Context: The article discusses recent problems in India’s Parliament, including security breaches and the suspension of 141 Opposition MPs.

Key Issue

• The suspensions occurred due to the disruption of Parliamentary proceedings as a protest against the security breach that transpired last week. The total number of suspensions during the Winter Session now stands at 141, with 92 MPs suspended so far.

• Opposition decried the actions as a "murder of democracy."

• The Opposition accused the government of disregarding democratic norms, while Government, condemned the "rude behavior" of theopposition, asserting that it had embarrassed the entire country.

What are the reasons behind the recent mass suspension of MPs?

• Demanding a discussion: Opposition MPs were disrupting Parliament for demand of discussion on the security breach in Parliament.

• Nature of Disruptions: Disruptions in Parliament have evolved over time into a political strategy, rather than spontaneous acts. These disruptions often involve shouting and entering the well of the House. These were seen as deliberate acts to stall proceedings, as noted by the Speaker of the 14th Lok Sabha, Somnath Chatterjee.

• Government’s Authority in Parliamentary Proceedings: The Indian Constitution, drawing from the British parliamentary system, designed the Parliament primarily for the government to transact its business. The rules of parliamentary procedure give the government significant control over convening and conducting parliamentary proceedings.

Root Causes of Parliamentary Disruptions

MPs' disruptive behavior in Parliament has historical roots tied to four main factors. These include:

1. The lack of time for MPs to address critical matters,

2. unresponsive attitudes of the government and retaliatory postures,

3. deliberate disruptions by parties for political or publicity reasons, and

4. the absence of prompt action against MPs causing disorder.

• Over time, the say the Opposition has in determining the Parliamentary calendar has diminished, with the government setting the agenda and prioritizing government business over other matters.

Suspension Mechanism and Duration

• The Presiding Officer, be it the Speaker of LokSabha or the Chairman of RajyaSabha, plays a vital role in the suspension process.

• Rules governing suspension have remained largely unchanged since 1952.

• The process involves directing an MP to withdraw for disorderly conduct, naming the legislator if disruptions persist, and finally, moving a motion to suspend the MP for the session.

• While mild offenses lead to admonition or reprimand, continued disruptions can result in suspension for the remainder of the session.

• The LokSabha, in 2001, empowered the Speaker with Rule 374A, allowing automatic suspension for five days or the remaining session for grave and disorderly conduct.

• However,RajyaSabha has not incorporated this provision.

Rising Trend in MP Suspensions

• While the suspension of MPs is not uncommon, recent years have witnessed a notable increase.

• At least 149 suspensions occurred since 2019, compared to 81 in 2014-19 and 36 in 2009-14.

• Presiding Officers grapple with addressing planned parliamentary offenses and deliberate disturbances, seeking a long-term solution consistent with democratic values.

• The suspension of 78 MPs in a single day surpasses the previous instance in 1989 when 63 MPs were suspended, signifying a heightened level of tension between the government and the Opposition.

• The Opposition, now depleted in strength, criticizes the government for attacking democratic norms, potentially allowing the government to pass crucial legislations without dissent.

• Amidst the chaos, multiple Bills were passed during repeated adjournments.

• The actions of the government and the Opposition set the stage for a significant shift in the dynamics of parliamentary proceedings and the broader democratic landscape.

Consequences of this mass suspension of MPs

• Reduced Representation: The suspension leaves five crore people that MPs represent, without a voice in Parliament.

• Undermining Democratic Principles: The suspension is criticized for its disproportionality, suggesting a disregard for the essential democratic process of debate and opposition.

• Negative Precedent for Legislatures: This action could set a concerning example for other legislative bodies, potentially encouraging similar measures against opposition parties elsewhere.

• Historical Precedent: This mass suspension is unprecedented in scale, exceeding the past record of suspending 63 MPs during Rajiv Gandhi’s tenure.

What are Interventions by the Court?

Judicial actions are typically rare due to the principle of separation of powers

• Article 122 of the Constitution: It prevents courts from questioning parliamentary proceedings, safeguarding legislative independence.

• Judicial Intervention Exceptions: Courts can step in for procedural violations or constitutional rights infringements.

• Maharashtra Legislative Assembly Case (2021): An example where the Supreme Court intervened. The Assembly suspended 12 BJP MLAs for a year, but the Court deemed this excessive and limited the suspension to the session’s duration.

• This instance highlights the court’s role in ensuring procedural correctness and protecting constitutional principles in legislative actions.

Road Ahead

• Ensure Open Investigation and Debate: Conduct transparent investigations into security breaches and encourage open discussions in Parliament, as demanded by the Opposition regarding the December 13 incident.

• Reform Parliamentary Procedures: Update the procedural rules, which are based on the pre-independence British model, to reflect the collaborative essence of a modern democratic legislature.

• Address Parliamentary Disruptions: To address deliberate disruption, Parliament could implement structured debates and improved conflict resolution methods.

• Incorporate Opposition’s Voice: Parliament could enhance inclusivity and balance in the legislative process by allowing the Opposition a significant role in agenda-setting. This could mirror the UK House of Commons’ approach, where specific days are designated for the Opposition to raise issues.