Relevance: GS Paper II (Polity: Parliament, Privileges, and Constitutional Rights)

Source: The Hindu / PRS Legislative Research

1. Context: The Growing Silence in the House

In a democracy, the Parliament is the place where the “unfiltered truth” is supposed to be told. However, a debate has started about whether the Rules of the House are being used too strictly to “cut” or “delete” the speeches of Members of Parliament (MPs), especially from the Opposition.

2. The Constitutional Shield: Why MPs are Protected

To do their jobs properly, MPs need to speak without being afraid of lawyers or judges. The Constitution gives them special powers (called Privileges):

• Article 105: This is the big protector. It says that no MP can be taken to any court for anything they say or any vote they give inside the Parliament. This ensures they can criticize the government freely.
• Article 121: This is a limit. It says MPs cannot discuss the behavior of Supreme Court or High Court Judges unless they are moving a motion to remove that judge.
• Article 118: This gives the Parliament the power to make its own Rule Book to keep order during debates.

3. The Internal Filter: Rule 380 (Expunction)

While an MP cannot be sued in a court, the Speaker of the House has the power to “clean up” the records:

• What is Rule 380? If the Speaker feels an MP used words that are unparliamentary (rude), defamatory, or undignified, they can order those words to be expunged (deleted) from the official record.
• The Problem: Once words are deleted, the media cannot report them. If the Speaker deletes too many things, the public never gets to know what their representative actually said.

4. Why This Matters for Democracy

• Accountability: The main job of the Opposition is to point out the government’s mistakes. If their words are constantly deleted, it becomes harder to hold the government accountable.
• Voice of the People: MPs represent millions of citizens. If an MP is silenced, the voice of those millions is also silenced.
• Constitutional Morality: This is the idea that rules should be used to help the debate flow, not to stop it. In a healthy democracy, the majority must be allowed to govern, but the minority must be allowed to speak.

Important Terms Simplified

1. Parliamentary Privilege: Special legal “immunity” for MPs so they can talk freely.
2. Expunction: The act of deleting certain parts of a speech from the official diary of the Parliament.
3. Unparliamentary Expression: Words that are considered too rude or improper for a dignified place like Parliament.
4. Absolute Privilege: A protection that has no exceptions (like the protection against court cases under Article 105).

UPSC Value Box

Comparison for Quick Revision:

• Article 19(1)(a): Gives all citizens the right to speak, but the government can put “reasonable limits” on it.
• Article 105: Gives MPs a much stronger right to speak. It is only limited by the internal rules of the House, not by the government or courts.

Key Legal Rule: In the P.V. Narasimha Rao Case (1998), the Supreme Court said that the protection given to MPs is very wide to ensure the Parliament stays independent.

Summary

The freedom to speak in Parliament is the heart of Indian democracy. While Rule 380 is needed to maintain politeness (decorum), it should not be used like a sword to cut down honest criticism. The “Rule Book” should support the Constitution, not hide the truth from the citizens.

One Line Wrap: Parliamentary rules should facilitate the flow of debate, not act as a dam that stops the truth.

UPSC Mains Question

Q. “The power of expunction under Rule 380 must be used to maintain decorum, not to suppress dissent.” Discuss in the light of Parliamentary privileges. (10 Marks, 150 Words)

Model Hints

• Introduction: Mention Article 105 which protects the speech of MPs to ensure the legislature stays independent.
• Body:
  • Explain how Rule 380 helps keep the debate respectful.
  • Discuss the danger of Excessive Expunction, which reduces transparency and weakens the Opposition’s role.
  • Highlight that “Dissent” is a key part of democracy.
• Conclusion: Conclude that the Speaker must act as a neutral umpire, ensuring that the “Voice of the People” is heard clearly.