Suspension of MPs in India
Description
Suspension
of MPs in India
Description: On December 8, the Lok Sabha expelled one of its members, Mahua Moitra, from the membership of the House. The minister for parliamentary affairs Pralhad Joshi, moved a motion for her expulsion. It stated that Moitra’s conduct (of sharing her parliamentary credentials and accepting money and amenities from businessman Darshan Hiranandani) was unbecoming of a Member of Parliament (MP).
Hence in this
article we will discuss the process of removal of MPs in India and will also
compare the procedure with the other nations.
Procedures
for Suspension of Members in Parliament
The smooth functioning of parliamentary
proceedings is crucial for effective governance. To maintain order and discipline,
the Presiding Officer, namely the Speaker of Lok Sabha and Chairman of Rajya
Sabha, plays a pivotal role. The authority granted to them allows for the
enforcement of rules and the ability to compel a member's withdrawal from the
House if necessary.
Rules of
Procedure and Conduct:
1. Rule 373: The Speaker can direct a member to withdraw
immediately if their conduct is disorderly. The member, once directed, must
leave the House promptly and remain absent for the rest of the day's sitting.
2. Rule 374: Members disregarding the Chair's authority or
persistently obstructing House business can be named by the Speaker. The named
member is suspended from the House for a period not exceeding the remainder of
the session.
3. Rule
374A: Introduced in December 2001, this
rule applies in cases of gross violation or severe charges. Upon being named by
the Speaker, the member is automatically suspended from the House for five
consecutive sittings or the remainder of the session, whichever is shorter.
4. Rule 255
(Rajya Sabha): The Chairman of
Rajya Sabha can invoke suspension under Rule 255, directing any member whose
conduct is deemed disorderly to withdraw from the House.
5. Rule 256
(Rajya Sabha): This rule allows
the Chairman to suspend a member from the service of the Council for a period
not exceeding the remainder of the session.
Terms of
Suspension:
1. Maximum
Period: Suspension lasts for the remainder of
the session.
2. Access
Restrictions: Suspended
members cannot enter the chamber or attend committee meetings.
3. Notice
and Discussion Rights: Suspended
members lose the eligibility to give notice for discussion or submission and
the right to receive replies to their questions.
The rules governing the suspension of members
in Parliament underscore the importance of maintaining decorum and order during
proceedings. The Presiding Officers, in exercising their authority, ensure that
disruptive conduct is appropriately addressed, fostering an environment
conducive to effective legislative functioning.
Comparison of
procedure with USA and UK
The
legislatures of two democracies, the United States (US) and the United Kingdom
(UK), have pointers on dealing with questions of misconduct and ethical
violations by elected representatives.
Procedure
in US
On
December 1, the US House of Representatives expelled New York Republican Geroge
Santos from its membership. The expulsion came after roughly a nine-month
investigation into campaign fraud, financial disclosure violations and
allegations of sexual misconduct by him.
Two
different offices examined the complaints. One was the Office of Congressional
Ethics (OCE), an independent, non-partisan office comprising lawyers and
investigators with expertise in ethics law. Established in 2008, this office
receives and examines complaints against members of the House and Congressional
staffers. After a detailed examination, it sends its recommendation to the
Ethics Committee. It also publishes detailed statistics about the complaints it
receives and the actions it takes on them.
The
second office to examine complaints against Santos was the House Ethics
Committee. It had received complaints from other members, a referral from the
OCE and a resolution from the House of Representatives to investigate the
Santos affair. The Committee appointed an investigative subcommittee, which
interviewed 40 witnesses and received 1,72,000 pages of documents. It also
allowed Santos to present a statement to the subcommittee, which he declined.
The
investigative committee found that Santos “sought to fraudulently exploit every
aspect of his House candidacy for his own personal financial profit”. The
Ethics Committee’s report resulted in the House of Representatives considering
a proposal to expel Santos. The US Constitution places a high bar for removing
a member of Congress. It requires that two-thirds of the members of the
concerned House should agree to such a proposal. In the Santos case, the first
two attempts at removal had failed; in the third attempt, 105 members of his
party joined with 206 democrats to expel him.
Procedure
in UK
The
UK parliament also has an extensive mechanism for overseeing that its MPs
adhere to a code of conduct. It maintains a public Register of Interests, where
MPs must declare earnings, hospitality, and gifts they received during their
parliamentary duties. An independent officer called the Parliamentary
Commissioner of Standards scrutinises this register and examines complaints
against MPs. A Standards Committee of MPs reviews the work of the Commissioner
and recommends any action to be taken against an MP.
In
2009, after the expenses scandal (House of Commons MPs reimbursing personal
expenses from parliament), the UK also passed a law setting up an Independent
Parliament Standards Authority to regulate the pay and pensions of MPs and
their staff. In addition to independent mechanisms for receiving and
investigating complaints, the US and UK parliaments also provide detailed
guidelines for their members to follow. For example, earlier this year in the
US, the OCE referred a matter to the House Ethics Committee, where it found
that Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez might have violated the gifting
rules by accepting make-up services, handbag, jewellery and a dress to wear at
the charity Met Gala in 2021.
In comparison with Procedure in India
In
India, the Rajya Sabha’s Ethics Committee has defined a code of conduct for its
MPs. The code specifies that Rajya Sabha MPs should not accept any benefits for
their parliamentary interventions. It also mentions that in cases of a conflict
between their private interest and public duty, they should resolve it by
favouring the duty to their public office. Rajya Sabha MPs must also fill out a
Register of Members Interests on similar lines as the UK parliament. This code
and register applies to Rajya Sabha MPs and not to Lok Sabha members since the
directly elected House has yet to incorporate these provisions in its rules.
How to Prepare for IAS | FAQs on UPSC | Up-to-date Current Affairs | Latest Videos & Updates | Article: India's Digital Payment Landscape
