rights of all citizens.
However, to date, no action has been taken to pursue these recommendations.
This cretin doesn't get that the recommended 'action' would have reduced the immunities legislators currently enjoy.
Furthermore, the absence of a concrete framework has created a void that cannot be filled by the existing Rules of Procedure for the Conduct of Business in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. Rules governing parliamentary conduct cannot disregard the core jurisprudential principles that underpin a parliamentary democracy.
Those core principals say that MPs should not have superior rights or immunities. Everybody should be equal before the law in both civil and criminal cases.
The current set of rules grants wide discretionary power to the presiding officers of either House. Though the conventions of Parliament envisage that the presiding officers must act as impartial umpires in interpreting parliamentary rules and tradition, the safeguards to make their autonomy absolute have still not been put in place.
For a very good reason. The Speaker may seek to usurp power- as happened in Russia in 1993 when Khasbulatov tried to impeach Yeltsin and the latter sent in the Army to take control of Parliament.
By way of example in the United Kingdom there is a convention that the outgoing Speaker is assured of re-election with the rival parties not putting up candidate in his/her constituency. Once re-elected there is an implicit assurance of continuity as Speaker even if his/her party is not the one forming the government.
Sadly John Bercow changed all that. He was denied a peerage because he hadn't been neutral. On the other hand, he was perhaps the most entertaining figure in the House. Tewari is such a cretin that he does not understand that if India decides to copy UK then the BJP can put in a young MP as Speaker who will preside over the House for the next 50 years!
In this manner, the Speaker becomes substantially non-partisan
Bercow was highly partisan. He was against Brexit and Trump visiting the House.
dehors personal biases and ideological predilections ensuring respect for the doctrine of natural justice, in particular the maxim of “nemo judex in causasua”, or no one should be a judge in their own case which becomes difficult to uphold if the person concerned has to seek a ticket for re-election from his original political party and then has to depend on that party’s machinery for victory.
Farage stood against Bercow who then had to raise money for his campaign by himself. Tewari is truly as stupid as shit. He doesn't get that India has dozens of Parties. The UK has two main parties and a third which can ally with one or other to form a coalition government.
The presiding officer of the Council of States is, however, much better insulated in terms of Article 67 of the Constitution of India to perform his functions as the ex-officio chairperson of the Council of States in a non-partisan manner.
So, Tewari is happy with Dhankhar. Good to know.
To codify parliamentary privileges the recommendations concerning the same as outlined in the Venkatachaliah Committee report must be implemented.
Congress MPs must spend their time giving evidence and serving as witnesses against each other in Civil cases- right?
A tribunal with the authority to adjudicate complaints related to breaches of privilege by Members of Parliament and of MPs must be established. This tribunal should consist of the following members: (1) The Chairperson of the Rajya Sabha or the Speaker serving as the Chairperson as the case maybe for the house concerned whose breech of Privilege or of Member thereof is being adjudicated. (2) The Leaders of the Opposition in the house concerned whose breach of privilege or of the Member thereof is being adjudicated (3) A sitting Supreme Court judge nominated by the Chief Justice of India.
Wonderful! Suppose Tewari's party comes to power. Then Dhankhar and Om Birla plus Modi, as leader of the opposition, plus some Judge who may be favourable to BJP will be able to expel all Congress MPs for breach of privilege! Either that, or they can ensure that Parliament is paralysed by slogan shouting and 'filibustering'. Tewari truly is as stupid as shit.
It also needs to be ensured that all written or even verbal communications made by any parliamentarian to the Speaker/Chairperson or any Union minister/ minister in the state government or any other Central/state government official, public or private sector functionary or any other person be regarded as privileged communication qua the member concerned.
So an MP who offers his vote to a Minister in return for money can't be prosecuted even if there is written or video testimony that this occurred.
Members of Parliament must have a right to audience in all courts of law on issues of public interest,
Like the Attorney General? But that dude tends to be quite a smart lawyer
notwithstanding whether they are lawyers or not.
Why stop there? Why not say all MPs should have the right to perform brain surgery on Manish Tewari?
A member of the Lok Sabha represents, on an average, close to two million of the electorate and may have close to another million more living in his territorial constituency. Similarly, a member of the Council of States represents vital state interests for India is but a union of states.
That is why MPs should be allowed to perform brain surgery on anybody they choose.
The privileges so codified must ensure that no member should face unwarranted interference, threats, obstruction, or assault while performing their parliamentary duties.
This guy was suspended for obstructing the majority of legislators from performing their parliamentary duties. Sadly, Tewari is currently the subject of beating and buggery by various members of the public. He is unaware that Indian Law protects all Indians from such assaults and anal interference.
In conclusion, to fortify democracy, address biases and strengthen oversight, it is must that parliamentary procedure is revisited and it is ensured that a proper legal architecture is provided to parliamentary privileges.
Parliamentary privilege went hand in hand with a high standard of parliamentary behaviour. The Opposition is behaving like a bunch of rowdy kids. Many have been suspended from the House so as to improve its functioning and maintain its prestige in the eyes of the people. The good news is that many of these hooligans will lose their seats in a few months time. Tewari will have to focus on winning in court. It will help if he actually learns a little law preferably after getting brain surgery from Rahul Baba.
No comments:
Post a Comment